Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
http -> https (the question was bumped anyway)
Source Link
Martin Sleziak
  • 4.6k
  • 3
  • 34
  • 40

I am trying to understand the characterization of the class of closed embeddings into a normal Hausdorff space as the class of continuous maps satisfying the left lifting property with respect to a unique map, presented in https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/colimits+of+normal+spaces. The last change made in this page is anonymous but I have found a paper not giving more details in http://mishap.sdf.org/https://mishap.sdf.org/.

First of all, if the rule is $a<b$ if and only if $b$ is in the closure of $a$, the poset given in the nLab page is the wrong one: it should be $a>b<c>d<e$ because the closed points are $a,c,e$ (there is also a typo in the description of the closed points) and the points $b,d$ are open.

For the author of this note (I guess M. Gavrilovich), a continuous map is a closed embedding into a normal Hausdorff space if and only if it satisfies the LLP with respect to the map $$ g:\{a>b<c>d<e\} \longrightarrow \{a>b=c=d<e\} $$

Could someone explain what seems to be evident for the author of this note please ?

What I can understand is that a map $\varnothing\to X$ satisfies the LLP with respect to $g$ if and only if $X$ is normal (but not necessarily Hausdorff). Indeed, assume the LLP. Take two disjoint closed subsets $A$ and $E$ of $X$ taken to the closed points $a$ and $e$ respectively of $\{a>b=c=d<e\}$; the other points of $X$ are taken to the open point $b=c=d$. Then the existence of the lift $\ell:X\to \{a>b<c>d<e\}$ provides two closed subsets $F_1=\ell^{-1}(\{a,b,c\})$ and $F_2=\ell^{-1}(\{c,d,e\})$. Then $F_1^c \cap F_2^c=\varnothing$. And $E\subset F_1^c$ and $A\subset F_2^c$. Hence $X$ is normal. Conversely, if $X$ is normal, then the LLP is satisfied.

I do not understand either why the Tietze extension theorem is mentioned which is a characterization of normal Hausdorff spaces.

I am trying to understand the characterization of the class of closed embeddings into a normal Hausdorff space as the class of continuous maps satisfying the left lifting property with respect to a unique map, presented in https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/colimits+of+normal+spaces. The last change made in this page is anonymous but I have found a paper not giving more details in http://mishap.sdf.org/.

First of all, if the rule is $a<b$ if and only if $b$ is in the closure of $a$, the poset given in the nLab page is the wrong one: it should be $a>b<c>d<e$ because the closed points are $a,c,e$ (there is also a typo in the description of the closed points) and the points $b,d$ are open.

For the author of this note (I guess M. Gavrilovich), a continuous map is a closed embedding into a normal Hausdorff space if and only if it satisfies the LLP with respect to the map $$ g:\{a>b<c>d<e\} \longrightarrow \{a>b=c=d<e\} $$

Could someone explain what seems to be evident for the author of this note please ?

What I can understand is that a map $\varnothing\to X$ satisfies the LLP with respect to $g$ if and only if $X$ is normal (but not necessarily Hausdorff). Indeed, assume the LLP. Take two disjoint closed subsets $A$ and $E$ of $X$ taken to the closed points $a$ and $e$ respectively of $\{a>b=c=d<e\}$; the other points of $X$ are taken to the open point $b=c=d$. Then the existence of the lift $\ell:X\to \{a>b<c>d<e\}$ provides two closed subsets $F_1=\ell^{-1}(\{a,b,c\})$ and $F_2=\ell^{-1}(\{c,d,e\})$. Then $F_1^c \cap F_2^c=\varnothing$. And $E\subset F_1^c$ and $A\subset F_2^c$. Hence $X$ is normal. Conversely, if $X$ is normal, then the LLP is satisfied.

I do not understand either why the Tietze extension theorem is mentioned which is a characterization of normal Hausdorff spaces.

