Talk:Cantor space

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What about 2^S where S is uncountable? Should that be included among what are called Cantor spaces? (It can be shown that every Boolean space, i.e., every totally disconnected compact Hausdorff space, is a compact subspace of one of these.) Michael Hardy 03:29, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. And this may seem unnecessarily fussy to remark, but if Cantor space is unique up to homeomorphism, why does this article keep referring to it with the indefinite article? I understand that there are many distinct, homeomorphic realisations of the Cantor set (space), but when talking about it where it doesn't matter what the concrete representation of it is, can't it just be called "the Cantor space"? We talk about "the long line", or "the Sierpinski space", not "a long line" or "a Sierpinski space". Revolver

If someone has a reference for referring to an uncountable product of 2, as a Cantor space, fine, though I've never heard that usage. But it's certainly not "Cantor space"; Cantor space is separable. --Trovatore 06:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Willard's General Topology (p. 121) defines a Cantor space as any product (possibly uncountable) of a finite discrete space. The Cantor set is homeomorphic to 2^N and therefore a Cantor space. -- Fropuff 07:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, sounds like something should be said about this usage, then. Whoever incorporates it, please make sure to distinguish a Cantor space from Cantor space. (The problem with the edit I reverted is that, to me and I think to most set theorists, "Cantor space" with no article means the unique topological space homeomorphic to 2^ω. Could be either "Cantor space" or "the Cantor space"; means the same thing. "A Cantor space" sounds different.) --Trovatore 07:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We could remove the ambiguity by always calling 2^ω the Cantor set, and use Cantor space for the general case; with a remark to the effect that the Cantor space always refers to the Cantor set. (Err, maybe that's too confusing.) -- Fropuff 07:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with that. Descriptive set theorists call 2^ω "Cantor space", not "the Cantor set". The latter sounds like the middle-thirds set to me. I think we should keep 2^ω as the primary meaning of "Cantor space" with no article, and mention that some general topologists call 2 to any discrete space "a Cantor space". (I suspect the latter usage is not all that widespread; if I'm wrong about that we might have to do something like Baire space vs Baire space (set theory), except this time 2^ω should get primary billing.) --Trovatore 16:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't even seen this talk page when I created the article Cantor cube! Well, see it for arbitrary products of 2. Melchoir 21:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)