7
$\begingroup$

We know that the space $\mathbb{R}$ has compactifications with one point remainder, and two point remainder. but there is no compactification of $\mathbb{R}$ with three point remainder and the same holds for every finite natural number $n$ greater than 3. We know that the Stone-Čech compactification of $\mathbb{R}$ has infinite remainder. (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 our question to cardinals less than $2^{\aleph_0}$?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Typo: remainder, not reminder. $\endgroup$
    – user5117
    May 2, 2012 at 17:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Would it be possible for you to explain briefly why there is no compactification with $n$ points? $\endgroup$ May 3, 2012 at 0:27
  • $\begingroup$ 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) $\endgroup$
    – Ali Reza
    May 3, 2012 at 7:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question referred in the previous comment is: A question about some special compactifications of $\mathbb{R}$. $\endgroup$ Jul 8, 2020 at 6:48
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps look at the Bohr compactification. See if it has cardinal $\mathfrak c$. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_compactification Well, maybe not what you want. It seems that the map $\mathbb R \to b\mathbb R$ is not homeomorphic to its image, only continuous and injective. $\endgroup$ Jul 8, 2020 at 12:41

2 Answers 2

12
$\begingroup$

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 cardinality of $V$ may be 1, 2, or something between $\mathfrak{c}$ and $|W|=2^{\mathfrak{c}}$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much dear Anton Petrunin. your proof is prfect and resonable. But is there any compactification of $\mathbb{R}$ with cardinality $\mathfrak{c}$? $\endgroup$
    – Ali Reza
    May 3, 2012 at 7:33
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ May 3, 2012 at 13:34
3
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – Ali Reza
    May 2, 2012 at 17:33
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ May 2, 2012 at 18:11
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – Ali Reza
    May 2, 2012 at 18:15

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.