I am trying to understand the characterization of the class of closed embeddings into a normal Hausdorff space as the class of continuous maps satisfying the left lifting property with respect to a unique map, presented in https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/colimits+of+normal+spaces. The last change made in this page is anonymous but I have found a paper not giving more details in https://mishap.sdf.org/.

First of all, if the rule is $a<b$ if and only if $b$ is in the closure of $a$, the poset given in the nLab page is the wrong one: it should be $a>b<c>d<e$ because the closed points are $a,c,e$ (there is also a typo in the description of the closed points) and the points $b,d$ are open.

For the author of this note (I guess M. Gavrilovich), a continuous map is a closed embedding into a normal Hausdorff space if and only if it satisfies the LLP with respect to the map $$ g:\{a>b<c>d<e\} \longrightarrow \{a>b=c=d<e\} $$

Could someone explain what seems to be evident for the author of this note please ?

What I can understand is that a map $\varnothing\to X$ satisfies the LLP with respect to $g$ if and only if $X$ is normal (but not necessarily Hausdorff). Indeed, assume the LLP. Take two disjoint closed subsets $A$ and $E$ of $X$ taken to the closed points $a$ and $e$ respectively of $\{a>b=c=d<e\}$; the other points of $X$ are taken to the open point $b=c=d$. Then the existence of the lift $\ell:X\to \{a>b<c>d<e\}$ provides two closed subsets $F_1=\ell^{-1}(\{a,b,c\})$ and $F_2=\ell^{-1}(\{c,d,e\})$. Then $F_1^c \cap F_2^c=\varnothing$. And $E\subset F_1^c$ and $A\subset F_2^c$. Hence $X$ is normal. Conversely, if $X$ is normal, then the LLP is satisfied.

I do not understand either why the Tietze extension theorem is mentioned which is a characterization of normal Hausdorff spaces.

Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
added 61 characters in body
Source Link

I am trying to understand the characterization of the class of closed embeddings into a normal Hausdorff space as the class of continuous maps satisfying the left lifting property with respect to a unique map, presented in https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/colimits+of+normal+spaces. The last change made in this page is anonymous but I have found a paper not giving more details in http://mishap.sdf.org/.

First of all, if the rule is $a<b$ if and only if $b$ is in the closure of $a$, the poset given in the nLab page is the wrong one: it should be $a>b<c>d<e$ because the closed points are $a,c,e$ (there is also a typo in the description of the closed points) and the points $b,d$ are open.

For the author of this note (I guess M. Gavrilovich), a continuous map is a closed embedding into a normal Hausdorff space if and only if it satisfies the LLP with respect to the map $$ g:\{a>b<c>d<e\} \longrightarrow \{a>b=c=d<e\} $$

Could someone explain what seems to be evident for the author of this note please ?

What I can understand is that a map $\varnothing\to X$ satisfies the LLP with respect to $g$ if and only if $X$ is normal (but not necessarily Hausdorff). Indeed, assume the LLP. Take two disjoint closed subsets $A$ and $E$ of $X$ taken to the closed points $a$ and $e$ respectively of $\{a>b=c=d<e\}$; the other points of $X$ are taken to the open point $b=c=d$. Then the existence of the lift $\ell:X\to \{a>b<c>d<e\}$ provides two closed subsets $F_1=\ell^{-1}(\{a,b,c\})$ and $F_2=\ell^{-1}(\{c,d,e\})$. Then $F_1^c \cap F_2^c=\varnothing$. And $E\subset F_1^c$ and $A\subset F_2^c$. Hence $X$ is normal. Conversely, if $X$ is normal, then the LLP is satisfied. Moreover, 

I do not understand either why the Tietze extension theorem is mentionnedmentioned which is a characterization of Hausdorff normal Hausdorff spaces.

I am trying to understand the characterization of the class of closed embeddings into a normal Hausdorff space as the class of continuous maps satisfying the left lifting property with respect to a unique map, presented in https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/colimits+of+normal+spaces. The last change made in this page is anonymous but I have found a paper not giving more details in http://mishap.sdf.org/.

