Skip to content
Shadow Theory

Canonical Minimal Source Completion: The Coarsest Readout Extension on which a Nominated Family of Source Relations Becomes Well Defined

The topological universal property

Jeremy RodgersSection 11 of 16Original PDF ↗Publication DOI ↗

The topological universal property

Assume now that SS, TT, and each VαV_\alpha are topological spaces, and that pp and every rαr_\alpha are continuous. Give VA=∏α∈AVαV_A=\prod_{\alpha\in A}V_\alpha the product topology and T×VAT\times V_A the product topology; then jA=(p,RA)j_A=(p,R_A) is continuous, by the universal property of the product.

Definition 10.1 (Topological completion).

Equip EAE_A with the quotient topology induced by the surjection eA ⁣:S↠EAe_A\colon S\twoheadrightarrow E_A: a subset U⊆EAU\subseteq E_A is open iff eA−1(U)e_A^{-1}(U) is open in SS. A topological relation-sufficient extension is a relation-sufficient extension E=(E,e,u,(ραE))\mathcal E=(E,e,u,(\rho_\alpha^E)) in which EE is a topological space, ee is a quotient map, and uu and every ραE\rho_\alpha^E are continuous. Morphisms are continuous maps satisfying (4.3).

Proposition 10.2 (Continuity of the structure maps).

With the quotient topology of Definition 10.1, the maps uA ⁣:EA→Tu_A\colon E_A\to T and ρα ⁣:EA→Vα\rho_\alpha\colon E_A\to V_\alpha are continuous, so EA\mathcal E_A is a topological relation-sufficient extension.

Proof. By the characteristic property of the quotient topology, a map out of EAE_A is continuous iff its composite with eAe_A is continuous. Now uA∘eA=pu_A\circ e_A=p and ρα∘eA=rα\rho_\alpha\circ e_A=r_\alpha by (3.4), and pp and rαr_\alpha are continuous by hypothesis. Finally eAe_A is a quotient map by construction. ◻

Theorem 10.3 (Topological universal property).

EA\mathcal E_A, with the quotient topology, is terminal in the category of topological relation-sufficient extensions: for every such E\mathcal E, the unique set map ϕE ⁣:E→EA\phi_{\mathcal E}\colon E\to E_A of Theorem 5.1 is continuous, and it is the unique continuous morphism E→EA\mathcal E\to\mathcal E_A. It is a continuous surjection.

Proof. Theorem 5.1 supplies the unique function ϕE ⁣:E→EA\phi_{\mathcal E}\colon E\to E_A satisfying eA=ϕE∘ee_A=\phi_{\mathcal E}\circ e, and asserts its surjectivity. For continuity: the composite ϕE∘e=eA\phi_{\mathcal E}\circ e=e_A is continuous (it is the quotient map onto EAE_A), and ee is a quotient map by Definition 10.1; by the characteristic property of quotient maps, a function out of EE whose composite with the quotient map ee is continuous is itself continuous. Hence ϕE\phi_{\mathcal E} is continuous. Uniqueness among continuous morphisms is inherited from uniqueness among all set maps, proved in Theorem 5.1 (v). Finally EA\mathcal E_A is itself an object of the category by Proposition 10.2. ◻

Quotient topology versus subspace topology

EAE_A carries two a priori distinct topologies: the quotient topology of Definition 10.1, and the subspace topology inherited from T×VAT\times V_A via the canonical injection ι ⁣:EA↪T×VA.(10.1) \iota\colon E_A\hookrightarrow T\times V_A .\tag{10.1} These must not be conflated. The universal property of Theorem 10.3 is a statement about the quotient topology, and it is the quotient topology that the completion carries by definition.

Proposition 10.4 (Comparison, and the embedding criterion).

Equip EAE_A with the quotient topology.

  1. The injection ι\iota of (10.1) is continuous. Consequently the quotient topology is finer than or equal to the subspace topology on Im(jA)\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(j_A).

