\documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{report}

\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,graphicx,tikz,amsthm}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usetikzlibrary{arrows,matrix}

\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{Proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}[section]
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{Con}[theorem]{Conjecture}
\newtheorem{Prob}[theorem]{Problem}
\newtheorem{Fact}[theorem]{Fact}
\newtheorem{Remark}[theorem]{Remark}
\newtheorem{Def}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{Example}[theorem]{Example}
\newtheorem{Question}[theorem]{Question}
\newtheorem{Problem}[theorem]{Problem}
%\newtheorem{proof}[theorem]{Proof}
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.5}
\usepackage{pifont,txfonts,geometry,hyperref}
\newcommand{\bcomma}{,\allowbreak}
\renewcommand{\qedsymbol}{$\blacksquare$}
%%%%%%%%% Define operators here %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\DeclareMathOperator{\Aut}{Aut}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Irr}{Irr}
\DeclareMathOperator{\spec}{Spec}
\DeclareMathOperator{\L-spec}{L-Spec}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Q-spec}{Q-Spec}
\DeclareMathOperator{\cent}{Cent}

%%%%%%%%% Set page size and margins here %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}
\setlength{\topskip}{0.275in} % between header and text
\setlength{\textheight}{9in} % height of main text
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.25in} % width of text
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.1in} % odd page left margin
\setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.1in} % even page left margin

%\theoremstyle{definition}
%\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\rm(\alph{enumi})}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\theenumi}
%CAN REFER ITEMS WITH THE ABOVE TWO LINES
\renewcommand{\theenumii}{\rm(\roman{enumii})}
\renewcommand{\labelenumii}{\theenumii}

\begin{document}

\thispagestyle{empty}
\begin{center}
\LARGE\textbf{\textcolor[rgb]{0.47,0.00,0.24}{Title of the project: A
study of C-compactness and its applications}}
\end{center}

\vspace{1cm}

\begin{center}{\\
Submitted in fulfillment of the\\requirements
for the completion of the course \\
MS 517 : Project during the program M.Sc in Mathematics.}
\end{center}

\vspace{1cm}
\begin{center}
\textbf{\textcolor[rgb]{0.35,0.00,0.18}{Submitted by}}\\
\textbf{ \textcolor[rgb]{0.00,0.00,0.44}{Sourabh Pran Saikia}}\\
\textbf{\textcolor[rgb]{0.00,0.00,0.31}{MSM23032}}\\
\textbf{\textcolor[rgb]{0.35,0.00,0.18}{Supervised by}}\\
\textbf{ \textcolor[rgb]{0.00,0.00,0.44}{Dr. Debajit Hazarika }}
\end{center}

\vspace{1cm}

\begin{center}
{\includegraphics[width=4cm]{In.jpg}}
\end{center}

\vspace{1cm}

\begin{center}
\textbf{\textcolor[rgb]{0.35,0.00,0.18}{Submitted to}}\\
\textbf{\textcolor[rgb]{0.00,0.00,0.38}{Department of Mathematical
Sciences}}\\
\textbf{\textcolor[rgb]{0.00,0.00,0.38}{Tezpur University, Napaam}}\\
\textbf{\textcolor[rgb]{0.00,0.00,0.37}{Tezpur-784028}}\\
\textbf{\textcolor[rgb]{0.00,0.00,0.42}{Assam, India}}\\
\textbf{\textcolor[rgb]{0.00,0.00,0.39}{2024}}
\end{center}

\newpage

\pagenumbering{roman}\setcounter{page}{2}

\thispagestyle{plain}
\vspace{1.5 cm}
\begin{center}\LARGE{\bf ABSTRACT} \end{center}

\vspace{1 cm}

Compactness is one of the most important topological properties.There are

different variations as well as generalizations of this notion.

In this project, we are undertaking an in-depth study the the notion of C-

compactness in topological spaces. This notion was introduced by Viglinio in 1969
and continues to be investigated in different directions. We shall look into
various characterizations of C-compactness and its relation with respect to various
other classes of spaces.
In topology, the concept of C-compactness extends the notion of compactness by
focussing on the compactness of closed subsets within a space.
We begin by introducing the fundamental concept of C-compactness comparing it with
other related properties such as compactness and also includes a detailed
examination of various examples of C-compact spaces .

The project presents relevant theorems and their proofs to establish foundational
results regarding C-compact spaces. Additionally, the applications of C-compact in
areas such as functional analysis and algebraic property are explored.

This comprehensive examination highlights the significance of C-compact spaces in

topology and provides a basis for understanding their role in broader mathematical
contexts.

\newpage

\thispagestyle{plain}
\vspace{1.5 cm}
\begin{center}\Large{\underline{\bf DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE}} \
end{center}
\vspace{1cm}

\textsf{I, Sourabh Pran Saikia , do hereby declare that the subject matter in
this project report, is the record of survey work/research work, done by me during
the 3rd semester of my M.Sc. course with full integrity, honesty and concentration
under the immaculate supervision of Dr. Debajit Hazarika , Department of
Mathematical Sciences and submitted to the Department of Mathematical Sciences,
Tezpur University in fulfilment of the requirements for completing the course {\bf
MS 517: Project}.}

\vspace{4cm}
\noindent Date:.......... \\
\noindent Place: ....... \hfill Name of the student

\newpage
\thispagestyle{plain}
\begin{center}\LARGE{\bf ACKNOWLEDGEMENT} \end{center}

\vspace{1cm}

I would like to extend my gratitude to every person who has taken effort in
this project.
However it would not possible without the kind of support and help of many
individuals. I
would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.I am highly indebted to Dr.
Debajit Hazarika sir for his guidance and constant supervision as well as for
providing necessary information
regarding the project and also for his support in completing the project.I would
like to thank
the Head of the Department Mathematical sciences and other faculty members for
their encour-
agement. My Thanks and appreciations go to my family and my friends for being my
constant
source of information.

\vspace{2cm}
 \begin{flushright}
Name of the student
\end{flushright}

\newpage
\thispagestyle{plain}
\vspace{.75cm}

\tableofcontents

\thispagestyle{plain}

\newpage
\pagenumbering{arabic}\setcounter{page}{1}
\thispagestyle{plain}

\chapter{Introduction and Preliminaries}

\section{Introduction}
Topology, as a branch of mathematics, studies the intrinsic properties of
spaces that remain invariant under continuous transformations. It provides a
unified framework to analyze diverse mathematical constructs, ranging from
geometric shapes to function spaces. The foundational concepts in topology are
pivotal to understanding advanced structures and their applications. This chapter
establishes these fundamentals, lays the groundwork by introducing the key
preliminaries, including definitions, theorems, and properties that form the basis
of topological spaces,with a particular emphasis on the concept of C-compact
spaces, a generalization of compactness that has garnered significant interest for
its utility and theoretical depth.
\subsection{Motivation and Scope }

The concept of compactness plays a central role in topology, offering insights into
the structure and behavior of topological spaces. Many theorems in topology, such
as the Heine-Borel Theorem and Tychonoff’s Theorem, hinge on the notion of
compactness. However, as mathematical theory evolves, so does the need to refine
and generalize these foundational ideas. C-compact spaces arise from such a
pursuit, addressing situations where classical compactness may be too restrictive
yet maintaining a similar spirit.

This chapter introduces the basic elements of topology required to understand the
concept of C-compact spaces, starting with fundamental definitions and progressing
to a detailed exposition of compactness and its generalizations. These
preliminaries form the bedrock for subsequent discussions and help bridge the gap
between classical compactness and its nuanced counterparts.
\subsection{Objectives}
The objectives of our project are the following:
\vspace*{-.4cm}
\begin{itemize}
\itemsep-.5em
\item[--] Study the compactness and their properties, examples .
\item[--] Survey some of the forms of variations of compactness or compact.
\item[--] Background study leading to the concept of C-compact spaces.
\item[--] Detailed study of C-compact spaces.
\item[--] To explore some of the various applications of the concept of C-
compact spaces and further possibilities.
\end{itemize}
\section{Fundamental Definitions in toplogy}
Before delving into specialized concepts like C-compactness, it is essential to
revisit some basic definitions that serve as the building blocks of topology:
\begin{definition}

Let \( X \) be a set. A \textit{topology} on \( X \) is a collection \( \mathcal{T}

\) of subsets of \( X \) satisfying the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \( \emptyset \) and \( X \) are in \( \mathcal{T} \).
\item The union of the elements of any sub-collection of \( \mathcal{T} \) is
in \( \mathcal{T} \\
\) (In other words, arbitrary unions of elements of \( \mathcal{T} \) belong to
\( \mathcal{T} \)).
\item The intersection of the elements of any finite sub-collection of \( \
mathcal{T} \) is in \( \mathcal{T} \\
\) (In other words, finite intersections of elements of \( \mathcal{T} \)
belong to \( \mathcal{T} \)).
\end{enumerate}

A set \( X \) together with a topology \( \mathcal{T} \) on \( X \) is called a \

textit{topological space}, denoted by the pair \( (X, \mathcal{T}) \). In other
words, \( (X, \mathcal{T}) \) consists of a set \( X \) and a topology \( \
mathcal{T} \) on \( X \).

