7
$\begingroup$

This is a cross post from MSE.

I believe that the following problem have already been considered by some sophisticated topologist.

Definition 1. A non-compact Hausdorff topological space $X$ is called almost compact if its Stone–Čech compactification coincides with its one point compactification.

An example of almost compact space is $[0,\omega_1)$ for the first uncountable ordinal $\omega_1$. All almost compact spaces are locally compact and pseudocompact.

Definition 2. A compact Hausdorff space $X$ is called pretty compact if $X\setminus\{p\}$ is almost compact for all non-isolated points $p\in X$.

I know that Stonean spaces are pretty compact. By a result of van Douwen, Kunen and van Mill (There can be $C^*$-embedded dense proper subspaces in $\beta\omega - \omega$) $\beta\mathbb{N}\setminus \mathbb{N}$ is consistently pretty compact. What are other examples of pretty compact spaces? Does there exist any characterization of pretty compact spaces or at least a strong necessary condition?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ From the discussion at MSE, I think I'm not alone in finding the terminology very distracting. For example (let's see if I've got this straight) $\mathbb R$ is not almost compact, so $S^1$ is not pretty compact, so compact does not imply pretty compact. But I think the terminology strongly suggests it should. Already, the fact that $\mathbb R$ is not almost compact makes the terminology feel wrong to me. $\endgroup$ – Tim Campion Feb 2 at 21:56
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @TimCampion It's nevertheless pretty standard and already used by Gillman and Jerrison (almost compact I mean). Pretty compact is indeed a bit weird. That $\Bbb R$ feels almost compact is due to its completeness/connectedness and linear structure, I think: in a connected ordered space we can always compactfity with at most two points. $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Feb 3 at 12:07
9
$\begingroup$

A partial answer: other examples of pretty compact spaces are uncountable powers of $\{0,1\}$ and $[0,1]$, and in general products of uncountably many non-trivial compact Hausdorff spaces. See Problem 3.12.24(c) in Engelking's General Topology, or Glicksberg, Stone-Čech compactifications of products. If $a$ is in the product take $b$ in the product that differs everywhere from $a$. Then $\Sigma(b)$ is a subset of $X\setminus\{a\}$. As the product is $\beta\Sigma(b)$ it is also $\beta(X\setminus\{a\})$ (general result: if $X\subseteq Y\subseteq\beta X$ then $\beta X=\beta Y$).

As noted in the question extremally disconnected compact spaces have the same property; as these are quite different from product spaces finding a characterization that is not a direct translation seems difficult.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Problem 3.12.24(c) in Engelking's General Topology states that the Cartesian product $X$ of compact Hausdorff spaces $\{X_s:s\in S\}$ is the Stone-Cech compactification of their $\Sigma$ product. By 2.7.14 from the same book the $\Sigma$ product of the family $\{X_s:s\in S\}$ is a set of the form $$\{x\in X: \operatorname{Card}(\{s\in S: x_s\neq a_s\})\leq \aleph_0 \}$$ for some $a\in X$. Clearly $\Sigma$ products are quite different from $X\setminus \{a\}$. So I don't think uncountable products of compact Hausdorff spaces are pretty compact. Am I right? $\endgroup$ – Norbert Feb 5 at 18:56
  • $\begingroup$ No, I added further explanation above. $\endgroup$ – KP Hart Feb 5 at 19:23
  • $\begingroup$ Now it is clear. Thank you! $\endgroup$ – Norbert Feb 5 at 21:29

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.