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

We now that the space $\mathbb{R}$ has compactifications with one point reminder, and two point reminder. but there is no compactification of $\mathbb{R}$ with three point reminder and the same holds for every finite natural number $n$ greater than3. We Know that the stone-cech compactification of $\mathbb{R}$ has infinite reminder. (i.e.$|\beta\mathbb{R}-\mathbb{R}|=2^\mathfrak{c}$

I have the same question for other infinite cardinals less than $2^\mathfrak{c}$ as follows:

A. Is there any compactification $X$ of $\mathbb{R}$ with the property that $|X-\mathbb{R}|=\aleph_0$?

B. Can we improve or question to cardinals less than $2^{\aleph_0}$?

share|cite|improve this question
Typo: remainder, not reminder. – user5117 May 2 '12 at 17:39
Would it be possible for you to explain briefly why there is no compactification with $n$ points? – Joel David Hamkins May 3 '12 at 0:27
Hello Dear Joel David. you can search in the box of my questions. before this question, I posed a question titled by "A question about some special compactifications of $\mathbb{R}$". if it doesn't satisfy you, I can explain it for you. I think I have another interesting proof for your question. (best wishes) – Ali Reza May 3 '12 at 7:21
up vote 8 down vote accepted

I guess you are interested in Hausdorff compactifications. (It is easy to construct a non-Hausdorff compactification with 3-point remainder.)

Set $W=\beta\mathbb R\backslash \mathbb R$; note that $W$ has two connected components. If $Z$ is an other compactification of $\mathbb R$ then $V=Z\backslash \mathbb R$ is an image of $W$. Therefore $V$ has at most two connected components. It follows that cardintality of $V$ may be 1, 2, or something between $\mathfrak{c}$ and $|W|=2^{\mathfrak{c}}$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you very much dear Anton Petrunin. your proof is prfect and resonable. But is there any compactification of $\mathbb{R}$ with cardinality $\mathfrak{c}$? – Ali Reza May 3 '12 at 7:33
Yes, there are compactifications of $\mathbb R$ whose remainder has cardinality $\mathfrak c$. Consider, for example, the topologist's sine curve. More precisely, consider the graph of $y=\sin(1/x)$ for $0<x\leq 1$ together with the vertical segment from $-1$ to 1 on the $y$-axis. The graph of $y=\sin(1/x)$ for $0<x<1$ is a copy of $\mathbb R$, and I've added one point $(1,\sin 1)$ to compactify it at one end and the vertical segment, of cardinality $\mathfrak c$, to compactify it at the other end. – Andreas Blass May 3 '12 at 13:34

EDIT: As Emil pointed out, I misinterpreted a statement in Charalambous article. Corrections are in boldface:

I don´t know if The answer to A is yes. For a separable metric space X (e.g. $\mathbb{R}$) the following are equivalent (see Compactifications with countable remainder by Charalambous in PAMS 1980):

1) X is Cech-complete and rim-compact.

2) X has a compactification with at most countable remainder.

$\mathbb{R}$ is Cech-complete because it is complete, and it is rim-compact because it is locally compact.

So $\mathbb{R}$ has a compactification with at most countable remainder, but you already knew that.

share|cite|improve this answer
Hi dear ramiro. thank you very much.But I don't have any thing about this article. please give more information about this article. I have to see how it proved by Charalambous. – Ali Reza May 2 '12 at 17:33
Are you sure Charalambous proved that $X$ has a compactification with a countable infinite remainder? The paper does not say so (but I haven’t studied the proof to see whether it gives that). This interpretation is suspect, because if $X$ is already compact, it satisfies both conditions, but obviously has no compactification with nonempty remainder. – Emil Jeřábek May 2 '12 at 18:11
Dear ramiro. your answer doesn't satisfy me. I think the answer of my question must be negative! please defend your Answer in a reasonable way, without refering to this mentioned theorem. – Ali Reza May 2 '12 at 18:15

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.