I was freshing up on some topology, and this text I'm reading mentions T1 does not imply Hausdorff. A few counter-examples are readily available, like the natural numbers under the co-finite topology.

But what if we place a restriction on the space to also be compact, the text doesn't mention anything about that and I can't come up with any examples of spaces that are compact and T1 but not Hausdorff. To state it otherwise, I'm looking for a space that is T1 but not normal(=compact and Hausdorff).

  • $\begingroup$ I think a compactification of the line with two origins works? $\endgroup$ – B. Mehta May 22 '17 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ Or just the same construction but starting with $[-1, 1]$ instead of $\mathbb{R}$ $\endgroup$ – B. Mehta May 22 '17 at 16:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, the cofinite topology on an infinite set works. $\endgroup$ – B. Mehta May 22 '17 at 16:43
  • $\begingroup$ normal is not the same as compact plus Hausdorff, it's implied by it. For a compact $T_1$ space $X$ it is true that : $X$ is Hausdorff iff $X$ is normal, which is probably what you meant to say. $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma May 23 '17 at 6:53

You've already given an example: the natural numbers (or any infinite set, really) under the co-finite topology. Given any open cover, fixing a single (non-empty) element of the cover yields an open set that has all but finitely-many of the natural numbers as elements. Thus, only finitely-many more elements of the cover are needed, forming a finite subcover.


The affine space $\Bbb C^n$ endowed with the Zariski topology: $C$ is closed if and only if there is a family of multivariate polynomials $\mathcal F_C\subseteq \Bbb C[x_1,\cdots,x_n]$ such that $$C=\{x\in\Bbb C^n\,:\,\forall f\in\mathcal F_C,\ f(x)=0\}$$

These topologies have the following notable properties:

  • they are T1;
  • any two non-empty open sets have non-empty intersection (irreducibility): thus the topology is not T2, and on a side note all open subsets are connected;
  • for any non empty family $\mathfrak C$ of closed sets, there is $C\in\mathfrak C$ which is maximal with respect to inclusion "$\subseteq$" (noetherianity): thus every subspace is compact.

The proofs of these facts are not difficult, but they use a couple of lemmas of commutative algebra which might make the exposition a bit long.

An easier special case of this is when $n=1$, in which case the Zariski topology is just the cofinite topology on $\Bbb C$ (the topology where a set is open if and only if its complement is either finite or the whole space).

Addendum: I assumed here that your definition of "compact topological space" is:

Cpt: A topological space such that any open cover $U$ admits a finite subcover.

However, a considerable number of authors (for instance, Bourbaki), call "quasi-compact" a topological space which satisfies Cpt and "compact" a T2 quasi-compact space. In this case, though, your question would be trivial.

  • $\begingroup$ Engelking (General Topology) calls a compact $T_2$ space a compact space, and a space in which every open cover has a finite subcover but is not $T_2$ is called pseudo-compact. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet May 23 '17 at 10:12
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielWainfleet Curiously, encyclopediaofmath cites that book as a reference for "pseudo-compact = completely regular + every continuous $f:X\to\Bbb R$ is bounded". $\endgroup$ – user228113 May 23 '17 at 10:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you. I will have to re-check my copy for his def'n. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet May 23 '17 at 20:43

Let $T_X$ be a compact Hausdorff topology on an infinite set $X$, with no isolated points. So every non-empty member of $T_X$ is an infinite set. Let $Y=X\times \{1,2\}.$ $$\text {Let} \quad B= \{\;( t\times \{1,2\} )\; \backslash A:t\in T_X \land A \text { is finite} \}.$$ Then $B$ is a base for a topology $T_Y$ on $Y.$

(i). For each $p\in Y$ we have $Y$ \ $\{p\}=(X\times \{1,2\})$ \ $\{p\}\in B\subset T_Y.$ So $T_Y$ is a $T_1$ topology.

(ii). For $x\in X$ and $i\in \{1,2\},$ if $(x,i)\in U_i\in T_Y,$ then $(x,i)\in (t_i\times \{1,2\})$ \ $A_i\subset U_i$ for some $t_i\in T_X$ and some finite $A_i.$

Then $U_1\cap U_2\supset (t_1\cap t_2)$ \ $(A_1\cup A_2)\ne \phi .$ So $(x,1)$ and $(x,2)$ do not have disjoint nbhds: $T_Y$ is not a Hausdorff topology.

(iii). For $i\in \{1,2\}$ the subspace $X\times \{i\} $ is homeomorphic to $X$ so it is compact. Now $Y$ is the union of the two compact subspaces $X\times \{1\},\;X\times \{2\}$ so $Y$ is also compact.


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.