First of all, if the rule is $a<b$ if and only if $b$ is in the closure of $a$, the poset given in the nLab page is the wrong one: it should be $a>b<c>d<e$ because the closed points are $a,c,e$ (there is also a typo in the description of the closed points) and the points $b,d$ are open.

For the author of this note (I guess M. Gavrilovich), a continuous map is a closed embedding into a normal Hausdorff space if and only if it satisfies the LLP with respect to the map $$ g:\{a>b<c>d<e\} \longrightarrow \{a>b=c=d<e\} $$

Could someone explain what seems to be evident for the author of this note please ?

What I can understand is that a map $\varnothing\to X$ satisfies the LLP with respect to $g$ if and only if $X$ is normal (but not necessarily Hausdorff). Indeed, assume the LLP. Take two disjoint closed subsets $A$ and $E$ of $X$ taken to the closed points $a$ and $e$ respectively of $\{a>b=c=d<e\}$. Then the existence of the lift $\ell:X\to \{a>b<c>d<e\}$ provides two closed subsets $F_1=\ell^{-1}(\{a,b,c\})$ and $F_2=\ell^{-1}(\{c,d,e\})$. Then $F_1^c \cap F_2^c=\varnothing$. And $E\subset F_1^c$ and $A\subset F_2^c$. Hence $X$ is normal. Conversely, if $X$ is normal, then the LLP is satisfied. Moreover, I do not understand why the Tietze extension theorem is mentionned which is a characterization of Hausdorff normal spaces.

I am trying to understand the characterization of the class of closed embeddings into a normal Hausdorff space as the class of continuous maps satisfying the left lifting property with respect to a unique map, presented in https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/colimits+of+normal+spaces. The last change made in this page is anonymous but I have found a paper not giving more details in http://mishap.sdf.org/.

First of all, if the rule is $a<b$ if and only if $b$ is in the closure of $a$, the poset given in the nLab page is the wrong one: it should be $a>b<c>d<e$ because the closed points are $a,c,e$ (there is also a typo in the description of the closed points) and the points $b,d$ are open.

For the author of this note (I guess M. Gavrilovich), a continuous map is a closed embedding into a normal Hausdorff space if and only if it satisfies the LLP with respect to the map $$ g:\{a>b<c>d<e\} \longrightarrow \{a>b=c=d<e\} $$

Could someone explain what seems to be evident for the author of this note please ?

What I can understand is that a map $\varnothing\to X$ satisfies the LLP with respect to $g$ if and only if $X$ is normal (but not necessarily Hausdorff). Indeed, assume the LLP. Take two disjoint closed subsets $A$ and $E$ of $X$ taken to the closed points $a$ and $e$ respectively of $\{a>b=c=d<e\}$; the other points of $X$ are taken to the open point $b=c=d$. Then the existence of the lift $\ell:X\to \{a>b<c>d<e\}$ provides two closed subsets $F_1=\ell^{-1}(\{a,b,c\})$ and $F_2=\ell^{-1}(\{c,d,e\})$. Then $F_1^c \cap F_2^c=\varnothing$. And $E\subset F_1^c$ and $A\subset F_2^c$. Hence $X$ is normal. Conversely, if $X$ is normal, then the LLP is satisfied. 

I do not understand either why the Tietze extension theorem is mentioned which is a characterization of normal Hausdorff spaces.

added 612 characters in body
Source Link

I am trying to understand the characterization of the class of closed embeddings into a normal Hausdorff space as the class of continuous maps satisfying the left lifting property with respect to a unique map, presented in https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/colimits+of+normal+spaces. The last change made in this page is anonymous but I have found a paper not giving more details in http://mishap.sdf.org/.

First of all, if the rule is $a<b$ if and only if $b$ is in the closure of $a$, the poset given in the nLab page is the wrong one: it should be $a>b<c>d<e$ because the closed points are $a,c,e$ (there is also a typo in the description of the closed points) and the points $b,d$ are open.

