Past exam of the topology course of the University of Oxford / 2017 (A13757W1, A5)

Source paper: released examination archive, member 2016/T/a13757w1.pdf. The printed cover dates the examination to 21 June 2017.

Complete source recovery: additional Oxford examination release, member FOI-20210708-1 - Data/a13757w1 (2).pdf, supplies all four printed pages, including questions 1–2 missing from the earlier copy. Questions 1–2 are solved below; the five existing solutions to question 3 are retained unchanged.

Answer availability checked on 28 October 2026: no exact-paper or selected-part solution advertisement was found in a bounded search of official Oxford sources. Oxford states that odd-year examination solutions are not released apart from the 2019 exception.^[ref]

A subset $K$ is compact if every open cover has a finite subcover. Explicitly, if $U_i$ are open sets of $X$ and $K\subseteq {\bigcup }_{i\in I}{U}_i$, there are finitely many indices $i_1,\dots ,i_m$ such thatEquivalently, the subspace topology makes $K$ a compact space. An open set in this subspace topology is $K\cap U$ for an ambient open set $U$, which proves equivalence of the two open cover formulations. The empty set is compact: the empty selection is a finite subcover.

Assume $K$ is compact, and let the closed subsets $F_i$ of $K$ have the finite intersection property. If their total intersection were empty, their complements $K\setminus F_i$ would form an open cover of $K$. A finite subcover would givecontradicting the finite intersection property. Therefore the total intersection is nonempty.

Conversely, assume the stated nonempty-intersection property for every family of closed subsets of $K$. Given an open cover $\{V_i:i\in I\}$ of $K$ in its subspace topology, set $F_i=K\setminus V_i$. Their total intersection is empty. By the contrapositive of the assumed property, this family fails the finite intersection property; hence some finite $J\subseteq I$ satisfiesThis is a finite subcover, proving compactness. Both directions are instances of De Morgan's laws. Thus compactness is equivalent to the finite intersection characterization of compactness.

For completeness, the intersection of the empty family of subsets of $K$ is $K$. If $K$ is empty, no family has the finite intersection property when the empty finite subfamily is included, so the implication remains valid.

Let $F$ be a closed subset of the compact space $X$. Express an arbitrary open cover of $F$ in its subspace topology as $\{F\cap U_i:i\in I\}$, where the $U_i$ are open sets of $X$. Since $X\setminus F$ is open, the familyis an open cover of $X$. Take a finite subcover and discard $X\setminus F$ if it occurs. The remaining finitely many $U_i$ still cover $F$, since the discarded set contains no point of $F$. Their traces on $F$ give the required finite subcover. Hence every closed subset of a compact space is compact, with no Hausdorff assumption.

For every $k\in K$, the Hausdorff condition gives disjoint open neighbourhoods $U_k$ of $k$ and $V_k$ of $x$. The $U_k$ form an open cover of $K$, so choose a finite subcover $U_{k_1},\dots ,U_{k_m}$. PutThen $U,V$ are open sets, $K\subseteq U$ and $x\in V$. If a point belonged to $U\cap V$, it would belong to some $U_{k_j}$ and to $V_{k_j}$, contrary to their choice. ThusThe finiteness matters: a finite intersection of open sets is open. This is separation of a point and a compact set. If $K=\varnothing$, use $U=\varnothing$, $V=X$.

Every $x\in X\setminus K$ consequently has an open neighbourhood $V$ contained in $X\setminus K$. The complement is open, so a compact subset of a Hausdorff space is closed.

The conclusion can fail without the Hausdorff condition. Take the two-point set $X=\{0,1\}$ with the indiscrete topology $\{\varnothing ,X\}$. The singleton $K=\{0\}$ is compact, since one member of any open cover suffices. It is not closed, because its complement $\{1\}$ is not open. The two points cannot have disjoint open neighbourhoods, so this example is indeed not Hausdorff.

A subset $A$ is connected when it is a connected space in its subspace topology: there is no separation of a topological spaceinto two nonempty disjoint open subsets of $A$. Equivalently, the only clopen sets of $A$ are $\varnothing$ and $A$.

Since the given $A$ is not connected, choose such $P,Q$. Each is the complement of the other in $A$, so both are also closed subsets of $A$. They are compact by the closed subset of a compact space result. We now separate these two compact subsets by ambient open sets.

