topology (point-set topology, point-free topology)
see also differential topology, algebraic topology, functional analysis and topological homotopy theory
Basic concepts
fiber space, space attachment
Extra stuff, structure, properties
Kolmogorov space, Hausdorff space, regular space, normal space
sequentially compact, countably compact, locally compact, sigma-compact, paracompact, countably paracompact, strongly compact
Examples
Basic statements
closed subspaces of compact Hausdorff spaces are equivalently compact subspaces
open subspaces of compact Hausdorff spaces are locally compact
compact spaces equivalently have converging subnet of every net
continuous metric space valued function on compact metric space is uniformly continuous
paracompact Hausdorff spaces equivalently admit subordinate partitions of unity
injective proper maps to locally compact spaces are equivalently the closed embeddings
locally compact and second-countable spaces are sigma-compact
Theorems
Analysis Theorems
This page will collect some technical material concerning colimits of normal spaces as computed in Top. Here “normal” means , i.e., we assume as part of normality that points are closed.
In particular it shows that CW-complexes are normal spaces (theorem below).
A basic technique is the exploitation of the Tietze extension condition which characterizes normal spaces. Similar techniques may be used to prove a parallel set of results for paracompact spaces; see colimits of paracompact spaces.
We start with some easy but useful results, using only our “bare hands” (i.e., using the definition of normality and applying simple reasoning).
The first very easy observation is that normal spaces are closed under coproducts in Top (so-called “disjoint union spaces”). The proof may be safely left to the reader.
There is no hope that normal spaces are closed under coequalizers or pushouts. A first example that comes to mind is the line with double origin, which is the topological pushout of the diagram
where both maps are the inclusion map. This space isn’t even Hausdorff, as every neighborhood of the point (the image of the origin under the first pushout coprojection) intersects every neighborhood of the point (the image of the origin under the second coprojection).
However, there are reasonable conditions under which pushouts will be normal. (Throughout we assume all spaces are , i.e., that singletons are closed (here), so that “normal” means ).
Let be normal, and suppose in is a closed surjection. Then is normal.
First we claim singletons of are closed: for each there exists such that . Since is closed in and is closed, is closed in .
Let be disjoint closed sets of , so that form an open cover of . Then form an open cover of . Normality of (in “De Morganized” form) implies there are closed subsets which together also cover . Then , so the closed sets cover . And we have and similarly , which is equivalent to and , where are disjoint open sets of , and we are done.
Here is one way in which such closed surjections arise: we know that compact Hausdorff spaces are normal spaces, and this is an especially nice class because the category of compact Hausdorff spaces is a pretopos. This is the categorical backdrop for the following observation. (We don’t need this lemma in any result below; we include it merely as a handy lemma to have around.)
Let be a compact Hausdorff space. Then an equivalence relation is closed as a subset of iff the quotient map is a closed map. (In which case is compact Hausdorff.)
If is a closed map, making compact Hausdorff, then the diagonal is a closed embedding, so that its pullback along
also defines a closed subset of .
In the other direction, suppose is closed, and let be a closed subset of . Consider its -saturation , namely
This is a closed set because the first projection is a closed map (by compactness of ). Moreover, , essentially by definition ( means for some ). Since is closed, is closed by definition of quotient topology.
A closed surjection is a quotient map (a regular epi in Top), and a closed injection is an embedding (a regular mono in ).
In , the pushout of a closed embedding along any continuous map is again a closed embedding.
We reproduce the proof given here.
Since is faithful, we have that monos are reflected by ; also monos and pushouts are preserved by since has both a left adjoint and a right adjoint. In , the pushout of a mono along any map is a mono, so we conclude is monic in . Furthermore, such a pushout diagram in is also a pullback, so that we have the Beck-Chevalley equality (where is the direct image map between power sets, and is the inverse image map).
To prove that is a subspace, let be any open set. Then there exists open such that because is a subspace inclusion. If and are the maps to Sierpinski space that classify these open sets, then by the universal property of the pushout, there exists a unique continuous map which extends the pair of maps . It follows that , so that is a subspace inclusion.
If moreover is an open inclusion, then for any open we have that (since is monic) and (by Beck-Chevalley) is open in . By the definition of the topology on , it follows that is open, so that is an open inclusion. The same proof, replacing the word “open” with the word “closed” throughout, shows that the pushout of a closed inclusion is a closed inclusion .
A powerful tool for proving theorems about topological colimits of normal spaces is the characterization of normal spaces via the Tietze extension theorem:
A space is normal if and only if, for each closed subset and map , there is an extension map , i.e., a map whose restriction coincides with .
There are variations on the theorem in which stronger separation properties (such as perfect normality, or ) may be reformulated in terms of extension conditions.
We remark that the “if” part of the proof is very easy. If are closed disjoint subsets of , then the closed subspace is the coproduct on in , and we may define a map to be the constant on and the constant on . Let be any extension of ; then and are separating open sets.
The following is a sample application.
If are normal spaces and is a closed embedding and is a continuous map, then in the pushout diagram in
the space is normal (and is a closed embedding, by the preceding Lemma).
By the Tietze characterization, it suffices to show that any map on a closed subspace of can be extended to a map on all of . Pulling back along , we have a closed subspace and a composite map ; call it . By normality of , the map extends to a map . We obtain a map .
Similarly, pulling back along , we have a composite map . We may now define a map
by for , and for . It is not hard to check that is well-defined (by commutativity of the pullback square) and is continuous (using the fact that is a homeomorphism, since is an embedding), and that is a closed subset of (since is closed). By normality of , we may extend to a map , and we have just observed that , so the pair induces a unique map such that and . Finally, the restriction of to is , as required.
If is a countable sequence of closed embeddings between normal spaces, then the colimit is also normal.
Let be disjoint closed subsets of , and for all put , . Working recursively, suppose given disjoint open sets such that and . Since normality guarantees that we can refine further if necessary, i.e., find an open such that and , we may assume that the closures , are disjoint in , as are their images in under the closed embedding . The closed sets and are disjoint in :
since ,
where the direct image operator preserves binary intersections since is monic,
(using Frobenius reciprocity), and similarly,
.
Use normality of to select disjoint open sets such that and , thus completing the recursive construction.
It is clear that and the union defines an open set of (by definition of colimit topology), as does . The sets include respectively and are disjoint since any element they have in common must belong to and for sufficiently large , which is impossible. This completes the proof.
An alternative proof using the Tietze characterization is easily given: if is closed and is continuous, then putting and , we define a suitable extension of each to a map by induction. Supposing at stage the map is given, we have a well-defined map defined as on and as the composite on . Then using normality of , extend to a map . Clearly extends and we have the compatibility equations , so the paste together to form a map which extends .
A little use of notation allows a short exposition of this proof. Let be the topological space corresponding to the partial order (where are closed points, are open, and closed subsets are ), and let be the map gluing together points . By Theorem 2.1, has the left lifting property wrt whenever is a closed embedding into a normal space. As each , has the left lifting property wrt , their transfinite composition has the same lifting property, which means that is normal.
A CW-complex is a normal space.
A CW-complex is formed by an inductive process where the -skeleton is formed as an attachment space formed from normal spaces. That is, we start with the normal space , and given the normal space and an attaching map , we push out the closed embedding along the attaching map to get a closed embedding
and deduce is normal by Theorem . Then is normal by applying Proposition .
Last revised on December 5, 2018 at 20:37:39. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.