Let $X$ and $Y$ be topological spaces and let $A \subseteq X$ be a subspace of $X$. Suppose $A$ is homeomorphic to some subspace $B \subseteq Y$ of $Y$. Let $f$ explicitly denote this homeomorphism.

If $f : A \to B$ is a homeomorphism, does $f$ extend to a homeomorphism between $\text{Cl}_X(A)$ and $\text{Cl}_Y(B)$, i.e does there exist a $g : Cl_X(A) \to Cl_Y(B)$, such that $g|_{A} = f$.

More generally if $A$ and $B$ are homeomorphic, does that imply that $Cl_X(A)$ and $Cl_Y(B)$ are homeomorphic?

If $X$ and $Y$ are homeormorphic, then this is true, since it is a well known-theorem that $f[Cl_X(A)] = Cl_Y(f[A] = B)$, if $f : X \to Y$ is a homeomorphism.

However I can't seem to come up with a counterexample for my question, since I assume the implication is false.

Edit : I know a counterexample that comes from CW Complexes, where if $(X, \xi)$ is a CW-Complex, then $\xi$ is a collection of open cells $e$, which are topological spaces homeomorphic to $\mathbb{B}^n$ the open unit ball in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Each $e \subseteq X$ is a subspace of a haursdoff space $X$.

Also a closed cell $\bar{e}$ is a topological space homeomorphic to the closed unit ball $\mathbb{\bar{B}}^n \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$

Now in this example $Y = \mathbb{R}^n$. It is also known that for any $e \in \xi$, $Cl_X(e) \neq \bar{e} \cong {\mathbb{\bar{B}}^n} = Cl_Y(\mathbb{{B}}^n \cong e) $

Hence $e$ and $\mathbb{B}^n$ are homeomorphic, however $Cl_X(e)$ is not homeomorphic to $Cl_Y(\mathbb{B}^n) = \mathbb{\bar{B}}^n$, since $Cl_X(e) \neq \bar{e}$

But using the above example feels like bringing a gun to a knife fight, are there any simpler counterexamples?


$A=S^1\setminus \{p\} \subseteq X= S^1$ (for any $p \in S^1$) is homeomorphic to $B=(0,1) \subseteq Y = [0,1]$. But their respective closures $X$ and $Y$ are not.

More trivially: $A = (0,1) \subseteq X=\mathbb{R}$ and $B = Y = \mathbb{R}$, where $\overline{B} = B$ but $\overline{A}$ becomes compact.


Let $A$ be a non closed subset of the compact space Hausdorff space $Y$, with the induced topology; now take $X=A$ and $f\colon X\to Y$ the inclusion map. The closure of $A$ in $X$ is $A$, not compact; the closure of $f(A)$ in $Y$ is compact.

Explicit example: $A=X=(0,1)$, $Y=[0,1]$.


Suppose $X$ has a sub-space $A$ that is homeomorphic to $X$ where $A$ is not a closed subset of $X$ and $Cl_X(A)\ne A$ and where $A$ is not homeomorphic to $Cl_X(A)$.Let $X=Y=B$ and let $f:A\to B$ be any homeomorphism. Since $f$ is a bijection from $A$ onto $Y$ and $Cl_X(A)\ne A,$ therefore $f$ cannot be extended to a bijection from $Cl_X(A)$ onto $Cl_Y(B)=Y.$ And $Cl_Y(B)=Cl_X(X)=X$ is homeomophic to $A$, which is not homeomorphic to $Cl_X(A).$

A simple example is $X=Y=B=\mathbb R$ and $A=(-\pi /2,+\pi /2)$ and $f(x)=\tan x.$

  • $\begingroup$ The most elementary way that I know of, to show that $(a,b)$ is not homeomorphic to $[a,b]$ is ( by contradiction) assume $g:(a,b)\to [a,b]$ is a continuous bijection. Let $g(x)=b.$ Let $A=\inf \{g(y):a<y<x\}.$ Let $B=\inf \{g(z):x<z<b\}.$ Let $C=\max (A,B).$ Then $C<b,$ so by the Intermediate Value property, there exists $y\in (a,x)$ with $g(y)=(b+C)/2$ and there exists $z\in (x,b)$ with $g(z)=(b+C)/2,$ contradicting the 1-to-1 property of $g.$ $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Sep 17 '17 at 14:56

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.