Let $(X,\tau)$ be a Hausdorff space. Let $[X]^2 = \big\{\{x,y\}: x,y\in X \land x\neq y\big\}$. For $U,V\in \tau$ with $U\cap V = \emptyset$ we set $[U,V] = \big\{\{x,y\} \in [X]^2: x\in U\land y\in V\big\}$.

We endow $[X]^2$ with the topology $[\tau]^2$, which is generated by $\{[U,V]: U,V\in \tau\land U\cap V =\emptyset\}$.

Is there a non-discrete Hausdorff space $X$ with more than 3 points such that $X\cong [X]^2$?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your notation $\{x,y\}$ instead of $(x,y)$ suggest that you are considering that $\{x,y\} = \{y,x\}$ while your definition of the topology seem to suggest that it is not the case, could you clarify this point ? $\endgroup$ – Simon Henry May 27 '15 at 9:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SimonHenry: $[X]^2$ is a very popular notation for the set of all subsets of $X$ of size $2$. I don't see how the definition of the topology suggests otherwise. In fact $[U,V]=[V,U]$. $\endgroup$ – Ramiro de la Vega May 27 '15 at 11:03
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for clarifying. For me it suggested otherwise because if I parse the definition naively, $\{x,y\} \in [U,V]$ mean $x \in U$ and $y \in V$ while the $\{y,x\} \in [U,V]$ mean $y \in U$ and $x \in V$ and those two are clearly not equivalent, so it mean that $\{x,y\}$ and $\{y,x\}$ have to be different. Now If it is a standard notion I understand that people use this kind of notational short cut. $\endgroup$ – Simon Henry May 27 '15 at 11:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Now I see the confusion; but note that $\{x,y\} \in [U,V]$ iff $x \in U \land y \in V$ or $y \in U \land x \in V$. $\endgroup$ – Ramiro de la Vega May 27 '15 at 11:20
  • $\begingroup$ To see if I have got this right: if we take $X = [0,1]$, is $[[X]]^2$ homeomorphic to the triangle $\{(x,y) \in [0,1]^2 : x < y\}$ (with its Euclidean topology)? $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge May 27 '15 at 15:18

It is easy to see that the operation $X \mapsto [X]^2$ preserves the properties: countable, second-countable, regular, no isolated points. Hence $\mathbb{Q} \cong [\mathbb{Q}]^2 $.

  • $\begingroup$ You are saying that $\mathbb{Q}$ is the unique space with these properties (up to homeomorphism)? Where can one find a proof of this? $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge May 27 '15 at 18:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Nate: Yes, this was proved by Sierpinski. See at.yorku.ca/p/a/c/a/25.pdf for a proof. $\endgroup$ – Will Brian May 27 '15 at 20:12

Write $F(X)=[X]^2$. Then $F$ is an endofunctor on the category of Hausdorff spaces and inclusions of clopen subspaces, and it preserves filtered colimits. Given any Hausdorff space $X$ with an inclusion of $X$ as a clopen subspace of $F(X)$, it follows (as in this answer) that $F^\omega(X)=\operatorname{colim} F^n(X)$ satisfies $F(F^\omega(X))\cong F^\omega(X)$. It follows easily that every Hausdorff space embeds in a fixed point of $F$ (for instance, given any $X$, if $Y=X\coprod\mathbb{N}$ then $Y$ is naturally homeomorphic to a clopen subspace of $F(Y)$ and then $X$ embeds in $F^\omega(Y)$).

(The restriction to inclusions of clopen subspaces is probably stronger than is needed here; the key point is that you restrict to a nice enough class of inclusions such that finite products commute with sequential colimits of such inclusions.)

  • $\begingroup$ Up-voted, but this is an overkill though :-) (no, not too bad!). $\endgroup$ – Włodzimierz Holsztyński May 27 '15 at 18:34

Yet another example: $X:=\{−3,−2,−1\}∪\mathbb{Q}_+$ with the standard Euclidean topology. $\mathbb{Q}_+$ denotes the positive rationals.

I post it on an explicit request in the comments, but this is in fact a combination of the answer by Ramiro de la Vega, the finite example banned by Dominic van der Zypen and the fact that a product of a finite set by the rationals is homeomorphic to the rationals.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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