Let \( (X, \mathcal{T}) \) be a topological space. A subset \( U \) of \( X \) is

called an \textit{open set} if \( U \in \mathcal{T} \).

\end{definition}
\subsection*{Example 1.1}

Let \( X = \{1, 2, 3\} \). Then \( \mathcal{T} = \{X, \emptyset, \{1\}, \{2\}\} \)
is \textbf{not} a topology on \( X \).
Because \( \{1\} \cup \{2\} = \{1, 2\} \notin \mathcal{T} \).
\subsection*{Example 1.2}
Let \( X = \{1, 2, 3\} \). Then \( \mathcal{T} = \{X, \emptyset, \{2\}, \{3\}, \{1,
2\}, \{2, 3\}, \{1, 3\}\} \) is \textbf{not} a topology on \( X \).
Because \( \{1, 2\} \cap \{1, 3\} = \{1\} \notin \mathcal{T} \).

\subsection*{Example 1.3}
Let \( X = \{1, 2, 3\} \). Then \( \mathcal{T} = \{X, \emptyset, \{3\}, \{1,
2\}\} \) \textbf{is} a topology on \( X \).
It satisfies all the properties listed above in the definition.

\subsection*{Example 1.4}
Let \( X = \{1, 2, 3\} \). Then \( \mathcal{T} = \{X, \emptyset\} \) \textbf{is} a
topology on \( X \).

\begin{definition}
A basis for a topology is a collection of open sets such that every open set
can be expressed as a union of basis elements. A sub-basis is a collection of sets
whose finite intersections form a basis.

\begin{lemma}
Let \( X \) be a set and let \( \mathcal{B} \) be a basis for a topology \( \
mathcal{T} \) on \( X \). Then \( \mathcal{T} \) equals the collection of all
possible unions of elements of \( \mathcal{B} \).
\textbf{Step 1}: Let \( x \in X \). Since \( X = \bigcup \mathcal{S} \), it follows
that \( x \in S_0 \) for some \( S_0 \in \mathcal{S} \). But \( S \in \
mathcal{S} \), and \( S_0 \in \mathcal{S} \subseteq \mathcal{B} \). So \( x \in S_0
\), where \( S_0 \in \mathcal{B} \).

\textbf{Step 2}: Let \( B_1, B_2 \in \mathcal{B} \) and \( x \in B_1 \cap B_2 \).
Observe that
\[
B_1 = S_1 \cap S_2 \cap \cdots \cap S_m, \quad B_2 = S_1' \cap S_2' \cap \cdots \
cap S_n',
\]
where \( S_i, S_i' \in \mathcal{S} \). Let \( B = B_1 \cap B_2 \). We see that
\[
B = B_1 \cap B_2 = S_1 \cap S_2 \cap \cdots \cap S_m \cap S_1' \cap S_2' \cap \
cdots \cap S_n'.
\]
Thus, \( B \in \mathcal{B} \). Hence, \( B \) is a basis element and \( x \in B \
subseteq B_1 \cap B_2 \).

Hence, \( \mathcal{B} \) is a basis for \( \mathcal{T} \).

\end{lemma}
\begin{Remark}
Let \( X \) be a set. Starting with an arbitrary collection \( \mathcal{S} \) of
subsets of \( X \), the union of whose members is \( X \), we can form a basis \( \
mathcal{B} \) for a topology by taking all finite intersections of elements of \( \
mathcal{S} \). The open sets in the topology are all unions of such basis elements.
The collection \( \mathcal{S} \) is known as a \textit{subbasis} for the topology.
\end{Remark}

\end{definition}
\begin{definition}

Let (X, T ) be a topological space and ${A\subseteq X}$. Then collection of

subsets of $S =\{C\;|\;C\subseteq X \}$ is said to be a $ \textbf {cover} $\ of
A,or to be a $\textbf {covering} $\ of A, if $A\subseteq \bigcup_{C\in \
mathcal{S}}C.$
\end{definition}
A cover C is said to be an $\textbf{open cover}$ of X if it comprises of open sets
.

A cover C is said to be a $\textbf{closed cover}$ of X if it comprises of closed

sets.

\begin{Def} A topological space X is said to be compact if every open covering $\

mathcal{U}$ of $ X $ contains a finite sub-collection that covers X.
A finite collection of a cover that is also a cover is called a finite subcover.
Thus, we may also say
A topological space X is said to be compact if every open cover $\mathcal{U}$ of X
contains a finite subcover.
\end{Def}

\begin{Def} A function between the two topological spaces is said to be continuous

if the inverse image of every open set in the co-domain is open in the domain.
\end{Def}

Each of these definitions plays a critical role in understanding the behavior of

spaces and their mappings, paving the way for the study of C-compact spaces.

\section{Towards C-compact space}

The concept of \textit{C-compact spaces} builds upon the classical definition of

compactness. While compactness ensures that every open cover has a finite subcover,
C-compactness introduces a nuanced perspective by involving the closures of open
sets. Specifically, a space is said to be \textit{C-compact} if, for every open
cover \( \mathcal{U} \) of the space, there exists a finite subfamily \( \
mathcal{V} \subseteq \mathcal{U} \) such that the closures of the sets in \( \
mathcal{V} \) still cover the entire space.

This slight modification leads to a richer class of spaces with distinct properties
and applications.

The subsequent sections of this chapter will explore the theoretical framework and
properties of C-compact spaces, situating them within the broader landscape of
topological concepts. By thoroughly understanding these preliminaries, readers will
be equipped to delve into advanced topics in the chapters that follow.

%For next chapter

\newpage
\chapter{Compactness}
\section{Introduction}
In topology, compactness is a fundamental concept that generalizes the notion
of a set being closed and bounded in Euclidean space. Compactness is central in
various branches of mathematics, including real analysis, functional analysis, and
topology. The formal definition of compactness can be stated in several equivalent
ways, depending on the context and the type of space considered. One of the most
well-known results involving compactness is Heine-Borel Theorem, which
characterizes compact subsets of Euclidean space.

\subsection{Definition of Compactness}

In topological spaces, a subset \( K \) of a topological space \( X \) is said to

be compact if every open cover of \( K \) has a finite subcover. This means that if
we cover the set \( K \) with open sets, there is always a finite number of these
open sets that still cover the entire set \( K \).

Formally, a set \( K \subseteq X \) is compact if for every collection of open sets

\( \{ U_\alpha \}_{\alpha \in A} \) such that:
\[
K \subseteq \bigcup_{\alpha \in A} U_\alpha,
\]
there exists a finite subset \( \{\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \dots, \alpha_n\} \subseteq A
\) such that:
\[
K \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^n U_{\alpha_i}.
\]

We may extend the definition to any subset of X as every subset is a subspace, that
is, a topological space in its own right.

A subset A is said to be compact if the subset A, equipped with the subspace

topology is compact.

\section{Some Examples of Compact and Non-Compact}

We now cite some common examples of compact and non-compact spaces.

\subsection*{Example 2.2.1}The real line $R$ is not compact, for the open
covering
$ \mathcal{U}:=\{ (-n,n) \mid n \in \mathbb{Z} \}$,
there is no finite sub-collection that covers $ R $.

\subsection*{Example 2.2.2}As a consequence of the Heine-Borel theorem, every

closed interval [a, b] of $R$ is a compact subset.
In fact, a subset of a Euclidean space $Rn$ is compact iff it is closed and bounded

\subsection*{Example 2.2.3} Let $X$ be an infinite set with indiscrete topology.

Now, if $A$ is a proper subset, then $A$ is compact since the only open cover of
$A$is {X}.
But $A$ is not closed since the only closed subsets are X and $\phi$

\subsection*{Example 2.2.4}The following subspace of R is compact

$X :=\{0\}\cup \{ \frac{1}{n}|n\in \mathbb{N}\}$.
Given an open covering $\mathcal{U} $ of X, there is an element $U$of $\
mathcal{U} $ containing 0. The set $ U $ contains all but finitely many of the
points $ \frac{1}{n} $; let’s choose, for each point of X not in $U$, an element of
$\mathcal{U} $ containing it.
The collection consisting of these elements of $\mathcal{U} $, along with the
element $U$ ,is a finite sub-collection of $\mathcal{U} $ that covers X.

