Todd Trimble core-compact spaces are exponentiable

Contents

Introduction

Recall that a space XX is locally compact if each point has a neighborhood basis consisting of compact neighborhoods.

Somewhat less known but slightly more general is the class of spaces called “core-compact spaces”:

Definition

A topological space is core-compact if, for every open neighborhood VV of a point xx, there is a smaller open neighborhood UU of xx, such that every open covering of VV admits a finite subcover of UU. We write U≪VU \ll V (pronounced “UU is well below VV”) to indicate that this covering condition holds.

Core-compactness is equivalent to the statement that every open VV is the union of open sets UU such that U≪VU \ll V.

The goal of this article is to give a succinct proof that core-compact spaces are exponentiable in TopTop, so that in particular locally compact spaces (with no further regularity conditions) are exponentiable in TopTop. This proof is extracted from a nice article by Escardó and Heckmann, who show moreover that exponentiable spaces in TopTop are precisely the core-compact spaces (which is a matter we won’t go into here).

Direct description of the exponential topology

For given topological spaces XX and YY, we let Top(X,Y)Top(X, Y) be the set of continuous functions f:X→Yf: X \to Y. The theory developed by Escardó and Heckmann shows that there is a “best” candidate for an exponential topology on Top(X,Y)Top(X, Y), which they call the Isbell topology but which is also known as the “natural topology” or the “topology of continuous convergence”. Whatever it is called, it is uniquely characterized by the following property:

In the case where YY is the Sierpinski space 2={0,1}\mathbf{2} = \{0, 1\} (where 11 is open but 00 is not), Top(X,2)Top(X, \mathbf{2}) is in natural bijection with the set 𝒪(X)\mathcal{O}(X) of open sets of XX, i.e., the topology of XX. Under this isomorphism the natural topology on Top(X,2)Top(X, \mathbf{2}) corresponds to a topology also known as the Scott topology on 𝒪(X)\mathcal{O}(X):

Definition

A subset 𝒰⊆𝒪(X)\mathcal{U} \subseteq \mathcal{O}(X) is called Scott-open if

  • it is upward-closed: if U⊆VU \subseteq V are open sets of XX and U∈𝒰U \in \mathcal{U}, then V∈𝒰V \in \mathcal{U};

  • for every V∈𝒰V \in \mathcal{U} there exists U∈𝒰U \in \mathcal{U} such that U≪VU \ll V.

Then for arbitrary spaces YY, the natural topology on Top(X,Y)Top(X, Y) may be explicitly described as the topology generated by sets of the form

F(𝒰,V)≔{X→fY:f −1(V)∈𝒰}F(\mathcal{U}, V) \coloneqq \{X \stackrel{f}{\to} Y: f^{-1}(V) \in \mathcal{U}\}

where VV ranges over open sets of YY and 𝒰\mathcal{U} over Scott-open subsets 𝒰\mathcal{U} of 𝒪(X)\mathcal{O}(X).

We let Y XY^X denote the space whose underlying set is Top(X,Y)Top(X, Y) and whose topology is the natural topology thus described. The theorem we prove may be stated as follows:

Theorem

If XX is core-compact and YY is any space, then the evaluation map Y X×X→YY^X \times X \to Y is continuous, and realizes (via the Yoneda lemma) a natural isomorphism Top(−,Y X)≅Top(−×X,Y):Top op→SetTop(-, Y^X) \cong Top(- \times X, Y): Top^{op} \to Set. Thus, Y XY^X satisfies the universal property of an exponential in TopTop.

As we said, the proof we give is a very whittled-down rendition extracted from the much more thorough account given by Escardó and Heckmann. It is based on two lemmas:

Lemma

For any spaces A,YA, Y, and XX (without assuming XX is locally compact), if g:A×X→Yg: A \times X \to Y is continuous, then its transpose g ∧:A→Y Xg^\wedge: A \to Y^X is continuous.

Lemma

For any space YY, the evaluation map ev:Y X×X→Yev: Y^X \times X \to Y is continuous if XX is core-compact.

It follows that if h:A→Y Xh: A \to Y^X is continuous, then so is the inverse transpose

h ∨=(A×X→h×1Y X×X→evY).h^\vee = \left(A \times X \stackrel{h \times 1}{\to} Y^X \times X \stackrel{ev}{\to} Y\right).

As the operations g↦g ∧g \mapsto g^\wedge and h↦h ∨h \mapsto h^\vee are mutually inverse, this establishes the natural isomorphism Top(A,Y X)≅Top(A×X,Y)Top(A, Y^X) \cong Top(A \times X, Y) of the theorem.

Proofs of the lemmas

First we establish Lemma 1.

Proof

Suppose g:A×X→Yg: A \times X \to Y is continuous, and let F(𝒰,V)F(\mathcal{U}, V) be a typical generating element of the topology of Y XY^X. We are to show that

(g ∧) −1(F(𝒰,V)) = {a:g ∧(a)∈F(𝒰,V)} = {a:g ∧(a) −1(V)∈𝒰}\array{ (g^\wedge)^{-1}(F(\mathcal{U}, V)) & = & \{a: g^\wedge(a) \in F(\mathcal{U}, V)\} \\ & = & \{a: g^\wedge(a)^{-1}(V) \in \mathcal{U}\} }

is open in AA. Fix an element a∈(g ∧) −1(F(𝒰,V))a \in (g^\wedge)^{-1}(F(\mathcal{U}, V)); then

g ∧(a) −1(V)={x:(a,x)∈g −1(V)}.g^\wedge(a)^{-1}(V) = \{x: (a, x) \in g^{-1}(V)\}.

