MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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 impatient reader can skip my attempt at motivation and go straight my "Question formulations for the impatient."

In a failed(?) attempt at discovering something new, some years ago I toyed with the idea of dualizing the notion of a compact topological space. So starting from the "open covers have finite subcovers" formulation, I viewed covers of a space $X$ as surjective maps, to $X$, from a coproduct of subobjects.

Dualizing thus lead me to look at injective maps $X\rightarrow \prod_{i\in I} Q_i$ from $X$ to a product of various quotients $Q_i$ of $X$. So call such a thing a co-cover. Given a co-cover and subset $J\subset I$, projection yields $X\rightarrow \prod_{i\in J} Q_i$, so call that a sub-co-cover; and with $J$ finite, call it a finite sub-co-cover.

Call a co-cover $X\rightarrow \prod_{i\in I} Q_i$ of $X$ open, if for each $x\in X$ there exists some finite $K\subset I$ so that some neighborhood of $x$ maps injectively to $\prod_{i\in K} Q_i$.

Call a space opcompact (since cocompact already has a meaning) if every open co-cover has a finite sub-co-cover.

My disappointment: opcompact turns out equivalent to compact, so nothing new (yet). Proof sketch:

Compact implies opcompact:

For each $x\in X$, pick an open neighborhood $N_x$ of $x$ and a set $K$, so that $N_x$ maps injectively to $\prod_{i\in K} Q_i$. The $N_x$ form a cover with a finite subcover, and the union of the associated $K$'s determines the desired sub-co-cover.

Opcompact implies compact:

Given $X$ with an open cover $\{U_i\}$ that has no finite subcover, get an open co-cover with no finite sub-co-cover from $X\rightarrow \prod X/U_i^c$ where $X/U_i^c$ means the quotient of $X$ where the complement of $U_i$ collapses to a point.

Even with Hausdorff $X$, the "opcompact implies compact" argument may require non-Hausdorff spaces $X/U_i^c$ - we would need $X$ regular to have all these spaces Hausdorff a priori. So call a co-cover $X\rightarrow \prod_{i\in I} Q_i$ Hausdorff if it uses only Hausdorff $Q_i$. Define Hausdorff-opcompact to mean that every Hausdorff co-cover has a finite

Now my question: for Hausdorff spaces, does Hausdorff-opcompact imply compact?

Question formulation for the impatient: Must a noncompact Hausdorff space $X$ admit an infinite family of Hausdorff quotients $Q_i$ so that $X$ maps injectively into $\prod_i Q_i$ but not into any finite projection?

A parallel question arises on replacing Hausdorff by regular (and regular by normal):

Parallel question: for regular spaces, does regular-opcompact (with the obvious meaning) imply compact?

Parallel question formulation for the impatient: Must a noncompact regular space $X$ admit an infinite family of regular quotients $Q_i$ so that $X$ maps injectively into $\prod_i Q_i$ but not into any finite projection?

As always I welcome all pertinent remarks/answers on the general circle of ideas, so not only focused answers to the questions I've actually posed.

share|cite|improve this question
In the language of ultrafilters, a space is compact iff every ultrafilter converges to at least one point. So in some sense the "dual" of compactness is the Hausdorff property: every ultrafilter converges to at most one point. I learned this from Terence Tao's blog. – Qiaochu Yuan Feb 4 '11 at 20:21
@Qiaochu: I'd say that's "a" dual, not "the" dual. But, yes, I agree that that's a very natural dual notion to compactness. Another dual notion might be to develop a theory of "coultrafilters", and decide when they "nverge". – Theo Johnson-Freyd Feb 4 '11 at 21:08
@Theo Years ago a friend and I wrote an unpublished and I fear flawed paper about maximal filters in the partition lattice of a discrete set. If we'd managed to get that right we would have moved on the the topological situation. One has principal co-ultrafilters - a partition with one doubleton and all other cells singletons. And then non-principal co-ultrafilters seem to have something to do with ultrafilters (one gets "big" partition lattice filters from an ultrafilter $\mu$ by making a set in $\mu$ a cell and any every element in the complement a singleton). But not big enough. – David Feldman Feb 4 '11 at 21:56
compact and opcompact may mean the same thing for topological spaces, but they may separate when considered for locales. There is a concept called overtness ( which for spaces holds always, but not always for locales (it depends on the classicality of your foundations, or equivalently, if you are working in a topos or not. Classically all locales are overt). Overtness is in a sense a logical dual to compactness, by swapping quantifiers $\forall \leftrightarrow \exists$. – David Roberts Feb 4 '11 at 22:27
@Theo, @Qiaochu: Yes, it is very often ambiguous to talk about the dual of a concept, since most concepts have many equivalent formulations, which will typically no longer be equivalent when dualised. (The main exceptions, of course, being concepts primarily defined in explicitly categorical terms.) – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine Feb 5 '11 at 0:40

Your Answer


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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.