\subsection*{Example 2.2.5}
Every finite subset of a space is necessarily compact.
Thus, any space $X$ containing only finitely many points is compact.

The indiscrete space $X$ and any subspace thereof is compact as its the open cover
is X

\subsection*{Example 2.2.6}

Every co-finite topological space \( (X, \mathcal{T}_c) \) is compact.

\textbf{Proof:}
Let \( U \) be any open cover of \( X \). By the definition of the co-finite
topology \( \mathcal{T}_c \), every member of \( \mathcal{T}_c \) contains all but
a finite number of points of \( X \).

Since \( U \) is an open cover, the union of all sets in \( U \) contains \( X \),

and hence, the finite number of points not contained in any individual open set can
be covered by a finite sub-collection of \( U \).

This implies that \( U \) has a finite subcover.

Therefore, \( (X, \mathcal{T}_c) \) is compact.

\section{Basic Properties of Compactness}

Compact spaces play a central role in topology due to their versatility and useful
properties. They provide a framework to generalize the notion of finiteness in
infinite settings and ensure desirable behaviors. It focuses on the key properties
of compact spaces, explains them in detail, and provides rigorous proofs to
solidify understanding. We shall look into
the hereditary and topological properties of compact spaces.
\subsection{Compactness of subspaces}
The compactness of a subset is independent of the fact whether the openness of the
members of the covers are in the whole space or in the subspace:

\begin{theorem}

Any subspace \( (Y, T_Y) \) of a space \( (X, T) \) is compact if and only if every
covering of \( Y \) by \( T \)-open sets contains a finite sub-collection
covering \( Y \).
\end{theorem}
\textbf{Proof:} Let \( Y \) be a compact subspace. Let \( \mathcal{U} := \{ U_\
alpha \mid \alpha \in \Lambda, U_\alpha \in T \} \) be an open cover of \( Y \) (by
open sets in \( X \)). Then, \( \mathcal{U}' = \{ U_\alpha \cap Y \mid U_\alpha \in
\mathcal{U} \} \) is an open covering (open in \( Y \)) of the subspace \( Y \).
Hence, there exists a finite sub-collection \( \{ U_{\alpha_1} \cap Y, U_{\alpha_2}
\cap Y, \dots, U_{\alpha_n} \cap Y \} \) of \( \mathcal{U}' \) that covers \( Y \)
(since \( Y \) is compact).

This implies
\[
Y = \bigcup_{i=1}^n (U_{\alpha_i} \cap Y).
\]
Since for any \( i \in \{ 1, 2, 3, \dots, n \} \), \( U_{\alpha_i} \cap Y \subseteq
U_{\alpha_i} \), therefore,
\[
Y \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^n U_{\alpha_i}.
\]
Thus, \( \{ U_{\alpha_1}, U_{\alpha_2}, \dots, U_{\alpha_n} \} \) is a sub-
collection of \( \mathcal{U} \) that covers \( Y \).

Conversely, let the given condition hold. Let \( \mathcal{D} := \{ D_\alpha \mid
D_\alpha \in T_Y, \alpha \in \Lambda \} \) be a covering of \( Y \).
Then
\[
Y = \bigcup_{\alpha \in \Lambda} D_\alpha.
\]
Since for any \( D_\alpha \in T_Y \), there exists \( A_\alpha \in T \) such that \
( D_\alpha = A_\alpha \cap Y \),
by equation (1), we have
\[
Y \subseteq \bigcup_{\alpha \in \Lambda} A_\alpha.
\]
Hence, the collection \( \mathcal{A} := \{ A_\alpha \} \) is a covering of \( Y \)
by sets open in \( X \).
So, by the given condition, there exists a finite sub-collection \( \{ A_{\
alpha_1}, A_{\alpha_2}, \dots, A_{\alpha_n} \} \) of \( \mathcal{A} \) such that
\[
Y \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^n A_{\alpha_i}.
\]
But \( Y \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^n A_{\alpha_i} \) implies
\[
Y = Y \cap \left( \bigcup_{i=1}^n A_{\alpha_i} \right).
\]
Thus,
\[
Y = \bigcup_{i=1}^n (A_{\alpha_i} \cap Y).
\]
Since \( D_{\alpha_i} = A_{\alpha_i} \cap Y \in \mathcal{D} \) for \( 1 \leq i \leq
n \),
we have
\[
Y = \bigcup_{i=1}^n D_{\alpha_i},
\]
which shows that \( \{ D_{\alpha_1}, D_{\alpha_2}, \dots, D_{\alpha_n} \} \) is a
sub-collection of \( \mathcal{D} \) that covers \( Y \).
Hence Y is a compact subspace of X.
\begin{theorem}

A closed subspace of a compact space is compact.

\end{theorem}
\textbf{Proof:}

Let \( Y \) be a closed subspace of a compact space \( (X, T) \)

Since \( Y \) is closed, \( X \setminus Y \) is open in \( X \).
Let \( \mathcal{A} = \{ A_\alpha : A_\alpha \text{ open in } Y \} \) be an open
cover of \( Y \) by sets open in \( Y \).
For each \( A_\alpha \in \mathcal{A} \), there exists \( U_\alpha \in T \) (open in
\( X \)) such that \( A_\alpha = U_\alpha \cap Y \).
Thus, we can write \( \mathcal{A} = \{ U_\alpha \cap Y : U_\alpha \in T \} \),
which is an open cover of \( Y \).

Now, the collection \( \{ U_\alpha \} \) clearly covers \( Y \). Define

\[
\mathcal{U} = \{ U_\alpha \} \cup \{ X \setminus Y \}.
\]
Since \( X \setminus Y \) is open and covers no part of \( Y \), \( \mathcal{U} \)
is an open cover of \( X \).

By the compactness of \( X \), there exists a finite sub-collection \( \mathcal{U}'

\subset \mathcal{U} \) such that \( \mathcal{U}' \) covers \( X \). Write
\[
\mathcal{U}' = \{ U_{\alpha_i} : i = 1, 2, \dots, n \} \cup \{ X \setminus Y \}.
\]

Since \( X \setminus Y \) does not intersect \( Y \), the finite collection \( \

{ U_{\alpha_i} : i = 1, 2, \dots, n \} \) covers \( Y \).

Define
\[
\mathcal{B} = \{ U_{\alpha_i} \cap Y : i = 1, 2, \dots, n \}.
\]
Clearly, \( \mathcal{B} \) is a finite sub-collection of \( \mathcal{A} \) that
covers \( Y \).

Thus, \( Y \) is compact. \hfill \( \Box \)

\begin{Remark}

The converse of the above result is not true

i.e., In general, a compact subset of a topological space need not be closed.
\end{Remark}

\subsection*{Example 2.1}
Let $X$ be an infinite set with indiscrete topology.
Now, if $A$ is a proper subset, then $A$ is compact since the only open cover of
$A$ is {$X$}.
But \( A \) is not closed since the only closed subsets are \( X \) and \( \phi \).

\subsection*{Example 2.2}
Consider \( \mathbb{R} \) with the co-finite topology.
Then, \( \mathbb{R} \setminus \{0\} \) is compact. However, it is not closed, as \(
\{0\} \) is not open.

\subsection{Compactness in Hausdroff space}

\begin{lemma}

Disjoint compact subsets in a Hausdorff space can be separated by disjoint open

sets
\end{lemma}
\textbf{Proof :}
Let \( (X, T) \) be a Hausdorff space.
Let \( A \) and \( B \) be disjoint compact subsets of \( X \).
To show that there exist \( U, V \in T \) such that
\[
U \cap V = \phi, \quad A \subseteq U, \quad \text{and} \quad B \subseteq V.
\]
Let \( a \in A \) be arbitrary but fixed, and let \( x \in B \) be arbitrary.
Since \( A \cap B = \phi \), it follows that \( a \neq x \).
Now, as \( X \) is Hausdorff, there exist disjoint open sets \( U_x, V_x \in T \)
such that
\[
a \in U_x \quad \text{and} \quad x \in V_x.
\]
Define the collection \( \mathcal{C}_B = \{ V_x \mid x \in B \} \), which is an
open cover of \( B \).
Since \( B \) is compact, there exist finitely many points \( x_1, x_2, \dots,
x_n \in B \) such that
\[
B \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^n V_{x_i}.
\]
Let \( V_a := \bigcup_{i=1}^n V_{x_i} \) and \( U_a := \bigcap_{i=1}^n U_{x_i} \).
Then \( a \in U_a \) and \( B \subseteq V_a \), and \( V_a \cap U_a = \phi \).
Thus, \( U_a \) and \( V_a \) are disjoint open sets such that \( a \in U_a \)
and \( B \subseteq V_a \).