Consider the collection of all pairs (W′,U′)(W', U') where U′U' is open in XX and W′W' is an open neighborhood of aa such that W′×U′⊆g −1(V)W' \times U' \subseteq g^{-1}(V). The collection of such U′U' covers g ∧(a) −1(V)g^\wedge(a)^{-1}(V). Since g ∧(a) −1(V)∈𝒰g^\wedge(a)^{-1}(V) \in \mathcal{U} and 𝒰\mathcal{U} is Scott-open, there are finitely many such U′U', say U 1,…,U nU_1, \ldots, U_n, that cover some U∈𝒰U \in \mathcal{U}, and we have corresponding open neighborhoods W 1,…,W nW_1, \ldots, W_n of aa such that W i×U i⊆g −1(V)W_i \times U_i \subseteq g^{-1}(V) for i=1,…,ni = 1, \ldots, n.

We claim the neighborhood W=W 1∩…∩W nW = W_1 \cap \ldots \cap W_n of the point aa is included in (g ∧) −1(F(𝒰,V))(g^\wedge)^{-1}(F(\mathcal{U}, V)). Indeed, suppose b∈Wb \in W; we must show g ∧(b) −1(V)∈𝒰g^\wedge(b)^{-1}(V) \in \mathcal{U}. But since 𝒰\mathcal{U} is Scott-open, it is upward closed, and so it suffices to verify that

U⊆g ∧(b) −1(V)={x:(b,x)∈g −1(V)}.U \subseteq g^\wedge(b)^{-1}(V) = \{x: (b, x) \in g^{-1}(V)\}.

But if x∈Ux \in U, then x∈U ix \in U_i for some ii and of course b∈W ib \in W_i, so (b,x)∈W i×U i⊆g −1(V)(b, x) \in W_i \times U_i \subseteq g^{-1}(V) and the claim is proven.

Now we prove Lemma 2.

Proof

Let f∈Y X,x∈Xf \in Y^X, x \in X; let VV be an open neighborhood of f(x)f(x). Then f −1(V)f^{-1}(V) is an open neighborhood of xx, and since XX is core-compact, there is an open neighborhood UU of xx such that U≪f −1(V)U \ll f^{-1}(V). Put

𝒰={WopeninX:U≪W}\mathcal{U} = \{W\; open\; in \; X: U \ll W\}

Then it is enough to show

  1. 𝒰\mathcal{U} is Scott-open (and hence F(𝒰,V)F(\mathcal{U}, V) is open in Y XY^X);

  2. (f,x)∈F(𝒰,V)×U(f, x) \in F(\mathcal{U}, V) \times U;

  3. F(𝒰,V)×U⊆ev −1(V)F(\mathcal{U}, V) \times U \subseteq ev^{-1}(V).

The only tricky part is 1. For 2. it is obvious that f∈F(𝒰,V)f \in F(\mathcal{U}, V) since f −1(V)∈𝒰f^{-1}(V) \in \mathcal{U}, i.e., U≪f −1(V)U \ll f^{-1}(V). For 3., if g∈F(𝒰,V)g \in F(\mathcal{U}, V) and x∈Ux \in U, then U≪g −1(V)U \ll g^{-1}(V), whence x∈U⊆g −1(V)x \in U \subseteq g^{-1}(V) and then ev(g,x)=g(x)∈Vev(g, x) = g(x) \in V, as required.

For 1., it is obvious that if U≪WU \ll W and W⊆W′W \subseteq W', then U≪W′U \ll W', so 𝒰\mathcal{U} is upward-closed. Now we need to check that for all W′W' in 𝒰\mathcal{U} there exists WW in 𝒰\mathcal{U} such that W≪W′W \ll W'. By core-compactness,

W′=⋃ W≪W′W=⋃ W≪W′⋃ V≪WV=⋃ ∃W:V≪W≪W′VW' = \bigcup_{W \ll W'} W = \bigcup_{W \ll W'} \bigcup_{V \ll W} V = \bigcup_{\exists W: V \ll W \ll W'} V

The covering of W′W' by open sets VV such that ∃W:V≪W≪W′\exists W: V \ll W \ll W' is a collection that is closed under finite unions, and so since U≪W′U \ll W', we have that U⊆VU \subseteq V for some such VV. If U⊆V≪WU \subseteq V \ll W, then U≪WU \ll W, so indeed there is W∈𝒰W \in \mathcal{U} such that W≪W′W \ll W'. This completes the proof that 𝒰\mathcal{U} is Scott-open and the proof of the lemma.

Remark

It is not hard to deduce that if XX is core-compact, then the collections of the form

𝒰 U={W:U≪W}\mathcal{U}_U = \{W: U \ll W\}

form a base of the Scott topology on 𝒪(X)\mathcal{O}(X). In that case, the exponential = natural topology on Y XY^X may be described as generated by sets of the form

F U,V≔{X→fY:U≪f −1(V)}F_{U, V} \coloneqq \{X \stackrel{f}{\to} Y: U \ll f^{-1}(V)\}

where U,VU, V range over open sets of X,YX, Y, respectively. This bears a closer resemblance to the classical compact-open topology than our first abstract description of the natural topology on Top(X,Y)Top(X, Y) in terms of the Scott topology on 𝒪(X)\mathcal{O}(X).

Reference

Created on July 31, 2017 at 15:57:28 by Todd Trimble