Skip to main content

Section 2.8 Week 8

Subsection Monday

Subsubsection Comparing connected and path-components

Recall that the connected components of a space \(X\) are the maximal connected subspaces of \(X\text{;}\) we write \([X]\) for the set of connected components. Similarly, the path-components of \(X\) are the maximal path-connected subspaces, and we write \(\pi_0(X)\) for the set of path-components. Our goal today is to compare these two invariants and then study a local condition under which they agree.
Observation 2.8.1.
Let \(X\) be a topological space.
  1. The canonical map
    \begin{equation*} \coprod_{C\in [X]} C \longrightarrow X, \qquad (C\ni x\mapsto x\in X), \end{equation*}
    is a continuous bijection.
  2. The canonical map
    \begin{equation*} \coprod_{P\in \pi_0(X)} P \longrightarrow X, \qquad (P\ni x\mapsto x\in X), \end{equation*}
    is a continuous bijection.
Example 2.8.2. \(\mathbb{Q}\) is neither connected nor path-connected.
The rational numbers \(\mathbb{Q}\text{,}\) with the subspace topology from \(\mathbb{R}\text{,}\) are neither connected nor path-connected.
We first show that \(\mathbb{Q}\) is disconnected. Fix any irrational number, say \(\alpha = \sqrt{2}\text{,}\) and set
\begin{equation*} U = \mathbb{Q}\cap (-\infty,\alpha), \qquad V = \mathbb{Q}\cap (\alpha,\infty). \end{equation*}
Both \(U\) and \(V\) are nonempty (e.g., \(1\in U\) and \(2\in V\)), and they are open in \(\mathbb{Q}\) since each is the intersection of \(\mathbb{Q}\) with an open interval. Since \(\alpha\notin\mathbb{Q}\text{,}\) we have \(U\cup V = \mathbb{Q}\) and \(U\cap V = \varnothing\text{,}\) so this is a separation of \(\mathbb{Q}\text{.}\)
Since \(\mathbb{Q}\) is disconnected, it is not connected. It therefore cannot be path-connected, by LemmaΒ 2.8.3(3).
Proof.
We first prove statement (1). Let \(x,y\in X\) and suppose \(x\sim_{\mathrm{path}} y\text{,}\) i.e., \(x\) and \(y\) lie in the same path-component. We must show that \(x\sim_{\mathrm{conn}} y\text{,}\) i.e., that \(x\) and \(y\) lie in the same connected component. By definition of path-component, there is a continuous map \(\gamma\colon [0,1]\to X\) with \(\gamma(0)=x\) and \(\gamma(1)=y\text{.}\) In particular, \(x,y\in\gamma([0,1])\text{.}\) Since the continuous image of the connected space \([0,1]\) is connected, the subspace \(\gamma([0,1])\subseteq X\) is connected. Therefore \(x\sim_{\mathrm{conn}} y\text{,}\) which shows the map \(\pi_0(X)\to [X]\) is well-defined and that the diagram commutes. The maps from \(X\) are surjections by construction, and it follows that the induced map \(\pi_0(X)\to [X]\) is a surjection as well.
Statement (2) follows immediately from the surjectivity established in (1). Statement (3) follows from (2): if \(X\) is path-connected then \(\pi_0(X)\) is a singleton, so \([X]\) is also a singleton, meaning \(X\) is connected.
Example 2.8.4. Connected but not path-connected spaces.
The long line is an example of a connected topological space that is not path-connected. The topologist’s sine curve is another such example:
\begin{equation*} \bigl\{0\bigr\}\times D^1 \cup \left\{\left(x,\,\sin\tfrac{1}{x}\right) \;\middle|\; x\gt 0\right\} \;\subseteq\; \mathbb{R}^2. \end{equation*}
In each case, \(\pi_0(X)\) and \([X]\) have different cardinalities, witnessing the strictness of the inequality in LemmaΒ 2.8.3(2).