Now, let \( a \in A \) be arbitrary. Define \( \mathcal{C}_A = \{ U_a \mid a \in

A \} \), which is an open cover of \( A \).
Since \( A \) is compact, there exist finitely many points \( a_1, a_2, \dots,
a_m \in A \) such that
\[
A \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^m U_{a_i}.
\]

Let \( U := \bigcup_{i=1}^m U_{a_i} \) and \( V := \bigcap_{i=1}^m V_{a_i} \).

Then \( U \) and \( V \) are disjoint open subsets such that

\[
A \subseteq U \quad \text{and} \quad B \subseteq V.
\]
(Since \( B \subseteq V_{a_i}, \, \forall i = 1, 2, \dots, m \).)
Hence, the result follows. \hfill \(\Box\)

\begin{theorem}

A compact subspace of a Hausdorff space is closed.

\textbf{Proof :}
Let \( Y \) be a compact subspace of a Hausdorff space \( X \).
Let \( x_0 \) be a point in \( X \setminus Y \).
Then \( \{ x_0 \} \) is a compact subset of \( X \), being a finite subset.
Also, since \( x_0 \in X \setminus Y \), we have \( \{ x_0 \} \) and \( Y \) are
disjoint.

there exist disjoint open sets \( U \) and \( V \) in \( X \) such that

\[
\{ x_0 \} \subseteq U \quad \text{and} \quad Y \subseteq V.
\]
(Since \( X \) is Hausdorff.)
This implies that \( x_0 \in U \) and \( Y \subseteq V \).

Furthermore, \( U \cap V = \emptyset \) and \( Y \subseteq V \) implies \( U \cap Y

= \emptyset \).
This further implies that \( U \subseteq X \setminus Y \).

Thus, for any \( x_0 \in X \setminus Y \), there exists an open set \( U \) such
that
\[
x_0 \in U \quad \text{and} \quad U \subseteq X \setminus Y.
\]

Therefore, \( X \setminus Y \) is open, and consequently, \( Y \) is closed.

Hence, the result follows. \hfill \( \Box \)

\end{theorem}

\subsection{Bolzano Weierstrass property}

Compact spaces have the Bolzano Weierstrass property.

\begin{theorem}

Every infinite subset of a compact space \( X \) has a limit point in \( X \).

\end{theorem}
\textbf{Proof:}
Let \( A \) be an infinite subset of the compact space \( X \).
If possible, assume that \( A \) has no limit point in \( X \).
Then, for any \( x \in X \), there exists an open subset \( U_x \) such that
\[
A \cap (U_x \setminus \{ x \}) = \emptyset.
\]
Let \( \mathcal{A} := \{ U_x \mid x \in X \} \).
Then, \( \mathcal{A} \) is an open cover of \( X \).

By the compactness of \( X \), there exists a finite sub-collection of \( \

mathcal{A} \), say
\[
U_{x_1}, U_{x_2}, \dots, U_{x_n}
\]
such that
\[
X = \bigcup_{i=1}^n U_{x_i}.
\]
Thus, \( A \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^n U_{x_i} \).

From the assumption, we know that for each \( 1 \leq i \leq n \), \( U_{x_i} \)
contains at most one point of $A$.
Therefore, from this observation, we may conclude that \( A \) is finite.

This contradicts the assumption that \( A \) is infinite.

Hence, the result follows. \hfill \( \Box \)

\subsection{A topological property}

Indeed, compactness is a topological property. result.

\begin{theorem}
The image of a compact space under continuous function is compact.
\end{theorem}
\textbf{Proof:}
Let \( \mathcal{U}_Y \) be an open cover of \( f(X) \) by sets open in \( Y \).
By the continuity of \( f \), for each \( U \in \mathcal{U}_Y \), the preimage \
( f^{-1}(U) \) is open in \( X \).
Thus, the collection
\[
\mathcal{U}_X := \{ f^{-1}(U) \mid U \in \mathcal{U}_Y \}
\]
is a covering of \( X \) by sets open in \( X \).

Since \( X \) is compact, there exists finitely many members \( f^{-1}(U_1), f^{-1}

(U_2), \dots, f^{-1}(U_n) \) of \( \mathcal{U}_X \) that cover \( X \).
That is,
\[
X = \bigcup_{i=1}^n f^{-1}(U_i).
\]

This implies that

\[
f(X) \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^n U_i.
\]
Hence, the sets \( U_1, U_2, \dots, U_n \) cover \( f(X) \).

Therefore, \( f(X) \) is compact.

\hfill \( \Box \)

%For next chapter

\newpage
\chapter{C-compact spaces}
\section{Introduction}
In topology, the concept of compactness serves as a cornerstone, capturing a
variety of properties that make compact spaces highly valuable across mathematics.
Compactness, as defined in terms of open covers, ensures that certain limiting
behaviors can be extended from finite or Euclidean spaces to more abstract
settings. However, compactness has seen many variations, developed to address
different properties and coverage types within various topological contexts. One
such variation, known as C-compactness, shifts the focus from open covers to closed
covers. This chapter introduces C-compactness, explores its properties and
characterizations, and establishes how it generalizes the idea of compactness by
expanding the types of covers under consideration.
While compactness is defined in terms of open covers, other types of compactness
consider different forms of covering. In particular, C-compactness is a variant of
compactness that focuses on closed sets rather than open sets.

\subsection{Historical Background}
The concept of C-compactness emerged as a natural extension of classical
compactness in topology, particularly to address situations where the classical
definition, relying on open covers, was not sufficiently general. The classical
notion of compactness, first formalized by Kuratowski and Hausdorff in the early
20th century, focused on the ability of a space to have every open cover possess a
finite subcover. However, in various fields such as algebraic geometry, dynamical
systems, and functional analysis, it became clear that compactness, when defined
using open covers, was not always the most useful or applicable notion.

The idea of C-compactness arose in the mid-20th century as researchers explored

compactness through closed covers, offering a more versatile framework for spaces
where the behavior of open sets was either too complex or not well-suited for
certain types of analysis. Among the prominent contributors to this theory, Viglino
played a crucial role in shaping the development of C-compactness. His work helped
formalize the idea of C-compact spaces, where the focus shifted from open covers to
closed sets and their interaction within a topological space. Viglino's
contributions provided the foundational framework that connected closed covers with
compactness-like properties, allowing the theory to be extended to non-Hausdorff
spaces and spaces with more complex topological structures.
This innovation helped bridge the gap between classical topology and newer branches
of mathematics, including algebraic topology, domain theory, and the study of
lattice spaces, influencing further developments in compactness theory and its
applications. Viglinio’s work remains influential in the development of more
general compactness theories and their applications in mathematical research.
\section{Definition and Examples }
\begin{definition}

A topological space (X,T) is said to be a C-compact if given a closed set of A

of X ($ A\subseteq X $)
and a T-open covering U of A , there is a finite number of elements of U say \( U_i
\) , \( 1\leq i \leq n \),
\(A \subset \bigcup_{i=1}^{n} \overline{U_i} \).
\end{definition}

\subsection{Examples of C-Compact spaces}

\textbf{1. Finite Spaces}

Any finite topological space is \( C \)-compact because every family of closed sets
trivially satisfies the finite intersection property.

\textbf{Example:} Consider the space \( X = \{a, b, c\} \) with any topology. Since
the space has only finitely many subsets, it is \( C \)-compact.

\vspace{0.5cm}

\textbf{2. Compact Spaces}

Every compact space is \( C \)-compact because compactness ensures that the finite
intersection property holds for closed sets.

\textbf{Example:} The closed interval \( [0,1] \) in the standard topology is

compact and therefore \( C \)-compact.

\vspace{0.5cm}

\textbf{3. Sierpiński Space}

The Sierpiński space \( X = \{0, 1\} \) with the topology \( \mathcal{T} = \{\
emptyset, \{1\}, X\} \) is \( C \)-compact.

Any closed subset of \( X \) is either \( \emptyset, \{0\}, \{1\}, \) or \( X \).

The finite intersection property for closed sets holds because the intersection of
finitely many closed sets is still closed.

\vspace{0.5cm}

\textbf{4. Zariski Topology on \( \mathbb{R} \)}

The Zariski topology on \( \mathbb{R} \) is \( C \)-compact.

- Closed sets in this topology are finite sets or the whole space \( \mathbb{R} \).
- Any intersection of finitely many closed sets is non-empty, fulfilling the
requirements of \( C \)-compactness.
\subsection{Examples of non C-compact spaces}

\textbf{1. Infinite Discrete Space}

An infinite discrete space \( X = \mathbb{N} \) (the set of natural numbers with
the discrete topology) is not \( C \)-compact.