For each $p\in P$, part (b), applied to $Q$ and $p$, gives disjoint ambient open sets $G_p,H_p$ with $p\in G_p$ and $Q\subseteq H_p$. Choose $p_1,\dots ,p_m$ such that the $G_{p_j}$ cover $P$, using its compactness. DefineThen $P\subseteq U$, $Q\subseteq V$, and $U,V$ are disjoint open sets. Indeed a point of $U$ lies in some $G_{p_j}$, whereas every point of $V$ lies in the corresponding $H_{p_j}$. ConsequentlyThis proves the requested ambient separation, using the more general separation of disjoint compact subsets. The initially given relatively open sets $P,Q$ need not themselves be open in $X$; the finite construction supplies ambient open neighbourhoods.

Write $K={\bigcap }_{i\in I}{K}_i$. Each $K_i$ is closed in $X$, by the compact subset of a Hausdorff space theorem. Therefore $K$ is closed, and is compact because $X$ is compact. The nonempty finite intersections give the finite intersection property, so part (a)(ii) also yields $K\ne \varnothing$.

Suppose $K$ were not connected. Part (c) would give disjoint open sets $U,V$ containing $K$ in their union and each meeting $K$. LetThis is a closed subset of the compact space $X$, and $C\cap {\bigcap }_{i\in I}{K}_i=\varnothing$. Apply the contrapositive of the finite intersection characterization of compactness to the family of closed sets $\{C\}\cup \{K_i:i\in I\}$. Some finite subfamily has empty intersection. Since every finite intersection of just the $K_i$ is nonempty, that subfamily must include $C$. Thus for some finite $J\subseteq I$,But $K\subseteq K_J$ and $K$ meets both $U$ and $V$. Therefore $K_J\cap U$ and $K_J\cap V$ are nonempty disjoint relatively open sets covering $K_J$, contradicting its assumed connectedness. This provesThis is connectedness of an intersection from connected finite intersections. If $I=\varnothing$, its intersection is $X$; the stated hypothesis for the finite set $J=\varnothing$ already makes $X$ nonempty and connected, so that case is included.

A topological space is Hausdorff when any two distinct points have disjoint open neighbourhoods.

Any two nonempty open sets of the infinite cofinite topology intersect: their complements are finite sets, so the complement of their intersection is a finite union of finite sets and cannot be all of $Z$. Thus $Z$ is a hyperconnected space.

If the continuous map $f$ took distinct values at $s,t\in Z$, choose disjoint open neighbourhoods $G,H$ of $f(s),f(t)$ in the Hausdorff space $Y$. By continuity, $f^{-1}(G)$ and $f^{-1}(H)$ would be nonempty disjoint open sets of $Z$, a contradiction. ThereforeThe proof establishes the general fact that continuous maps from an infinite cofinite space to a Hausdorff space are constant.

A homeomorphism is a bijection for which both the function and its inverse are continuous maps.

Let $f:X\to Y$ satisfy the given assumptions. For a closed subset $F$ of $X$, the closed subset of a compact space theorem makes $F$ compact. The continuous image of a compact space theorem makes $f(F)$ compact. Because $Y$ is Hausdorff, its compact subset $f(F)$ is closed. Thus $f$ is a closed map.

For $g=f^{-1}:Y\to X$, the inverse image of a closed set $F\subseteq X$ iswhich is closed in $Y$. The closed-set criterion for continuity therefore makes $g$ continuous. Hence $f$ is a homeomorphism, proving the compact-to-Hausdorff continuous bijection theorem.

The set $X/\mathcal{R}$ consists of the equivalence classes $[x]$ for $\mathcal{R}$. The canonical surjection $q:X\to X/\mathcal{R}$, $q(x)=[x]$, defines its quotient topology:The quotient space includes this topology, not just the collection of equivalence classes.

Regard the circle as $S^1=\{z\in \mathbb{C}:|z|=1\}$ and use the continuous surjectionDefine $z\mathcal{R}w$ precisely when $h(z)=h(w)$. This is an equivalence relation, being equality of function values. Equivalently $w=z$ or $w=\overline{z}$, so the construction is the circle modulo reflection.

Since $h$ is constant on each equivalence class, it induces a bijectionIt is continuous by the universal property of the quotient topology, because $\overline{h}\circ q=h$ is continuous. The circle is compact by the Heine-Borel theorem, and its quotient space is a continuous image of a compact space, hence compact. The closed interval is Hausdorff. Part (a)(ii) therefore provesGeometrically, the equivalence relation folds the upper and lower semicircles together, retaining the two real endpoints separately.