  2. ι\iota is a topological embedding if and only if the quotient topology coincides with the subspace topology; equivalently, if and only if the corestriction jA ⁣:S→Im(jA)j_A\colon S\to\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(j_A) is a quotient map when Im(jA)\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(j_A) carries the product subspace topology.

Proof. We have ι∘eA=jA\iota\circ e_A=j_A, which is continuous; since eAe_A is a quotient map, ι\iota is continuous by the characteristic property. Continuity of ι\iota says exactly that every subspace-open subset of EAE_A (i.e. every ι−1(W)\iota^{-1}(W) with WW open in T×VAT\times V_A) is quotient-open; hence the quotient topology contains the subspace topology.

ι\iota is injective and continuous, so it is an embedding iff it is open onto its image, i.e. iff every quotient-open subset of EAE_A is subspace-open. Combined with , this holds iff the two topologies are equal.

For the reformulation, write I:=Im(jA)I:=\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(j_A) with the subspace topology and let jˉA ⁣:S→I\bar j_A\colon S\to I be the corestriction of jAj_A, so that as functions jˉA=ι∘eA\bar j_A=\iota\circ e_A with ι\iota now regarded as the identity of underlying sets EA→IE_A\to I. Suppose the topologies agree. Then ι\iota is a homeomorphism and eAe_A is a quotient map, so jˉA\bar j_A is a quotient map. Conversely, suppose jˉA\bar j_A is a quotient map. A subset U⊆EAU\subseteq E_A is quotient-open iff eA−1(U)e_A^{-1}(U) is open in SS; and eA−1(U)=jˉA−1(U)e_A^{-1}(U)=\bar j_A^{-1}(U) as subsets of SS, since eAe_A and jˉA\bar j_A agree as functions into the common underlying set. Because jˉA\bar j_A is a quotient map, jˉA−1(U)\bar j_A^{-1}(U) open in SS implies UU open in II, i.e. subspace-open. Hence quotient-open implies subspace-open, and with the two topologies coincide. ◻

Corollary 10.5 (Compact–Hausdorff sufficient condition).

Suppose SS is compact and T×VAT\times V_A is Hausdorff. Then the quotient and subspace topologies on EAE_A agree, and ι ⁣:EA↪T×VA\iota\colon E_A\hookrightarrow T\times V_A is a topological embedding; in particular EAE_A is a compact Hausdorff space.

Proof. Write I=Im(jA)⊆T×VAI=\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(j_A)\subseteq T\times V_A with the subspace topology, and let jˉA ⁣:S→I\bar j_A\colon S\to I be the (continuous, surjective) corestriction of jAj_A. As a subspace of a Hausdorff space, II is Hausdorff. We show jˉA\bar j_A is a closed map, hence a quotient map, and then apply Proposition 10.4 .

Let C⊆SC\subseteq S be closed. Since SS is compact, CC is compact; since jˉA\bar j_A is continuous, jˉA(C)\bar j_A(C) is a compact subset of II; since II is Hausdorff, the compact subset jˉA(C)\bar j_A(C) is closed in II. Thus jˉA\bar j_A is a continuous closed surjection, and every continuous closed surjection is a quotient map: if jˉA−1(U)\bar j_A^{-1}(U) is open then S∖jˉA−1(U)S\setminus\bar j_A^{-1}(U) is closed, its image jˉA(S∖jˉA−1(U))=I∖U\bar j_A(S\setminus\bar j_A^{-1}(U))=I\setminus U is closed by surjectivity, so UU is open. By Proposition 10.4, the topologies agree and ι\iota is an embedding. Finally EA≅IE_A\cong I is compact (continuous image of a compact space) and Hausdorff (subspace of a Hausdorff space). ◻

Remark 38.

Without hypotheses of this kind the two topologies may genuinely differ, and the abstract completion does not require them to agree: Theorem 10.3 holds for the quotient topology regardless. One should not assert the agreement, nor treat EAE_A as a subspace of T×VAT\times V_A in the topological sense, without verifying Proposition 10.4  or a sufficient condition such as Corollary 10.5.

Back to top ↑