I don't know whether the following property is true let $X$ be a noncompact topological space and let $\omega$ not belong to $X$. Let $X^*=(X\cup{\omega},\tau^*)$ be the Alexandroff compactification of $X$, then if $\tau^{**}$ is another topology on $X\cup{\omega}$, containing the topology of $X$ with $(X\cup{\omega},\tau^{**})$ compact, then we can embed $(X\cup{\omega},\tau^{**})$ into $(X\cup{\omega},\tau^*)$.



Suppose that $\tau$ is a locally compact, non-compact topology on $X$, $p$ is a point not in $X$, $X^*=X\cup\{p\}$, and $$\tau^*=\tau\cup\big\{X^*\setminus K:K\text{ is compact in }\langle X,\tau\rangle\big\}\;;$$ $\langle X^*,\tau^*\rangle$ is then compact. Suppose further that $\tau'$ is a topology on $X^*$ such that $\langle X,\tau'\rangle$ is compact and $\tau\subseteq\tau'$.

Let $p\in U\in\tau'$, and let $F=X^*\setminus U\subseteq X$. Let $\mathscr{V}$ be any $\tau$-open cover of $F$; then $\mathscr{V}\cup\{U\}$ is a $\tau'$-open cover of $X^*$, so it has a finite subcover $\mathscr{W}$. Clearly $U\in\mathscr{W}$, since no other member of $\mathscr{V}$ contains $p$. Let $\mathscr{W}_0=\mathscr{W}\setminus\{U\}$; then $\mathscr{W}_0$ is a finite subfamily of $\mathscr{V}$ covering $F$, since $U\cap F=\varnothing$. It follows that $F$ is $\tau$-compact and hence that $U\in\tau^*$. Clearly, then, $\tau^*$ and $\tau'$ have the same neighborhoods of $p$. Moreover, $\{U\in\tau^*:U\subseteq X\}=\tau$, and $\{U\in\tau':U\subseteq X\}\supseteq\tau$, so $\tau'\supseteq\tau^*$.

However, it is possible to have $\tau'\supsetneqq\tau^*$. Let $Y=\Bbb N\cup\left\{\frac1n:n\in\Bbb Z^+\right\}$ with the topology $\tau_Y$ that it inherits from the usual topology on $\Bbb R$. (Note that $0\in\Bbb N$.) Let $0'$ be a new point not in $Y$, and let $X=Y\cup\{0'\}$; the topology $\tau$ on $X$ is $$\tau=\tau_Y\cup\big\{(U\setminus\{0\})\cup\{0'\}:0\in U\in\tau_Y\big\}\;.$$ (In other words, $X$ is just $Y$ with the point $0$ split into two points, $0$ and $0'$, with the ‘same’ neighborhoods.) Finally, let $$K=\{0\}\cup\left\{\frac1n:n\in\Bbb Z^+\right\}\;;$$ note that $K$ is a compact subset of $X$ that isn’t closed in $X$, since $0'$ is in its closure.

Define $p$, $X^*=X\cup\{p\}$, and $\tau^*$ as before, and let $\tau'$ be the topology on $X^*$ generated by $\tau^*$ and $X^*\setminus K$. Then $\langle X^*,\tau'\rangle$ is still compact, since $K$ is compact in $\langle X^*,\tau^*\rangle$, and $\tau'\supsetneqq\tau^*$.

In fact, the example shows that this will happen whenever $\langle X,\tau\rangle$ has a compact subset that isn’t closed.

  • $\begingroup$ I think what you meant was $\left\{{0}\right\}\cup{\left\{{\displaystyle\frac{1}{n}:n\in{\mathbb{Z}^+}}\right\}}$, correcting this your proof, is correct Thank you very much!!!!!!!! $\endgroup$ – Camilo Arosemena-Serrato Oct 23 '12 at 21:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Camilo: I did indeed; thanks for catching it. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Oct 23 '12 at 21:39
  • $\begingroup$ and also think that what you wanted to show in the first part was that $p$ has the same neighborhoods in $\left<{X,\tau^´}\right>$ and $\left<{X,\tau^*}\right>$; note that not necessarly we have $\tau^*\subseteq{\tau^´}$, because of your counterexamnple; note that the space of your counterexample is locally compact. $\endgroup$ – Camilo Arosemena-Serrato Oct 23 '12 at 21:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Camilo: My statement that $\tau^*$ and $\tau'$ have the same nbhds of $p$ means exactly the same as your version. And yes, we do necessarily have $\tau^*\subseteq\tau'$; what my example shows is that we don’t necessarily have $\tau'\subseteq\tau^*$. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Oct 23 '12 at 21:57
  • $\begingroup$ sorry, I hadn't seen your "moreover" $\endgroup$ – Camilo Arosemena-Serrato Oct 23 '12 at 23:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.