\textbf{Reason:}
Closed sets are all subsets of \( \mathbb{N} \).
Consider the family \( \mathcal{F} = \{F_n \mid n \in \mathbb{N}\} \), where \( F_n
= \{n\} \).
Each \( F_n \) is closed, and \( \bigcap_{n \in \mathbb{N}} F_n = \emptyset \).
However, there is no finite subfamily of \( \mathcal{F} \) with the same
intersection property, violating \( C \)-compactness.

\vspace{0.5cm}

\textbf{2. Co-finite Topology on \( \mathbb{R} \)}

The co-finite topology on \( \mathbb{R} \) (where closed sets are finite subsets or
the whole space \( \mathbb{R} \)) is not \( C \)-compact.

\textbf{Reason:}
Let \( A = \{0\} \) and \( \mathcal{F} = \{F_n = \mathbb{R} \setminus \{n\} \mid
n \in \mathbb{N}\} \).
Each \( F_n \) is closed, and \( \bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}} F \cap A = \
emptyset \).
However, no finite subfamily of \( \mathcal{F} \) satisfies the same intersection
property.

\vspace{0.5cm}

\textbf{3. Open Unit Interval \( (0, 1) \)}

The open interval \( (0, 1) \) in the standard topology is not \( C \)-compact.

\textbf{Reason:}
Consider \( A = [1/2, 3/4] \) and the family \( \mathcal{F} = \{F_n = [1/2 - 1/n,
3/4 + 1/n] \cap (0, 1)\} \).
Each \( F_n \) is closed, and \( \bigcap_{n \in \mathbb{N}} F_n \cap A = [1/2, 3/4]
\cap (0, 1) \).
However, no finite subfamily of \( \mathcal{F} \) satisfies the \( C \)-compactness
condition.

\vspace{0.5cm}

\textbf{4. Infinite Product of Non-Compact Spaces}

An infinite product of non-compact spaces (e.g., \( \mathbb{R}^\mathbb{N} \) with

the product topology) is generally not \( C \)-compact.

\textbf{Reason:}
Closed sets in infinite products often fail the finite intersection property unless
additional compactness assumptions are made.

\section{C-compact space and Hausdroff Space}

It is well known that every continuous function from a compact space to a Hausdroff
space is closed. We show this property holds for a class of spaces which properly
contains the class of compact spaces and which, when restricted to Hausdorff
spaces, is properly contained in the class of minimal Hausdorff spaces.
\begin{theorem}

Let \( X \) be \( C \)-compact. Then every continuous function from \( X \) into a

Hausdorff space is closed.
\end{theorem}
\textbf{Proof}

Let \( f: X \to Y \) be a continuous function, where \( Y \) is a Hausdorff space.

Let \( C \) be a closed subset of \( X \), and let \( p \notin f(C) \). For each \(
x \in f(C) \), choose an open neighborhood \( O_x \) of \( x \) in \( Y \) such
that
\[
p \notin \overline{O_x}.
\]

Then the preimages \( f^{-1}(O_x) \), for \( x \in f(C) \), form an open cover of \
( C \).
Since \( X \) is \( C \)-compact, the closed set \( C \) is covered by a finite
subcollection of these preimages. That is, there exist points \( x_1, x_2, \dots,
x_n \in f(C) \) such that
\[
C \subseteq f^{-1}(O_{x_1}) \cup f^{-1}(O_{x_2}) \cup \dots \cup f^{-1}(O_{x_n}).
\]

By the continuity of \( f \), this implies

\[
f(C) \subseteq O_{x_1} \cup O_{x_2} \cup \dots \cup O_{x_n}.
\]

Define
\[
U = O_{x_1} \cup O_{x_2} \cup \dots \cup O_{x_n}.
\]

Then \( U \) is an open neighborhood of \( f(C) \) in \( Y \), and \( p \notin \

overline{U} \) by construction.
Thus, \( f(C) \) is closed in \( Y \).

\begin{definition}

A topological space \( (X, \mathcal{T}) \) is said to be \textbf{minimal Hausdorff}

if there does not exist any Hausdorff topology \( \mathcal{T}' \) on \( X \) such
that \( \mathcal{T}' \subsetneq \mathcal{T} \).

\end{definition}

\begin{theorem}
For a topological space \( X \), the following implications hold:

\[
\text{Compactness} \implies \text{\( C \)-compactness} \rightarrow \text{Minimal
Hausdorff}.
\]

\end{theorem}
\textbf{Proof:}

\subsection*{1. Compactness \( \implies \) \( C \)-compactness}

Let \( X \) be a compact space. By definition, every open cover of \( X \) has a

finite subcover.
To show that \( X \) is \( C \)-compact, let \( A \) be a closed subset of \( X \)
and \( \mathcal{F} \) a family of closed sets in \( X \) such that
\[
\bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}} F \cap A = \emptyset.
\]
The complements of \( \mathcal{F} \), \( \mathcal{U} = \{ X \setminus F \mid F \
in \mathcal{F} \} \), form an open cover of \( A \).
By compactness, there exists a finite subcover \( \mathcal{U}' = \{ U_1, U_2, \
dots, U_n \} \), with \( U_i = X \setminus F_i \), such that
\[
A \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^n U_i.
\]
Thus,
\[
\bigcap_{i=1}^n F_i \cap A = \emptyset.
\]
Taking interiors, we have
\[
\bigcap_{i=1}^n \operatorname{Int}(F_i) \cap A = \emptyset,
\]
proving that \( X \) is \( C \)-compact.

\subsection*{2. \( C \)-compactness \( \rightarrow \) Minimal Hausdorff}

Let \( X \) be \( C \)-compact. Assume \( X \) is not minimal Hausdorff.

Then there exists a strictly weaker Hausdorff topology \( \mathcal{T}' \subsetneq \
mathcal{T} \).

In \( \mathcal{T}' \), let \( A \) be a closed subset and \( \mathcal{G} \) an open

filter-base with every \( G \in \mathcal{G} \) intersecting \( A \), but having no
adherent point in \( A \).
Since \( \mathcal{T}' \) is strictly weaker, \( A \) and \( \mathcal{G} \) satisfy
the \( C \)-compactness condition in \( \mathcal{T} \), meaning there must be an
adherent point in \( A \). This contradicts the assumption that \( X \) is \( C \)-
compact in \( \mathcal{T} \).
Hence, \( X \) must be minimal Hausdorff.

\begin{theorem}

For any topological space \( X \), the following properties of \( X \) are

equivalent:

\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] \( X \) is \textbf{C-compact}.
\item[(2)] If \( A \) is a closed set of \( X \) and \( \mathcal{F} \) is a
family of closed sets of \( X \) with
\[
\bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}} F \cap A = \emptyset,
\]
then there exists a finite subcollection of \( \mathcal{F} \), say \( F_1, F_2,
\dots, F_n \), such that
\[
\bigcap_{i=1}^n \operatorname{Int}(F_i) \cap A = \emptyset.
\]
\item[(3)] If \( A \) is a closed set of \( X \) and \( \mathcal{G} \) is an
open filter-base on \( X \) such that every \( G \in \mathcal{G} \) has a non-empty
intersection with \( A \), then there exists an adherent point of \( \mathcal{G} \)
in \( A \).
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\textbf{Proof:}

\textbf{(1) \( \Rightarrow \) (2):}

Let \( A \) be a closed subset of a \( C \)-compact space \( X \), and let \( \
mathcal{F} \) be a family of closed sets of \( X \) such that
\[
\bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}} F \cap A = \emptyset.
\]
Define \( \mathcal{U} = \{ X \setminus F \mid F \in \mathcal{F} \} \), which is a
family of open sets of \( X \) that covers \( A \).
Since \( X \) is \( C \)-compact, there exists a finite subfamily \( \mathcal{U}' \
subseteq \mathcal{U} \), say \( \mathcal{U}' = \{U_i \mid 1 \leq i \leq n\} \) with
\( U_i = X \setminus F_i \), such that
\[
\bigcup_{i=1}^n U_i \supseteq A.
\]
Thus,
\[
A \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^n (X \setminus F_i) \implies \bigcap_{i=1}^n F_i \cap A =
\emptyset.
\]
Taking interiors, we have
\[
\bigcap_{i=1}^n \operatorname{Int}(F_i) \cap A = \emptyset,
\]
which proves (2).

