Let $U$ and $V$ be open subsets of $\mathbb R^n$ and let $\mathrm{OEmb}(U,V)$ denote the space of open embeddings of $U$ into $V$ with the compact-opent topology. Let $\bar{U},\bar{V}$ denote their one-point compactifications and let $\mathrm{map}(\bar{V},\bar{U})$ denote the space of maps between them again with the compact-open topology. There is a (set-theoretic) map $$\mathrm{OEmb}(U,V)\longrightarrow \mathrm{map}(\bar{V},\bar{U})$$ that sends an embedding $e$ to the map $\phi(e)$ given by $\phi(e)(y) = e^{-1}(y)$ if this value exists and $\phi(e)(y)=\infty$ otherwise.

Fact: This map is continuous. More generally, it is also continuous if $U$ and $V$ are Hausdorff locally compact locally connected topological spaces.

What reference should I cite for these facts?

  • $\begingroup$ I suppose it depends on your purpose. Are you posting the references for a MO question? Perhaps for a paper? A blog? Some context would be helpful. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 9, 2014 at 19:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Ryan The purpose is to use the result in a paper. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 9, 2014 at 19:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It looks quite similar to Segal's scanning map from his 1973 paper on configuration spaces and iterated loop spaces. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 10, 2014 at 17:22

1 Answer 1


I haven't found an explicit reference in the literature, but as Johannes Ebert pointed to me, in the second part of Theorem 4 of

R. Arens, Topologies for Homeomorphism Groups, American Journal of Mathematics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Oct., 1946), pp. 593-610

it is proven that the inverse mapping $\mathrm{Homeo}(X)\to \mathrm{Homeo}(X)$ that sends a homeomorphism to its inverse is continuous with respect to the compact-open topology, provided that $X$ is Hausdorff, locally compact and locally connected. The same proof works as well to prove my question (under the assumptions that $X$ and $Y$ are Hausdorff, locally compact, and $Y$ is locally connected). Therefore I think that Arens article is a good reference for this fact (together with an indication saying that the proof has to be mildly adpated). This is how the adaptation would go:

Theorem: If $X$ and $Y$ are Hausdorff locally compact spaces and $Y$ is locally connected, then the collapsing map $$\phi\colon \mathrm{OEmb}(X,Y)\longrightarrow \mathrm{map}(\overline{Y},\overline{X})$$ is continuous with the compact-open topologies.

Proof: Take an embedding $e$ and consider a subbasic neighbourhood $(K,U)$ of $\phi(e)$, where $K\subset \overline{Y}$ is compact and $U\subset \overline{X}$ is open. Let us denote by $U^c$ the complement of $U$ in $X$ (not in $\overline{X}$). An embedding $f$ belongs to this neighbourhood if $\phi(e)(K)\subset U$, and this holds if and only if $e(U^c)\subset K^c$. Therefore $e(U^c)\subset K^c$ and if any other embedding $f$ satisfies that $f(U^c)\subset K^c$, then it holds that $\phi(f)\in (K,U)$.

We distinguish two cases:

\underline{If $\infty\in U$}, then $U^c$ is compact and we are done ($(U^c,K^c)$ is an open neighbourhood of $e$ that gets mapped into the neighbourhood $(K,U)$ of $\phi(e)$.

\underline{If $\infty\notin U$}, then $K\subset e(X)$, and therefore $e^{-1}(K)$ is compact. This is the situation that Arens handles. We use that $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact to construct a pair of open neighbourhoods $V,W$ of $K$ with compact closure of $e$ such that $$e^{-1}(K)\in V\subset \overline{V}\subset W\subset \overline{W}\subset U.$$ Then $N:=\overline{W}\setminus V$ is compact, and if $f\in (N,K^c)$, then $\phi(f)(K)\subset N^c$. Observe that $N^c$ is the disjoint union of $V$ and $\overline{W}^c$.

Now we use that $X$ is locally connected to assume, without loss of generality that $K$ is connected (this is detailed in Arens' paper). Therefore, if $f\in (N,K^c)$, then either $\phi(f)(K)\subset V\subset U$ (this is what we want) or $\phi(f)(K)\subset \overline{W}^c$. In order to rule out the second case, we make the additional assumption (again without loss of generality) that $K$ has non-void interior, then we take a point $p$ in the interior. If $f\in (N,K^c\cap e(W))\cap (\{e^{-1}(p)\},\mathring{K})$, then $f(e^{-1}(p))\subset K$, but then $e^{-1}(p)\in \phi(f)(K)\cap V$, which is non-empty, and therefore we have ruled out the second case and $f\in (K,V)\subset (K,U)$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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