No CrossRef data available.
Shape morphisms and components of movable compacta
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2008
Extract
The relationship between components and movability for compacta (i.e. compact metric spaces) was described by Borsuk in [5]. Borsuk proved that if each component of a compactum X is movable, then so is X. More recently Segal and Spiez[19], motivated by results of Alonso Morón[1], have constructed a (non-compact) metric space X of small inductive dimension zero and such that X is non-movable. The construction of Segal and Spiez was based on the famous space of P. Roy [16]. On the other hand, K. Borsuk gave in [5] an example of a movable compactum with non-movable components. The structure of such compacta was studied by Oledzki in [15], where he obtained an interesting result stating that if X is a movable compactum then the set of movable components of X is dense in the space of components of X. Oledzki's result was later strengthened by Nowak[14], who proved that if all movable components of a movable compactum X are of deformation dimension at most n, then so are the non-movable components and the compactum X itself.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , Volume 103 , Issue 3 , May 1988 , pp. 481 - 486
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge Philosophical Society 1988
References
REFERENCES
[1]Alonso-Morón, M.. Prabir Roy's space Δ as a counter-example in shape theory. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 98 (1986), 187–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Alonso-Morón, M.. On the problem of components in Shape Theory for metrizable spaces. Preprint.Google Scholar
[3]Ball, B. J.. Partitioning shape-equivalent spaces. Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. Sér. Sci. Math. 29 (1981), 491–497.Google Scholar
[4]Borsuk, K.. Theory of Retracts. Monografie Matematyczne no. 44 (Polish Scientific Publishers, 1967).Google Scholar
[6]Borsuk, K.. Theory of Shape. Monografie Matematyczne no. 59 (Polish Scientific Publishers, 1975).Google Scholar
[7]Borsuk, K.. On the Lusternik–Schnirelman category in the theory of shape. Fund. Math. 99 (1978), 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Čerin, Z.. Locally compact spaces 
-tame at infinity. Publ. Inst. Math. (Beograd) (N.S.) 22 (36) (1977), 49–59.Google Scholar
-tame at infinity. Publ. Inst. Math. (Beograd) (N.S.) 22 (36) (1977), 49–59.Google Scholar[9]Dydak, J. and Segal, J.. Shape Theory: An Introduction. Lecture Notes in Math. vol. 688 (Springer-Verlag, 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Godlewski, S.. On the shape of MAR and MANR-spaces. Fund. Math. 88 (1975), 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Kodama, Y.. Decomposition spaces and shape in the sense of Fox. Fund. Math. 97 (1977), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Nowak, S.. Remarks on same shape properties of the components of movable compacta. Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. Sér. Sci. Math. 27 (1979), 315–319.Google Scholar
[15]Oledzki, J.. On the space of components of an R-movable compactum. Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. Sér. Sci. Math. 22 (1974), 1239–1244.Google Scholar
[16]Roy, P.. Failure of equivalence of dimension concepts for metric spaces. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 68 (1962), 609–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Sanjurjo, J. M. R.. On a theorem of B. J. Ball. Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. Sér. Sci. Math. 33 (1985), 177–180.Google Scholar
[18]Sanjurjo, J. M. R.. On the shape category of compacta. J. London Math. Soc. (2) 34 (1986), 559–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar