 Solution

Define compactly supported cohomology byFor $K\subseteq L$, the transition map is induced by the identity map of pairs $(X,X\setminus L)\to (X,X\setminus K)$. Equivalently, take the cochain complex of singular cochains that vanish on every chain contained in the complement of some compact set. Directed unions are exact, giving the same definition.

For $\mathbb{R}$, the intervals $[-a,a]$, $a>0$, are cofinal among compact subsets. The complement has two contractible components. The long exact sequence in relative cohomology contains the diagonal map $\mathbb{Z}\to \mathbb{Z}\oplus \mathbb{Z}$, so its cokernel is $H^1(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\setminus [-a,a])\cong \mathbb{Z}$, and all the other relative groups vanish. Enlarging the interval preserves the generator given by the difference of the two ends. Therefore

For the compact-support comparison with a one-point compactification, write $Y=X^{+}$. The assumed Hausdorff one-point compactification is compact; a compact subset $K\subseteq X$ is closed in $Y$. The Excision theorem removes $\{\infty \}$ from the pair $(Y,Y\setminus K)$, because its closure lies inside the open second member. ThusComplements of compact subsets of $X$ are exactly the open neighbourhoods of $\infty$ in $Y$. The hypothesis supplies a cofinal family of contractible such neighbourhoods $U$. For every one, the long exact sequence of the pair identifiesIn degree zero, this is the kernel of evaluation on the component of $\infty$, identified with reduced cohomology by subtracting the constant value there. In degree one the map $H^0(Y)\to H^0(U)\cong \mathbb{Z}$ is surjective; in higher degrees the positive cohomology of $U$ vanishes. These identifications are natural for inclusions of contractible neighbourhoods. Passing to the direct limit proves

For the specified disjoint union of lines, a compact subset meets only finitely many components and is bounded in each. Finite unions $F\times [-a,a]$, with $F\subset \mathbb{Z}$ finite, are cofinal. Applying the preceding relative calculation componentwise givesThe one-point compactification $W$ of this space is the Hawaiian earring: each line becomes a circle by adding the common point $\infty$, and every neighbourhood of $\infty$ contains all but finitely many whole circles. On the remaining finitely many circles it contains neighbourhoods of the common point. This describes exactly the shrinking-circle topology. In particular $W$ is not locally contractible at $\infty$: every such neighbourhood contains a whole circle, whose generator remains nontrivial under the retraction $W\to S^1$ that collapses all the other circles.

For integral singular cohomology, the comparison does not hold. Here is a degree-two obstruction that takes account of the shrinking-circle topology. The standard rational summand in Hawaiian earring homology theorem gives a direct summand $\mathbb{Q}$ in $H_1(W;\mathbb{Z})$. The universal coefficient theorem for cohomology injectsThe summand $\mathbb{Q}$ therefore contributes the nonzero Ext of the rationals with integer coefficients.

For completeness, this last algebraic assertion has an explicit proof. Present $\mathbb{Q}$ using generators $a_n=1/n!$ and relations $a_n-(n+1)a_{n+1}=0$, $n\ge 1$. The corresponding free resolution shows that ${\mathrm{Ext}}_{\mathbb{Z}}^1(\mathbb{Q},\mathbb{Z})$ is the cokernel ofThe constant sequence $(1,1,\dots )$ is not in the image. Otherwise iteration would giveFor large $N$, the factorial sum exceeds $|u_1|$ but is less than $(N+1)!-|u_1|$, making that congruence impossible. Thus the cokernel is nonzero. It follows thatwhich proves the failure of the claimed isomorphism. The ingredient concerning the Hawaiian earring is its singular-homology structure theorem, not the homology of an infinite CW complex wedge of circles; these topologies differ.