\vspace{0.5cm}

\textbf{(2) \( \Rightarrow \) (3):}

Assume that there exists a closed set \( A \) and an open filter-base \( \
mathcal{G} \) on \( X \) such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item Every \( G \in \mathcal{G} \) satisfies \( G \cap A \neq \emptyset \).
\item \( \mathcal{G} \) has no adherent point in \( A \).
\end{itemize}

Define \( \mathcal{F} = \{ X \setminus G \mid G \in \mathcal{G} \} \), which is a

family of closed sets in \( X \).
Since \( \mathcal{G} \) has no adherent point in \( A \),
\[
\bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}} F \cap A = \emptyset.
\]
By (2), there exists a finite subfamily \( \{F_1, F_2, \dots, F_n\} \subseteq \
mathcal{F} \) such that
\[
\bigcap_{i=1}^n \operatorname{Int}(F_i) \cap A = \emptyset.
\]
Since \( F_i = X \setminus G_i \) for some \( G_i \in \mathcal{G} \), this implies
\[
\bigcap_{i=1}^n G_i \cap A = \emptyset.
\]
However, since \( \mathcal{G} \) is a filter-base, any finite intersection of its
elements is non-empty. Hence, there exists some \( G \in \mathcal{G} \) with \( G \
cap A = \emptyset \), contradicting the assumption on \( \mathcal{G} \).
Thus, (3) holds.

\vspace{0.5cm}

\textbf{(3) \( \Rightarrow \) (1):}

Assume that \( X \) is not \( C \)-compact. Then there exists a closed set \( A \)
and a family of closed sets \( \mathcal{F} \) such that
\[
\bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}} F \cap A = \emptyset,
\]
but no finite subfamily of \( \mathcal{F} \) satisfies
\[
\bigcap_{i=1}^n F_i \cap A = \emptyset.
\]

Define \( \mathcal{G} = \{ X \setminus F \mid F \in \mathcal{F} \} \), which is an

open filter-base. Each \( G \in \mathcal{G} \) satisfies \( G \cap A \neq \emptyset
\), since \( \bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}} F \cap A = \emptyset \).
By (3), there must exist an adherent point of \( \mathcal{G} \) in \( A \),
contradicting the assumption that \( \bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}} F \cap A = \
emptyset \).
Thus, \( X \) must be \( C \)-compact.

\subsection*{Example 3.3.1 A minimal Hausdroff Space which is not C-compact}

Let \( E = \mathbb{R} \cup \{a, b\} \cup \{0\} \), where \( \mathbb{R} \) denotes
the set of nonnegative real numbers, and \( a \) and \( b \) are two distinct
points not in \( \mathbb{R} \). The topology on \( E \) is defined as follows:

\begin{itemize}
\item The set \( \mathbb{R} \) is given the usual topology.
\item The neighborhood system for \( a \) is
\[
\mathcal{W}(a) = \{ V \subseteq E \mid V = \{a\} \cup \bigcup_{n \geq 0} [2n,
2n + 1] \},
\]
where \( n \) is a non-negative integer.
\item The neighborhood system for \( b \) is
\[
\mathcal{W}(b) = \{ V \subseteq E \mid V = \{b\} \cup \bigcup_{n \geq 0} [2n -
1, 2n] \}.
\]
\end{itemize}

The set \( \mathbb{R} \), with its usual topology, is embedded in \( E \).

Now, let \( X = \mathbb{R} \cup \{\infty\} \) denote the one-point compactification

of \( \mathbb{R} \). Consider the function \( f: E \to X \) defined as follows:
\[
f(x) =
\begin{cases}
x & \text{if } x \in \mathbb{R}, \\
\infty & \text{if } x = a \text{ or } x = b.
\end{cases}
\]

The function \( f \) is clearly continuous but not closed. For instance, the set \(
\{a, b\} \) is closed in \( E \), but its image under \( f \) is \( \{\infty\} \),
which is not closed in \( X \).

Thus, \( E \) is not \( C \)-compact.

\subsection*{Example 3.3.2}
There exists a \( C \)-compact Hausdorff space \( X \) and a compact Hausdorff
space \( Y \) such that \( X \times Y \) is not \( C \)-compact. An example of such
a space \( X \) was constructed by Viglino, where \( X \) is \( C \)-compact
Hausdorff but not compact. This example is illustrated below

Let
\[
X = \{(a, b) \mid a = 1/n, b = 1/m \text{ or } a = 1/n, b = 0 \text{ or } a = 0, b
= 0; \, n, m \in \mathbb{N} \},
\]
where \( \mathbb{N} \) denotes the set of all positive integers.

\subsection*{Partitioning of \( \mathbb{N} \)}

Partition \( \mathbb{N} \) into infinitely many infinite disjoint classes, \( \

{ N_i \}_{i \in \mathbb{N}} \), such that:
\[
\mathbb{N} = \bigcup_{i \in \mathbb{N}} N_i \quad \text{and} \quad N_i \cap N_j = \
emptyset \quad \text{for } i \neq j.
\]
\subsection*{Topology of \( X \)}

Define subsets of \( X \) as follows:

1. For each \( i, k \in \mathbb{N} \), define:

\[
H_{i,k} = \{ (1/i, 0) \} \cup \{ (1/i, 1/m) \mid m \geq k, m \in N_i \}.
\]

2. Define:
\[
L = \{ (0, 0) \} \cup \{ (1/n, 1/m) \mid n > k, m \in N_i, \, 1 \leq i \leq
k \}.
\]

Let \( T \) be the topology on a set \( X \) generated by the basis

\[
\mathcal{B} = \{(1/n, 1/m) \mid n, m \in \mathbb{N}\} \cup \{H_i \mid i \in \
mathbb{N}\} \cup \{L_k \mid k \in \mathbb{N}\},
\]
where \( H_i \) and \( L_k \) are additional subsets of \( X \).

The topological space \( (X, T) \) is \( C \)-compact and Hausdorff but not

compact.

Now, consider the space \( Y = \{y_1, y_2, y_3, \dots\} \cup \{\infty\} \), which
is the one-point compactification of the countable discrete space \( \{y_1, y_2,
y_3, \dots\} \).

Define the set

\[
A = \{(1/n, 0; y_n) \mid n \in \mathbb{N}\} \subseteq X \times Y.
\]
It can be shown that \( A \) is closed in \( X \times Y \).

Let \( U = \{H_n \times \{y_n\} \mid n \in \mathbb{N}\} \) be an open cover of \( A

\), where \( H_n \) are open sets in \( X \) and \( \{y_n\} \) are points in \
( Y \). Since \( U \) is an open cover of \( A \), we analyze its properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item The cover \( U \) consists of open sets in the product topology of \( X \
times Y \).
\item There is no finite subfamily of \( U \) whose closures cover \( A \).
\end{itemize}

Thus, the product space \( X \times Y \) is not \( C \)-compact.

\section{Properties of \( C \)-compactness}

\subsection*{ Property 1 :
Every Compact Space is \( C \)-Compact}

\textbf{Proof:}
Let \( X \) be a compact space. For any closed subset \( A \subseteq X \) and any
family of closed sets \( \mathcal{F} \) such that:
\[
\bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}} F \cap A = \emptyset,
\]
we must show there exists a finite subfamily \( \mathcal{F}_0 \subseteq \mathcal{F}
\) such that:
\[
\bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}_0} \operatorname{Int}(F) \cap A = \emptyset.
\]

Define \( \mathcal{U} = \{ X \setminus F \mid F \in \mathcal{F} \} \), which is a

family of open sets that covers \( A \):
\[
\bigcup_{F \in \mathcal{F}} (X \setminus F) \supseteq A.
\]

Since \( X \) is compact, there exists a finite subfamily \( \mathcal{F}_0 \

subseteq \mathcal{F} \) such that:
\[
\bigcup_{F \in \mathcal{F}_0} (X \setminus F) \supseteq A.
\]

Taking complements, we get:

\[
\bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}_0} F \cap A = \emptyset,
\]
which implies:
\[
\bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}_0} \operatorname{Int}(F) \cap A = \emptyset.
\]

Thus, \( X \) is \( C \)-compact.

\textbf{Example:} The closed interval \( [0, 1] \) in \( \mathbb{R} \) is compact,

and hence it is \( C \)-compact.

\subsection*{Property 2: Every Closed Subset of a \( C \)-Compact Space is \( C \)-

Compact}

\textbf{Proof:}
Let \( X \) be a \( C \)-compact space, and let \( A \subseteq X \) be closed.
Consider \( B \subseteq A \), and let \( \mathcal{F} \) be a family of closed sets
in \( A \) such that:
\[
\bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}} F \cap B = \emptyset.
\]

Since \( A \) is closed in \( X \), every closed set in \( A \) is also closed in \

( X \). Thus, \( \mathcal{F} \) can be viewed as a family of closed sets in \
( X \).