For the author of this note (I guess M. Gavrilovich), a continuous map is a closed embedding into a normal Hausdorff space if and only if it satisfies the LLP with respect to the map $$ \{a>b<c>d<e\} \longrightarrow \{a>b=c=d<e\} $$$$ g:\{a>b<c>d<e\} \longrightarrow \{a>b=c=d<e\} $$

Could someone explain what seems to be evident for the author of this note please ?

What I can understand is that a map $\varnothing\to X$ satisfies the LLP with respect to $g$ if and only if $X$ is normal (but not necessarily Hausdorff). Indeed, assume the LLP. Take two disjoint closed subsets $A$ and $E$ of $X$ taken to the closed points $a$ and $e$ respectively of $\{a>b=c=d<e\}$. Then the existence of the lift $\ell:X\to \{a>b<c>d<e\}$ provides two closed subsets $F_1=\ell^{-1}(\{a,b,c\})$ and $F_2=\ell^{-1}(\{c,d,e\})$. Then $F_1^c \cap F_2^c=\varnothing$. And $E\subset F_1^c$ and $A\subset F_2^c$. Hence $X$ is normal. Conversely, if $X$ is normal, then the LLP is satisfied. Moreover, I do not understand why the Tietze extension theorem is mentionned which is a characterization of Hausdorff normal spaces.

I am trying to understand the characterization of the class of closed embeddings into a normal Hausdorff space as the class of continuous maps satisfying the left lifting property with respect to a unique map, presented in https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/colimits+of+normal+spaces. The last change made in this page is anonymous but I have found a paper not giving more details in http://mishap.sdf.org/.

First of all, if the rule is $a<b$ if and only if $b$ is in the closure of $a$, the poset given in the nLab page is the wrong one: it should be $a>b<c>d<e$ because the closed points are $a,c,e$ (there is also a typo in the description of the closed points) and the points $b,d$ are open.

For the author of this note (I guess M. Gavrilovich), a continuous map is a closed embedding into a normal space if and only if it satisfies the LLP with respect to the map $$ \{a>b<c>d<e\} \longrightarrow \{a>b=c=d<e\} $$

Could someone explain what seems to be evident for the author of this note please ?

I am trying to understand the characterization of the class of closed embeddings into a normal Hausdorff space as the class of continuous maps satisfying the left lifting property with respect to a unique map, presented in https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/colimits+of+normal+spaces. The last change made in this page is anonymous but I have found a paper not giving more details in http://mishap.sdf.org/.

First of all, if the rule is $a<b$ if and only if $b$ is in the closure of $a$, the poset given in the nLab page is the wrong one: it should be $a>b<c>d<e$ because the closed points are $a,c,e$ (there is also a typo in the description of the closed points) and the points $b,d$ are open.

For the author of this note (I guess M. Gavrilovich), a continuous map is a closed embedding into a normal Hausdorff space if and only if it satisfies the LLP with respect to the map $$ g:\{a>b<c>d<e\} \longrightarrow \{a>b=c=d<e\} $$

Could someone explain what seems to be evident for the author of this note please ?

What I can understand is that a map $\varnothing\to X$ satisfies the LLP with respect to $g$ if and only if $X$ is normal (but not necessarily Hausdorff). Indeed, assume the LLP. Take two disjoint closed subsets $A$ and $E$ of $X$ taken to the closed points $a$ and $e$ respectively of $\{a>b=c=d<e\}$. Then the existence of the lift $\ell:X\to \{a>b<c>d<e\}$ provides two closed subsets $F_1=\ell^{-1}(\{a,b,c\})$ and $F_2=\ell^{-1}(\{c,d,e\})$. Then $F_1^c \cap F_2^c=\varnothing$. And $E\subset F_1^c$ and $A\subset F_2^c$. Hence $X$ is normal. Conversely, if $X$ is normal, then the LLP is satisfied. Moreover, I do not understand why the Tietze extension theorem is mentionned which is a characterization of Hausdorff normal spaces.

Source Link
Loading