Subsubsection Local connectedness

We now discuss a universal property of connectedness. Unfortunately, it is possessed only by topological spaces satisfying a local condition.
The following definition actually encodes two definitions at once: a locally connected version and a locally path-connected version, obtained by inserting or omitting the parenthetical β€œpath-” throughout.
Definition 2.8.5. Local (path-)connectedness.
A topological space \(X\) is locally (path-)connected :iff, for each \(x\in X\) and each open subset \(U\subseteq X\) with \(x\in U\text{,}\) there is an open subset \(V\subseteq X\) with \(x\in V\subseteq U\) and \(V\) (path-)connected.
Equivalently, \(X\) is locally (path-)connected if there is a basis for its topology consisting of (path-)connected open subspaces.
Example 2.8.6.
The topological space \(\mathbb{Q}\) is neither locally connected nor locally path-connected. The topologist’s sine curve is connected but not path-connected. The topological space \(\mathbb{R}^2\smallsetminus\{0\}\) is both locally connected and locally path-connected.
Proof.
Proof.
The path-connected case is analogous to the connected case, so we give only the latter.
Suppose \(X\) is locally connected. Let \(U\subseteq X\) be open and let \(C\subseteq U\) be a connected component of \(U\text{.}\) We show \(C\) is open in \(X\text{.}\) Let \(x\in C\text{.}\) By local connectedness, there is a connected open subset \(V\subseteq X\) with \(x\in V\subseteq U\text{.}\) Since \(x\in V\cap C\) and both \(V\) and \(C\) are connected subsets of \(U\text{,}\) the maximality of \(C\) as a connected component gives \(V\subseteq C\text{.}\) Thus every point of \(C\) has an open neighborhood contained in \(C\text{,}\) so \(C\) is open in \(X\text{.}\)
Conversely, suppose every connected component of every open subspace of \(X\) is open in \(X\text{.}\) Let \(x\in U\) with \(U\subseteq X\) open. Let \(C\subseteq U\) be the connected component of \(U\) containing \(x\text{.}\) Then \(C\) is open in \(X\text{,}\) and \(C\) is connected with \(x\in C\subseteq U\text{.}\) This demonstrates local connectedness.
Proof.
Remark 2.8.11.
The topologist’s sine curve demonstrates that a subspace of a locally (path-)connected topological space need not itself be locally (path-)connected.

Subsection Wednesday

We are going to learn about adjunctions in order to motivate and explore properties of mapping spaces. To study adjunctions, we will first need natural transformations.

Subsubsection Natural transformations

We have adopted the perspective that functors are invariants. After all, a functor \(F\colon \mathsf C\to\mathsf D\) takes \(x\cong y\) to \(Fx\cong Fy\text{.}\) Sloganeering a bit, when \(x\) and \(y\) are "the same", they receive "the same" invariant \(Fx\cong Fy\text{.}\)
But when are two invariants (i.e. functors) "the same"? To answer this question, we need the following notion:
Definition 2.8.12. Natural transformations.
Suppose \(F,G\colon \mathsf C\to \mathsf D\) are functors from a category \(\mathsf C\) to a category \(\mathsf D\text{.}\) A natural transformation \(\eta\colon F\implies G\) from \(F\) to \(G\) consists of morphisms
\begin{equation*} \eta_x\colon Fx\to Gx \end{equation*}
in \(\mathsf D\) for each object \(x\) of \(\mathsf C\) satisfying the following property: for any morphism \(f\colon x\to y\) in \(\mathsf C\text{,}\) the diagram
described in detail following the image
A commutative square with top row \(Ff\colon Fx\to Fy\text{,}\) left vertical \(\eta_x\colon Fx\to Gx\text{,}\) bottom row \(Gf\colon Gx\to Gy\text{,}\) and right vertical \(\eta_y\colon Fy\to Gy\text{.}\)
commutes. A natural transformation \(\eta\colon F\implies G\) is a natural isomorphism :iff each of its component morphisms \(\eta_x\colon Fx\cong Gx\) is an isomorphism; in this case we write \(\eta\colon F\cong G\text{.}\)
Example 2.8.13. Equivariance via natural transformations.
Let \(G\) be a group. There is an associated category \(*//G\) with a unique object \(*\) and, for each \(g\in G\) a morphism \(g\colon *\to *\text{.}\) The composition in this category is given by multiplication in the group.
Now suppose \(A\colon *//G\to \mathsf{Set}\) is a functor. This amounts to a single set \(A(*)\) and, for each \(g\in G\text{,}\) a function \(A(g)\colon A(*)\to A(*)\text{.}\) Since functors respect composition, we also have
\begin{equation*} A(gh) = A(g)\circ A(h). \end{equation*}
For \(x\in A(*)\text{,}\) we will use the shorthand \(g\cdot x := [A(g)](x)\text{.}\) Then the above equation amounts to
\begin{equation*} (gh)\cdot x = g\cdot(h\cdot x) \end{equation*}
for each \(g,h\in G\text{,}\) \(x\in A(*)\text{.}\) We also know that functors preserve identities, so this further implies
\begin{equation*} e\cdot x = x \end{equation*}
for all \(x\in A(*)\text{.}\)
You have encountered this structure before: \(A\) is a \(G\)-set. More generally, functors \(*//G\to \mathsf{C}\) are \(G\)-objects in \(\mathsf C\). When \(\mathsf C\) is the category of vector spaces over a chosen field, this is a \(G\)-representation.
Suppose now that we have \(G\)-sets \(A,B\colon *//G\to \mathsf{Set}\) and a natural transformation \(\eta\colon A\implies B\text{.}\) This means that we have a function \(\eta_*\colon A(*)\to B(*)\text{,}\) and for each \(g\in G\) and \(x\in A(*)\text{,}\)
\begin{equation*} \eta_*(g\cdot x) = g\cdot \eta_*(x). \end{equation*}
In other words, \(\eta_*\) is a \(G\)-equivariant function between \(G\)-sets.