By \( C \)-compactness of \( X \), there exists a finite subfamily \( \mathcal{F}_0

\subseteq \mathcal{F} \) such that:
\[
\bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}_0} \operatorname{Int}(F) \cap B = \emptyset.
\]

Hence, \( A \) satisfies the \( C \)-compactness condition.

\textbf{Example:} In \( \mathbb{R} \), the closed interval \( [0, 1] \) is \( C \)-
compact, and its closed subsets such as \( [0, \frac{1}{2}] \) are also \( C \)-
compact.

\subsection*{Property 3: The Product of a \( C \)-Compact Space with a Compact

Space is not Necessarily \( C \)-Compact}

\textbf{Counter example:}
Let \( X \) be Viglino's \( C \)-compact Hausdorff space, which is not compact, and
let \( Y = [0, 1] \), a compact Hausdorff space. The product \( X \times Y \) is
not \( C \)-compact.

The construction involves defining a family of closed sets \( \mathcal{F} \) in \

( X \times Y \) such that:
\[
\bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}} F = \emptyset,
\]
but no finite subfamily satisfies the \( C \)-compact condition. This shows that \(
C \)-compactness does not behave well under finite products.

\subsection*{Property 4: The Image of a \( C \)-Compact Space Under a Continuous

Map is \( C \)-Compact}

\textbf{Proof:}
Let \( f: X \to Y \) be a continuous function, and let \( X \) be \( C \)-compact.
To show that \( f(X) \) is \( C \)-compact, let \( A \subseteq f(X) \) be closed in
\( f(X) \), and let \( \mathcal{F} \) be a family of closed sets in \( f(X) \) such
that:
\[
\bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}} F \cap A = \emptyset.
\]

For each \( F \in \mathcal{F} \), \( f^{-1}(F) \) is closed in \( X \) because \( f

\) is continuous. Moreover, \( f^{-1}(A) \) is closed in \( X \).

Since \( X \) is \( C \)-compact, there exists a finite subfamily \( \

mathcal{F}_0 \subseteq \mathcal{F} \) such that:
\[
\bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}_0} \operatorname{Int}(f^{-1}(F)) \cap f^{-1}(A) = \
emptyset.
\]

Applying \( f \), we get:

\[
\bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}_0} \operatorname{Int}(F) \cap A = \emptyset.
\]

Thus, \( f(X) \) is \( C \)-compact.

\subsection*{Property 5: Every \( C \)-Compact Space is Minimal Hausdorff}

\textbf{Proof:}
Let \( X \) be a \( C \)-compact Hausdorff space. Assume there exists a strictly
weaker Hausdorff topology \( \mathcal{T}' \) on \( X \).

Since \( \mathcal{T}' \) is weaker, every open set in \( \mathcal{T}' \) is also

open in \( \mathcal{T} \), but not vice versa.

This weaker topology \( \mathcal{T}' \) would violate the \( C \)-compact condition

because certain closed subsets and their interactions with open sets (filter bases)
would fail to have adherent points.

Hence, \( X \) cannot have a strictly weaker Hausdorff topology, and \( X \) is

minimal Hausdorff.

\newpage
\chapter{Application of C-compact spaces}
\section{Introduction}

In topology, compactness is a fundamental concept that captures a form of

“finiteness” and helps in analyzing continuity, convergence, and coverage
properties of spaces. The standard notion of compactness requires that every open
cover has a finite subcover, which is restrictive in certain contexts, especially
in spaces where open covers are either too complex or where closed sets provide a
more natural structure.

C-compactness (or closed-cover compactness) offers a more flexible alternative by

requiring that every closed cover has a finite subcover, which is particularly
useful in non-Hausdorff spaces and other contexts where classical compactness may
fail.

This chapter explores C-compactness, delving into how it is used in different

branches of mathematics, especially in spaces where the classical compactness
condition is either too restrictive or not applicable. By examining various
examples and applications, we can appreciate

C-compactness as a tool for studying topological properties in fields like non-

Hausdorff topology, lattice theory, dynamical systems, functional analysis, and
computer science

\section{Applications}

\subsection{ Algebraic Geometry and Zariski Topology}

In algebraic geometry, the Zariski topology is a non-Hausdorff topology where
closed sets are defined as the zero sets of polynomials.

\subsubsection*{Relevance of \( C \)-Compactness}
\begin{itemize}
\item The finite intersection property in \( C \)-compact spaces ensures that
the intersection of finitely many closed sets is non-empty when working in the
Zariski topology.
\item This allows for reasoning about solutions to polynomial equations in
general settings.
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection*{Proof}
Let \( X = \mathbb{A}^n \) (affine \( n \)-space) with the Zariski topology, and
consider a collection of closed sets \( \{V(I_\alpha)\}_{\alpha \in \mathcal{A}} \)
defined by ideals \( I_\alpha \). If
\[
\bigcap_{\alpha \in \mathcal{A}} V(I_\alpha) = \emptyset,
\]
it implies \( \sum_{\alpha \in \mathcal{A}} I_\alpha = R \). For \( C \)-compact \(
X \), any closed subset \( A \subseteq X \) satisfies:
\[
\exists \, I_{\alpha_1}, \dots, I_{\alpha_n} \; \text{such that} \; \sum_{i=1}^n
I_{\alpha_i} = R,
\]
ensuring \( \bigcap_{i=1}^n V(I_{\alpha_i}) = \emptyset \).

\subsubsection*{Example}
Let \( X = \mathbb{A}^2 \) with Zariski topology. Consider closed sets:
\[
V(f_1) = \{(x, y) \in X \mid f_1(x, y) = 0\}, \quad V(f_2) = \{(x, y) \in X \mid
f_2(x, y) = 0\},
\]
where \( f_1(x, y) = x \) and \( f_2(x, y) = y \). The intersection \( V(f_1) \cap
V(f_2) \) corresponds to the ideal \( \langle x, y \rangle \). \( C \)-compactness
ensures this result holds finitely.

\subsection{ Dynamical Systems}

Dynamical systems involve studying limit sets, recurrence, and invariant sets. \( C
\)-compactness simplifies analysis in systems without classical compactness.

\subsubsection*{Relevance of \( C \)-Compactness}
\begin{itemize}
\item \( C \)-compactness guarantees limit points for filter-bases intersecting
a closed set, simplifying recurrence behavior.
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection*{Example}
Let \( X \) model a phase space, and \( A \subseteq X \) be a closed invariant set.
Suppose \( \{x_n\} \subseteq A \) with infinite recurrence. By \( C \)-compactness:
\[
\bigcap_{i=1}^n \operatorname{Int}(F_i) \neq \emptyset \quad \text{for closed
neighborhoods \( F_i \)},
\]
ensuring the existence of a limit point in \( A \).

\subsection{ Lattice Theory and Order Topologies}

In lattice theory, closed sets correspond to intervals or subsets closed under meet
and join.

\subsubsection*{Relevance of \( C \)-Compactness}
\begin{itemize}
\item \( C \)-compactness ensures the finite intersection property for
descending chains of closed intervals.
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection*{Example}
Let \( L \) be a complete lattice with interval topology. If \( L \) is \( C \)-
compact:
\[
\bigcap_{i=1}^n [a_i, b_i] \neq \emptyset \quad \text{for descending chains of
intervals.}
\]
This property is crucial in domain theory and lattice-based logic.
\subsection{ Spectral Theory}
Spaces such as \( \operatorname{Spec}(R) \) (spectrum of a ring) are topologies
where closed sets represent prime ideals.

\subsubsection*{Relevance of \( C \)-Compactness}
\begin{itemize}
\item Ensures intersections of prime ideals remain non-empty for finite
subfamilies.
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection*{Example}
Let \( R = k[x, y] \) and \( \operatorname{Spec}(R) \) with Zariski topology.
Consider prime ideals \( P_1, \dots, P_n \). \( C \)-compactness ensures:
\[
\bigcap_{i=1}^n V(P_i) = \emptyset \implies \bigcup_{i=1}^n P_i = R,
\]
validating computations in algebraic geometry.

\subsection{ Product Topologies}

Infinite product spaces rarely satisfy classical compactness, but \( C \)-
compactness often suffices.

\subsubsection*{Relevance of \( C \)-Compactness}
\begin{itemize}
\item Ensures finite intersection property for closed sets in infinite-
dimensional topologies.
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection*{Example}
Let \( X = \prod_{n \in \mathbb{N}} X_n \), with \( X_n \) \( C \)-compact. For any
finite family of closed sets \( \mathcal{F} \subseteq \mathcal{T} \):
\[
\bigcap_{F \in \mathcal{F}} F \neq \emptyset,
\]
demonstrating \( C \)-compactness properties.

