# Start a new discussion

## Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

## Site Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

• CommentRowNumber1.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeOct 13th 2010

I left a counter-query underneath Zoran’s query at compactly generated space. It may be time for a clean-up of this article; the query boxes have been left dangling and unanswered for quite some time. Either proofs or references to detailed proofs would be welcome.

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeOct 14th 2010

Yes, some clean-up would be nice. I replied to the queries.

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeOct 14th 2010

In that case, Zoran’s point stands.

• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeOct 14th 2010

Looks like the remark in question was originally added by Ronnie Brown over a year ago.

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2011
• (edited Feb 22nd 2011)

There is still left-over query box discussion at compactly generated space between Zoran, Todd, Mike and Toby . It looks to me like all issues have been clarified there. Does anyone feel like brushing up the entry?

• CommentRowNumber6.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2011

Actually, looking at it again I see maybe an interpretation of the remark that might make it make sense. If by $k\mathrm{Top}\left(X,Y\right)$ we mean a specific topology which is not necessarily a k-space, then cartesian closure of the category of k-spaces and continuous maps would be about a homeomorphism relating to the k-ifications of this $k\mathrm{Top}\left(X,Y\right)$ when X and Y are k-spaces, while cartesian closure of the category of all spaces and k-continuous maps could be phrased either as saying the same thing (invoking the fact that they are equivalent) or about a k-homeomorphism relating to $k\mathrm{Top}\left(X,Y\right)$ itself rather than its k-ification. And in the latter case saying that it is actually a homeomorphism rather than just a k-homeomorphism would be saying something stronger, relating to a characterization of $k\mathrm{Top}\left(X,Y\right)$ as an arbitrary space rather than (its k-ification) as a k-space. Is this making sense?

• CommentRowNumber7.
• CommentAuthorzskoda
• CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2011

Unfortunately, I am too much in a hectic mode before the long travel next week, so I can not delve into this discussion until about next Thursday…

• CommentRowNumber8.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeFeb 24th 2011

I’ve edited the entry to clarify some, by distinguishing notationally between the category of k-spaces and continous maps, and the category of all spaces and k-continuous maps. Although they are equivalent, the question at issue seems to revolve around their non-identical-ness.

• CommentRowNumber9.
• CommentAuthorzskoda
• CommentTimeFeb 24th 2011

I still do not have enough time to delve into this but I was told by my student that

• N. P. Strickland, The category of CGWH spaces, pdf

is extremely clear about when the weakly Hausdorff assumption is needed and when not. I quoted it in $n$Lab.

• CommentRowNumber10.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeMar 8th 2011

Thanks for the reference; I had a look at it and tried to clarify the entry a trifle further.

• CommentRowNumber11.
• CommentAuthorzskoda
• CommentTimeMay 12th 2011
• (edited May 12th 2011)

compactly generated space says that a topological space is compactly generated iff

$X$ is an identification space of a disjoint union of compact Hausdorff spaces.

It is clear to see that a quotient space of a disjoint union of compact Hausdorff spaces if compactly generated, namely every compact Hausdorff space is compactly generated, disjoint union of compactly generated Hausdorff is compactly generated Hausdorff and any quotient of a compactly generated Hausdorff space is compactly generated. Conversely, there are many ideas of covers of $X$ by compact Hausdorff spaces, one needs to choose good enough such that the definition for compactly generated (not necessarily even weakly Hausdorff) space can be tested only on the morphisms from the cover: then one does the identification by identifying points with the same image. However, any attempt which I tried in a quick attempt use the axiom of choice, most often within a proper class or something of the sort. What is the clean set-theoretic way to do it ?

• CommentRowNumber12.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeMay 13th 2011

What makes you think there is one? (-:

• CommentRowNumber13.
• CommentAuthorzskoda
• CommentTimeMay 14th 2011

So what the entry claims ? It says that it is a characterization of a compactly generated space. Even if we use the axiom of choice is it within a set, or we entail a change of universe or what ? Something is claimed and my attempts to understand it get into set-theoretical nightmare, if I want a full generality.

• CommentRowNumber14.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeMay 17th 2011

Well, I don’t know the answer. I was just saying, just because something is true doesn’t necessarily mean it can be proven in a set-theoretically clean way. (-:

• CommentRowNumber15.
• CommentAuthorzskoda
• CommentTimeMay 17th 2011

I felt that :)

• CommentRowNumber16.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeSep 13th 2011
• (edited Sep 13th 2011)

I have reorganized the sections at compactly generated space a little (check if you agree that it is better now), added a stubby Examples-section and a reference.

By the way, there is still lots of query-box discussion there. Maybe it can be removed or else turned into definite content?

• CommentRowNumber17.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeSep 13th 2011

I moved the (still empty) section on “weak Hausdorffification” to weakly Hausdorff space. Maybe k-space and compactly generated space should be separate pages too?

• CommentRowNumber18.
• CommentAuthorKarol Szumiło
• CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2013

In compactly generated topological space there is an inconclusive discussion box about local cartesian closure of the category of compactly generated spaces. I want to bring your attention to this paper I have just stumbled upon

Booth, Peter I. The exponential law of maps. II. Math. Z. 121 (1971), 311–319

where the author claims that the category of compactly generated spaces over a Hausdorff space is cartesian closed. Unfortunately, for the definition of the internal hom-object he refers to another paper of his where the definition is stated in a different language (and involves further references) and I find it difficult to put the definition and the proof together. Perhaps someone will be motivated enough to take a closer look and decide whether the proof is valid.