MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The contravariant functor $C(-)$ given by $$ \hom_{Top}(-,\mathbb{R}):cCW\to Rng $$ where $cCW$ is the category of compact CW complexes is injective on objects. What is known about surjectivity, faithfulness and fullness of this functor?

share|cite|improve this question
Surjective on objects: Definitely not, how do you get mathbb{Z} or worse a noncommutative ring? Full: How do you induce the zero map between two rings of continuous functions with a continuous function between the spaces? Faithful: This is the only interesting one. I am guessing that it is faithful. Examining the proof that it is injective on objects (looking at the MaxSpec construction), should point you in the right direction I think. Maybe your question is more interesting if you restrict your attention to R-modules? – Steven Gubkin Oct 28 '10 at 14:27
Steven: the zero map shouldn't really count: it's not a ring homomorphism here. (I assume rings have identity and the identity is preserved, a standard convention for commutative rings.) – KConrad Oct 28 '10 at 14:38
Rng is a strange choice of target category. You want at least commutative R-algebras and you actually get a commutative Banach algebra or, even better, a commutative C*-algebra over R with trivial involution. – Qiaochu Yuan Oct 28 '10 at 15:57
The Gelfand-Naimark-Theorem gives an answer. But it does not tell you how to see whether a space is a CW by looking at its function algebra. – Johannes Ebert Oct 28 '10 at 17:55
up vote 5 down vote accepted

Corollary 4.1.(i) in Johnstone's book Stone Spaces (electronic version: states that the category of realcompact spaces is dual to the full subcategory of the category of commutative rings consisting of rings of the form C(X). The functor C implements the duality.

The category of compact CW-complexes embeds into the category of realcompact spaces as a full subcategory, hence the functor C is fully faithful.

share|cite|improve this answer
For reference: – David Roberts Oct 28 '10 at 20:13
Thank you. Paracompactness does not suffice here, right? – roger123 Nov 1 '10 at 12:48
I think there are non-homeomorphic paracompact spaces with isomorphic algebras of continuous functions. This is plausible because not all paracompact spaces are realcompact. – Dmitri Pavlov Nov 1 '10 at 15:50

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.