Subsubsection Adjunctions

When you learned linear algebra, you were hopefully impressed by the utility of bases. If a vector space \(V\) has basis \(B\text{,}\) then linear transformations \(V\to W\) are the same thing as functions \(B\to W\text{.}\) This observation has a trove of applications, including the encoding of linear transformations as matrices. We can codify this behavior in the categorical language of adjunctions.
Definition 2.8.14. Adjunctions.
Let \(\mathsf C,\mathsf D\) be categories. An adjunction between \(\mathsf C,\mathsf D\) consists of functors \(L\colon \mathsf C\to \mathsf D\) and \(R\colon \mathsf D\to\mathsf C\) along with isomorphisms
\begin{align*} \mathsf D(Lx,y)\amp \xrightarrow{\cong} \mathsf C(x,Ry)\\ f \amp \longmapsto \hat f \end{align*}
for each object \(x\) of \(\mathsf C\) and \(y\) of \(\mathsf D\) that are natural in both \(x\) and \(y\text{.}\)
We call \(L\) left adjoint to \(R\text{,}\) \(R\) right adjoint to \(L\text{,}\) and write \(L\dashv R\text{.}\)
We will consider two motivating examples of adjoint functors: free \(\dashv\) forgetful adjunctions, and the currying adjunction.
Example 2.8.15. Free \(\dashv\) forgetful adjunctions.
Fix a field \(k\) and let \(\mathsf{Vect}_k\) denote the category of \(k\)-vector spaces and linear transformations. The forgetful functor \(U\colon \mathsf{Vect}_k\to \mathsf{Set}\) takes a vector space \(V\) to its underlying set \(UV\) and a linear transformation \(f\colon V\to W\) to its underlying function \(Uf=f\text{.}\)
The free functor \(\operatorname{Free}_k\colon \mathsf{Set}\to \mathsf{Vect}_k\) takes a set \(S\) to the \(k\)-vector space
\begin{equation*} \operatorname{Free}_kS := kS := \bigoplus_{s\in S} k\{s\} \end{equation*}
of (finite) formal \(k\)-linear combinations of elements of \(S\text{.}\) Given a function \(g\colon S\to T\text{,}\) the linear transformation
\begin{equation*} \operatorname{Free}_kg\colon kS\longrightarrow kT \end{equation*}
takes \(\sum_s \lambda_ss\) to \(\sum_s \lambda_sg(s)\text{.}\) (Please recall a sufficient quantity of linear algebra to confirm that this construction is well-defined.)
These functors participate in an adjunction \(\operatorname{Free}_k\dashv U\text{.}\) This means that we have a natural bijection
\begin{equation*} \mathsf{Vect}_k(\operatorname{Free}_kS,V)\xrightarrow{\cong} \mathsf{Set}(S,UV) \end{equation*}
given by restricting linear transformations \(f\colon \operatorname{Free}_kS\to V\) to \(S\text{,}\) i.e., \(\hat f := f|_S\text{.}\) The inverse assignment takes a function \(g\colon S\to UV\) to the linear transformation
\begin{align*} \hat g\colon \operatorname{Free}_kS\amp \longrightarrow V\\ \sum_{s} \lambda_ss\amp\longmapsto \sum_s \lambda_s g(s). \end{align*}
If \(B\) is a basis of vector space \(V\text{,}\) then \(V\cong \operatorname{Free}_k B\text{,}\) and this adjunction tells us that linear transformations from \(V\) are determined by their action on a basis. This is typical of "free \(\dashv\) forgetful" adjunctions, in which maps out of free objects in a category are determined by underlying functions on a generating set. The category of vector spaces is quite special, though, in that every object is free. This is part of what makes linear algebra much easier than, say, group theory.
Example 2.8.16. The currying adjunction.
Let \(S\) be a set and consider the functors
\begin{align*} S\times (-)\colon \mathsf{Set} \amp \longrightarrow \mathsf{Set}\\ T \amp\longmapsto S\times T \end{align*}
and
\begin{align*} (-)^S\colon \mathsf{Set}\amp \longrightarrow \mathsf{Set}\\ T \amp\longmapsto T^S:=\mathsf{Set}(S,T). \end{align*}
(The reader should take a moment to determine what these functors do on functions.)
The currying adjunction \(S\times (-)\dashv (-)^S\) is the natural isomorphism
\begin{align*} \mathsf{Set}(S\times T,U) = U^{S\times T} \amp \xrightarrow{\cong} (U^S)^T = \mathsf{Set}(T,U^S) \\ (f\colon S\times T\to U) \amp \longmapsto (\hat f\colon T\to U^S;~t\mapsto f(-,t)). \end{align*}
Its inverse takes \(g\colon T\to U^S\) to the function
\begin{align*} \hat g\colon S\times T \amp \longrightarrow U\\ (s,t) \amp \longmapsto [g(t)](s). \end{align*}
Aside

