0
$\begingroup$

In my search for a simple example that proves that a quotient space of a locally compact space need not be locally compact, I stumbled on this previous entry:

Closed image of locally compact space

Although the example is perfectly clear to me, the definition for local compactness that is used is not the same as the one I yield. Clearly, the poster uses as definition that for any neighbourhood U, its closure should be compact. I however use the definition that any point should have a compact neighbourhood, or, equivalently, a fundamental set of compact neighbourhoods. I believe that the definition mentioned in the aforementioned link is called 'strong local compactness' in some textbook (Counterexamples in Topology?). And I thought this strong local compactness only implies local compactness in the Hausdorff case (correct me if I'm wrong).

I was looking for a more simple example based on this one, refined to suit my definition, so I came up with something along this: Put $q:\mathbb{R}\longrightarrow Y:=\mathbb{R}|R$ the canonical quotient map where $R$ identifies all natural numbers.

I want to prove that no neighbourhood $U$ can be compact. Without loss of generality, $q^{-1}(U)$ should contain a set $\displaystyle\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}]n-\varepsilon_n,n+\varepsilon_n[$ with any $\varepsilon_n \in \left]0,\dfrac{1}{2}\right[$ (to avoid overlap). I rewrite this set as $\displaystyle\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\Big(]n-\varepsilon_n,n+\varepsilon_n[\setminus\{n\}\Big) \bigcup \mathbb{N}$, and then consider the sets $$V_n := \displaystyle\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N},n\neq m}\Big(]n-\varepsilon_n,n+\varepsilon_n[\setminus\{n\}\Big) \bigcup \mathbb{N}$$

Putting $(q(V_m))_{m\in\mathbb{N}}$, I suppose this should be an open cover of $\overline{0}$ in the quotient space without finite subcover. I'm not sure if this does the trick, though.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The reals with the rationals identified as a point.

Let $U$ be an open set with $\mathbb{Q} \subseteq U$.
Let $K$ be a compact set with $[U] \subseteq K$.
As $K$ is unbounded, let $(x_k)_k$ be an increasing
sequence of irrationals without limit into $K$.

For all $j \in \mathbb{N}$, let $U_j = R - \{x_k : j \leq k \}$.
As $U_j$ is open and contains $\mathbb{Q}$, $[U_j]$ is open.

$\{[Uj] : j \in \mathbb{N} \}$ covers $K$. If there is a finite subcover,
then, as the $U_j$'s are increasing, there's some $k$ with $[U_j]$
covering K which cannot be.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes of course! Much more simple! I was a bit overblown by the aforementioned example! $\endgroup$ – Werner Mar 30 '17 at 8:42
  • $\begingroup$ Can you provide a quick argument why this quotient is not locally compact? $\endgroup$ – user370967 May 17 '18 at 21:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Math_QED. Consider the point Q in the quotient space. An open nhood U of Q misses a countable number of irrationals. How is there a compact set containing U? $\endgroup$ – William Elliot May 18 '18 at 1:44
  • $\begingroup$ I don't see how this argument shows the desired result sorry. $\endgroup$ – user370967 May 19 '18 at 8:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Math_QED. Is the edit convincing? $\endgroup$ – William Elliot May 20 '18 at 6:48

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.