The product topology on the Cartesian product $X\times Y$ has a basis of a topology consisting of all rectangles $U\times V$, where $U$ is open in $X$ and $V$ is open in $Y$. Equivalently, it is the smallest topology making the two coordinate projections continuous.

Take distinct points $(x_1,y_1)$ and $(x_2,y_2)$. If $x_1\ne x_2$, use the Hausdorff condition in $X$ to find disjoint open neighbourhoods $U_1,U_2$. Then $U_1\times Y$ and $U_2\times Y$ are disjoint open neighbourhoods of the two points. If $x_1=x_2$, then $y_1\ne y_2$; disjoint open neighbourhoods $V_1,V_2$ in $Y$ give $X\times V_1$ and $X\times V_2$. Thus $X\times Y$ is Hausdorff, as established by the forward implication of the Hausdorff property of a nonempty product. An empty Cartesian product is automatically Hausdorff.

Fix $x_0,y_0\in Z$. For a continuous function $f:Z\times Z\to \mathbb{R}$, every coordinate slice is continuous, because the maps $x\mapsto (x,y)$ and $y\mapsto (x_0,y)$ into the product topology are continuous. Their target $\mathbb{R}$ is Hausdorff. Part (a)(i) givesTherefore every such $f$ is a constant function. This is the two-factor case of continuous maps from products of cofinite spaces to Hausdorff spaces are constant.

The second coordinate projection ${\pi }_2:Z\times \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ is continuous and nonconstant. If a homeomorphism $H:Z\times Z\to Z\times \mathbb{R}$ existed, ${\pi }_2\circ H$ would be a nonconstant continuous function, contradicting the preceding conclusion. Hence

For the half-plane, put $H_{+}=[0,\infty )$ as a set, so $K=\mathbb{R}\times H_{+}$. Its two ambient topologies give different answers:In $Z\times Z$, if $K$ were closed, its inverse image under the continuous map $y\mapsto (x_0,y)$ would be closed in $Z$. That inverse image is $H_{+}$, which is neither a finite set nor all of $Z$, so it is not closed in the cofinite topology. Thus $K$ is not closed.

To establish compactness, note that the subspace topology on any subset $A$ of a topological space with the cofinite topology is again cofinite. An open cover of a nonempty such $A$ has a nonempty member omitting at most finitely many points; finitely many more members cover those points. Hence every subset of a cofinite space is compact. In particular both $Z$ and $H_{+}$ with its cofinite subspace topology are compact. The subspace topology on $K\subseteq Z\times Z$ is their product topology, as one checks by tracing basis rectangles. The product of two compact spaces is compact, so $K$ is compact here.

For clarity, the finite-product compactness result needs no Hausdorff condition. Given an open cover of $A\times B$, cover each point by a basis rectangle lying in one covering member. For fixed $a\in A$, use compactness of $B$ to select finitely many rectangles whose second factors cover $B$, and intersect their first factors to get an open neighbourhood $U_a$ of $a$. Those finitely many original members cover $U_a\times B$. Finally finitely many $U_a$ cover $A$, producing a finite subcover of $A\times B$.

In $Z\times \mathbb{R}$, the second coordinate projection hasSince the ray is closed in the usual real line, $K$ is closed. It is not compact: its image under a continuous map under ${\pi }_2$ is $[0,\infty )$, which is not compact. For an explicit obstruction, the open intervals $(-1,n)$, $n\ge 1$, cover this ray but have no finite subcover.

Finally consider the diagonal $W$ in $Z\times \mathbb{R}$. DefineThis is a bijection. The identity function from the usual real line to $Z$ is continuous: each nonempty cofinite open set is the complement of a finite set, and finite sets are closed in the usual real line. Both coordinates of $\phi$ are therefore continuous, so $\phi$ is continuous for the product topology and the subspace topology of $W$. Its inverse is the restricted second coordinate projection, which is continuous. ThereforeFor the second conclusion, $Z$ is compact whereas $W\cong \mathbb{R}$ is not compact; homeomorphisms preserve compactness. The diagonal in a product with cofinite and Euclidean topologies thus inherits the usual topology, despite one cofinite factor.

Write $Q=(Z\times I)/\mathcal{R}$. Since $Q$ is homeomorphic to the circle, it is Hausdorff. For fixed $t\in I$, the functionis continuous, being a coordinate slice of the quotient map. Part (a)(i) therefore makes it constant. Choose $x_0\in Z$ and setThen $g$ is continuous andSince the quotient map $p$ is a surjection, so is $g$. This is Hausdorff factorization through a cofinite product factor: a continuous map into a Hausdorff space cannot distinguish the points of the coordinate with the cofinite topology.