\section{Benefits of C-Compactness over Classical Compactness}

C-compactness provides several advantages over classical compactness in specific

contexts:

\subsection*{Extended Applicability: }

C-compactness can apply in non-Hausdorff spaces, where classical compactness is

often too restrictive. This extended applicability allows for continuity and
convergence analysis in spaces that are not separated.
\subsection*{Finite Intersection Property:}
Since C-compact spaces have the finite intersection property for closed sets, they
allow for a stronger form of convergence in certain topological spaces. This is
particularly valuable in areas like lattice theory and spectral theory, where
closed-set intersections play a crucial role.
\subsection*{Simplified Conditions in Dynamical Systems: }

C-compactness supports compactness-like behavior in dynamical systems without

requiring full open-cover compactness. This can simplify the study of limit sets
and trajectories in such systems.
\newpage
\chapter{Relation between C-compact and other Compactness properties}
\section{Introduction}

Compactness is a fundamental concept in topology, providing a framework to

generalize the notion of bounded and closed subsets in Euclidean spaces. Among the
variations of compactness, \( C \)-compactness emerges as a pivotal concept,
extending the idea of compactness by focusing on closed covers instead of open
covers. This modification allows \( C \)-compactness to encompass spaces that do
not meet the traditional criteria of compactness, making it highly versatile in
various mathematical contexts.

The study of \( C \)-compactness in relation to other compactness properties, such

as classical compactness, countable compactness, sequential compactness, and
Lindelöf compactness, reveals a rich tapestry of interactions and distinctions.
While classical compactness implies \( C \)-compactness, the reverse is not
necessarily true, highlighting the broader applicability of \( C \)-compactness.
Similarly, \( C \)-compactness interacts with countable and sequential compactness
in ways that demonstrate their independence, providing insights into the structure
and behavior of topological spaces under different compactness criteria.

This chapter aims to explore these relationships in depth, offering precise

definitions, examples, and counterexamples to illustrate the interplay between \( C
\)-compactness and other compactness properties. By doing so, it provides a
comprehensive understanding of how \( C \)-compactness complements and diverges
from traditional notions of compactness, enriching the study of topology and its
applications.

\section{ Relation Between \( C \)-Compactness and Classical Compactness}

\subsection{Definitions}
\textbf{Classical Compactness:} A topological space \( X \) is compact if every
open cover of \( X \) has a finite subcover.

\textbf{\( C \)-Compactness:} A topological space \( X \) is \( C \)-compact if

every closed cover of \( X \) has a finite subcover.

\subsection{Relationship and Proof}

Every compact space is \( C \)-compact, but the converse is not true. This means
compactness implies \( C \)-compactness, but there are spaces that are \( C \)-
compact but not compact.

\subsubsection{Proof that Compactness Implies \( C \)-Compactness}

Suppose \( X \) is a compact space. By definition, this means that for any open
cover of \( X \), there exists a finite subcover.

Now, consider a closed cover \( \{C_\alpha\}_{\alpha \in A} \) of \( X \). Since

each \( C_\alpha \) is closed, \( X \setminus C_\alpha \) is open, and the
collection \( \{X \setminus C_\alpha\}_{\alpha \in A} \) forms an open cover of \
( X \). By the compactness of \( X \), there exists a finite subcollection \( \{X \
setminus C_{\alpha_i}\}_{i=1}^n \) that covers \( X \). This implies:
\[
X = \bigcup_{i=1}^n (X \setminus C_{\alpha_i}),
\]
and taking complements gives:
\[
X = C_{\alpha_1} \cup C_{\alpha_2} \cup \dots \cup C_{\alpha_n}.
\]
Thus, \( \{C_{\alpha_i}\}_{i=1}^n \) is a finite subcover of \( \{C_\alpha\}_{\
alpha \in A} \), proving that \( X \) is \( C \)-compact.

\subsubsection*{Counterexample: \( C \)-Compact but Not Compact}

The Sorgenfrey line (the real line \( \mathbb{R} \) with the lower limit topology)
is an example of a \( C \)-compact space that is not compact. The Sorgenfrey line
is not compact because it does not have the finite subcover property for open
covers (e.g., the cover \( \{[n, n+1)\}_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \) has no finite
subcover). However, it is \( C \)-compact because every closed cover has a finite
subcover.

\section{ Relation Between \( C \)-Compactness and Countable Compactness}

\subsection{Definitions}
\textbf{Countable Compactness:} A space \( X \) is countably compact if every
countable open cover of \( X \) has a finite subcover.

\textbf{\( C \)-Compactness:} A space \( X \) is \( C \)-compact if every closed

cover of \( X \) has a finite subcover.

\subsection{Relationship}
Countable compactness does not imply \( C \)-compactness, nor does \( C \)-
compactness imply countable compactness. These properties are independent.

\subsubsection{Example: Countably Compact but Not \( C \)-Compact}

The countable complement topology on an uncountable set \( X \) (where a subset is
open if it is empty or has a countable complement) is countably compact because any
countable open cover will include all but a countable subset of \( X \). However,
it is not \( C \)-compact because there exists a closed cover (the complement of
each point in \( X \)) that cannot be reduced to a finite subcover.

\subsubsection{Example: \( C \)-Compact but Not Countably Compact}

The Sorgenfrey line is \( C \)-compact but not countably compact. Since countable
compactness requires every countable open cover to have a finite subcover, and the
Sorgenfrey line fails to meet this criterion, it illustrates a case of a space that
is \( C \)-compact without being countably compact.

\section{ Relation Between \( C \)-Compactness and Sequential Compactness}

\subsection{Definitions}
\textbf{Sequential Compactness:} A space \( X \) is sequentially compact if every
sequence in \( X \) has a convergent subsequence.

\textbf{\( C \)-Compactness:} A space \( X \) is \( C \)-compact if every closed

cover of \( X \) has a finite subcover.

\subsection{Relationship}
Sequential compactness does not imply \( C \)-compactness, and \( C \)-compactness
does not imply sequential compactness.

\subsubsection{Example: Sequentially Compact but Not \( C \)-Compact}

The ordinal space \( [0, \omega_1) \) (the space of all countable ordinals with the
order topology) is sequentially compact but not \( C \)-compact. Any sequence in \(
[0, \omega_1) \) has a convergent subsequence due to the well-ordered nature of the
ordinals, making it sequentially compact. However, it is not \( C \)-compact
because it is not compact.
\subsubsection{Example: \( C \)-Compact but Not Sequentially Compact}
The Sorgenfrey line is \( C \)-compact but not sequentially compact. Sequences in
the Sorgenfrey line do not necessarily have convergent subsequences, demonstrating
that \( C \)-compactness and sequential compactness are independent properties.

\section{ Relation Between \( C \)-Compactness and Lindelöf Compactness}

\subsection{Definitions}
\textbf{Lindelöf Compactness:} A space \( X \) is Lindelöf if every open cover of \
( X \) has a countable subcover.

\textbf{\( C \)-Compactness:} A space \( X \) is \( C \)-compact if every closed

cover of \( X \) has a finite subcover.

\subsection{Relationship}
Lindelöf compactness does not imply \( C \)-compactness, nor does \( C \)-
compactness imply Lindelöf compactness.

\subsubsection{Example: Lindelöf but Not \( C \)-Compact}

The real line \( \mathbb{R} \) with the standard topology is Lindelöf because every
open cover has a countable subcover. However, it is not \( C \)-compact, as there
exist closed covers without finite subcovers.

\subsubsection{Example: \( C \)-Compact but Not Lindelöf}

The Sorgenfrey plane \( \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R} \) with the product of the
Sorgenfrey topology is \( C \)-compact but not Lindelöf, as it does not have the
countable subcover property for all open covers.

%For last chapter

\chapter{Summary/Conclusion and Scope of further study}

\section{Summary/Conclusion}

\section{Scope of further study}

\begin{thebibliography}{33}
\bibitem{F1}
Castelaz, A.~Commutivity degree of finite groups.~Thesis,~Department of
Mathematics,~ Wake Forest University,~North Carolina,~5-8, 2010.

\bibitem{C1}
Cerf, V.,~Fernandez, E.,~Gostelow, K.,~and~Volausky, S.~ Formal control
and low properties of a model of computation. Report ENG 7178, Computer Science
Department, University of California, Los Angles, CA,~pp. 81, 1997.

\bibitem{E2}
Dutta, P.~and~Nath, R.K.~Autocommuting probability of a finite
group.~{\em Communications in Algebra},~46(3):961-969, 2018.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}