Canonical Minimal Source Completion: The Coarsest Readout Extension on which a Nominated Family of Source Relations Becomes Well Defined
The topological universal property
The topological universal property
Assume now that , , and each are topological spaces, and that and every are continuous. Give the product topology and the product topology; then is continuous, by the universal property of the product.
Definition 10.1 (Topological completion).
Equip with the quotient topology induced by the surjection : a subset is open iff is open in . A topological relation-sufficient extension is a relation-sufficient extension in which is a topological space, is a quotient map, and and every 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 and are continuous, so is a topological relation-sufficient extension.
Proof. By the characteristic property of the quotient topology, a map out of is continuous iff its composite with is continuous. Now and by (3.4), and and are continuous by hypothesis. Finally is a quotient map by construction. ◻
Theorem 10.3 (Topological universal property).
, with the quotient topology, is terminal in the category of topological relation-sufficient extensions: for every such , the unique set map of Theorem 5.1 is continuous, and it is the unique continuous morphism . It is a continuous surjection.
Proof. Theorem 5.1 supplies the unique function satisfying , and asserts its surjectivity. For continuity: the composite is continuous (it is the quotient map onto ), and is a quotient map by Definition 10.1; by the characteristic property of quotient maps, a function out of whose composite with the quotient map is continuous is itself continuous. Hence is continuous. Uniqueness among continuous morphisms is inherited from uniqueness among all set maps, proved in Theorem 5.1 (v). Finally is itself an object of the category by Proposition 10.2. ◻
Quotient topology versus subspace topology
carries two a priori distinct topologies: the quotient topology of Definition 10.1, and the subspace topology inherited from via the canonical injection 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 with the quotient topology.
The injection of (10.1) is continuous. Consequently the quotient topology is finer than or equal to the subspace topology on .
is a topological embedding if and only if the quotient topology coincides with the subspace topology; equivalently, if and only if the corestriction is a quotient map when carries the product subspace topology.
Proof. We have , which is continuous; since is a quotient map, is continuous by the characteristic property. Continuity of says exactly that every subspace-open subset of (i.e. every with open in ) is quotient-open; hence the quotient topology contains the subspace topology.
is injective and continuous, so it is an embedding iff it is open onto its image, i.e. iff every quotient-open subset of is subspace-open. Combined with , this holds iff the two topologies are equal.
For the reformulation, write with the subspace topology and let be the corestriction of , so that as functions with now regarded as the identity of underlying sets . Suppose the topologies agree. Then is a homeomorphism and is a quotient map, so is a quotient map. Conversely, suppose is a quotient map. A subset is quotient-open iff is open in ; and as subsets of , since and agree as functions into the common underlying set. Because is a quotient map, open in implies open in , i.e. subspace-open. Hence quotient-open implies subspace-open, and with the two topologies coincide. ◻
Corollary 10.5 (Compact–Hausdorff sufficient condition).
Suppose is compact and is Hausdorff. Then the quotient and subspace topologies on agree, and is a topological embedding; in particular is a compact Hausdorff space.
Proof. Write with the subspace topology, and let be the (continuous, surjective) corestriction of . As a subspace of a Hausdorff space, is Hausdorff. We show is a closed map, hence a quotient map, and then apply Proposition 10.4 .
Let be closed. Since is compact, is compact; since is continuous, is a compact subset of ; since is Hausdorff, the compact subset is closed in . Thus is a continuous closed surjection, and every continuous closed surjection is a quotient map: if is open then is closed, its image is closed by surjectivity, so is open. By Proposition 10.4, the topologies agree and is an embedding. Finally 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 as a subspace of in the topological sense, without verifying Proposition 10.4 or a sufficient condition such as Corollary 10.5.