Subsection Friday

Subsubsection Units and counits of adjunctions

The data of an adjunction \((L\colon\mathsf C\to \mathsf D)\dashv (R\colon \mathsf D\to \mathsf C)\) is equivalent to a pair of natural transformations
\begin{equation*} \eta\colon \operatorname{id}_{\mathsf C}\longrightarrow RL\qquad\text{and}\qquad \varepsilon\colon LR\longrightarrow \operatorname{id}_{\mathsf D}. \end{equation*}
Given an object \(x\) of \(\mathsf C\text{,}\) the component
\begin{equation*} \eta_x\colon x\longrightarrow RLx \end{equation*}
of \(\eta\) is the adjunct \(\widehat{\operatorname{id}_{Lx}}\) of \(\operatorname{id}_{Lx}\colon Lx\to Lx\text{.}\) Similarly, given an object \(y\) of \(\mathsf D\text{,}\) the component
\begin{equation*} \varepsilon_y\colon LRy\longrightarrow y \end{equation*}
of \(\varepsilon\) is the adjunct \(\widehat{\operatorname{id}_{Ry}}\) of \(\operatorname{id}_{Ry}\colon Ry\to Ry\text{.}\)
Example 2.8.17. The currying unit and counit.
The counit of the currying adjunction is evaluation:
\begin{align*} \operatorname{eval}\colon S\times T^S \amp \longrightarrow T \\ (s,f) \amp \longmapsto f(s). \end{align*}
The unit is the coevaluation map
\begin{align*} \operatorname{coev}\colon U \amp\longrightarrow (S\times U)^S \\ u \amp \longmapsto ((-,u)\colon s\mapsto (s,u)). \end{align*}
Proof.

Subsubsection Adjoints to the forgetful functor from spaces to sets

There is a forgetful functor \(U\colon \mathsf{Top}\to \mathsf{Set}\) given by \(U(X,\tau)=X\) and \(Uf=f\text{.}\) Curiously, it admits both left and right adjoints, which deserve to be called the "free" and "cofree" spaces on a set.
Proof.
We need to show that for any set \(X\) and space \(Y\text{,}\)
\begin{equation*} \mathsf{Top}(DX,Y)\cong \mathsf{Set}(X,UY)\qquad\text{and}\qquad\mathsf{Set}(UY,X)\cong \mathsf{Top}(Y,CX). \end{equation*}
Both adjunct maps are identities as all functions out of discrete spaces are continuous, and all functions into concrete spaces are continuous.
An important corollary of the existence of these adjoints is that all limits and colimits in spaces have underlying sets computed by the corresponding limits and colimits in sets. Here limits generalize constructions like product, and colimits generalize constructions like quotients, coproducts, and pushouts. I will say more about this phenomenon in class.

Subsubsection Stone-Čech compactification

Let \(\mathsf{CH}\) denote the category of compact Hausdorff spaces and continuous functions between them. There is a forgetful functor \(U\colon \mathsf{CH}\to \mathsf{Top}\) that admits a left adjoint
\begin{equation*} \beta\colon \mathsf{Top}\longrightarrow \mathsf{CH} \end{equation*}
called Stone-Čech compactification.
We will only be able to construct \(\beta\) after we have studied function spaces, so we content ourselves with unpacking the consequences of \(\beta\dashv U\) here. Foremost among these is the defining bijection
\begin{equation*} \mathsf{CH}(\beta X,Y)\cong \mathsf{Top}(X,UY) = \mathsf{Top}(X,Y) \end{equation*}
for \(X\) a space and \(Y\) a compact Hausdorff space; the equality holds because the space underlying \(Y\) is just \(Y\text{.}\) This says that a continuous map from \(X\) to a compact Hausdorff space \(Y\) is "the same" as a continuous map from \(\beta X\) to \(Y\text{.}\)
Since \(U\beta X = \beta X\text{,}\) the unit for the \(\beta\dashv U\) adjunction takes the form
\begin{equation*} \eta_X\colon X\longrightarrow \beta X. \end{equation*}
It is in fact the case that \(\eta_X\) is an embedding (homeomorphism onto its image), and the adjunct of a map \(f\colon X\to Y\) to a compact Hausdorff space is an extension of \(f\) across \(\eta_X\text{:}\)
described in detail following the image
A commutative triangle expressing \(f\) as the composite \(\hat f\circ \eta_X\text{.}\)