If $g$ were injective, it would be a continuous bijection from the compact closed interval $I$ to the Hausdorff space $Q$. Part (a)(ii) would make it a homeomorphism, contradicting the fact that the circle and interval are not homeomorphic.

To recall that obstruction explicitly, remove the interior point $1/2$ from $I$. The resulting topological subspace is separated by the nonempty relatively open sets $[0,1/2)$ and $(1/2,1]$, so it is not connected. The circle with any one point removed is connected: after a rotation, it is the image under a continuous map of the connected open interval $(0,2\pi )$ under $t\mapsto (\cos t,\sin t)$. A homeomorphism and its restriction preserve connectedness, giving a contradiction.

Thus $g$ is not injective. Choose distinct $a,b\in I$ with $g(a)=g(b)$. ThenIn particular the requested $x,a,b$ exist. The argument proves the stronger conclusion that the same two interval coordinates work for every $x$.

An abstract simplicial complex is a pair $K=(V,\Sigma )$, where $V$ is a set of vertices and $\Sigma$ is a family of finite nonempty subsets of $V$ satisfying two conditions: every singleton $\{v\}$ is in $\Sigma$, and every nonempty subset of a member of $\Sigma$ is again in $\Sigma$. Its members are the simplexes; a face with $n+1$ vertices has dimension $n$.

To form its topological realization, take a disjoint copy of the standard geometric simplex ${\Delta }^{|\sigma |-1}$ for every $\sigma \in \Sigma$, label its vertices by $\sigma$, and identify shared labelled faces using affine face inclusions. Give the resulting space $|K|$ the quotient topology of this disjoint union. Equivalently, its points have finite-support barycentric coordinates ${\lambda }_v\ge 0$ with ${\sum }_v{\lambda }_v=1$ and positive support belonging to $\Sigma$.

The topology is part of the definition: $U\subseteq |K|$ is open exactly when $U\cap |\sigma |$ is open in each closed geometric simplex. This is the weak topology of a simplicial realization, used below for the infinite complex. For finite complexes it coincides with the usual Euclidean realization topology.^[ref]

A topological surface is a Hausdorff space with a countable basis of a topology in which each point has a neighbourhood homeomorphic to an open subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. This definition has no boundary; allowing half-plane charts gives a surface with boundary. A closed surface is compact and has no boundary.

The classification theorem for closed combinatorial surfaces states that the realization of a finite connected closed combinatorial surface is homeomorphic to exactly one of:

The orientable family, including the sphere at $g=0$, has Euler characteristic $2-2g$; the nonorientable family has characteristic $2-k$. If disconnected complexes are permitted, apply the list to each connected component.

For polygon descriptions, read the boundary counterclockwise and pair equally labelled edges in the direction of their arrows. An inverse exponent means that the arrow runs against this boundary traversal. The following standard polygon words for closed surfaces give the required models:For $k=1$ the last model is a digon; alternatively the square word $abab$, identifying antipodal boundary points, gives the real projective plane. A square with word $ab{a}^{-1}b$ gives the Klein bottle, the case $k=2$. All polygon sides are paired, so these models have no boundary.

Use a convex representative of the marked polygonal schema, retaining the side-pairing parametrizations. This does not change the quotient up to homeomorphism: a matching boundary homeomorphism extends over the two polygonal discs by radial extension in disc coordinates. Join an interior point to every vertex, producing finitely many triangles. Orient radial edges away from the interior point and choose boundary-edge orientations consistently with the side identifications. Each triangle then has a local vertex ordering with the centre first; the other two vertices are ordered along its boundary-edge arrow. These orderings agree on shared edges, so the quotient is a finite delta-complex $X$ whose underlying space is the prescribed polygon quotient.

This need not yet be an abstract simplicial complex: two vertices of a triangle may become identified, or different triangles may have the same vertex set. Apply barycentric subdivision twice.

In the first subdivision, every small simplex corresponds to a flag of faces of strictly increasing dimensions. Identifications preserve dimension, so its vertices are distinct. In the second subdivision, a vertex records an actual cell of the first subdivision. A set of such vertices determines their order by dimension. Inside any one first-subdivision simplex, distinct vertices make each face inclusion uniquely determined by its vertex subset; hence a flag has at most one realization. Therefore different second-subdivision simplexes cannot share the same vertex set, and they meet in precisely their common faces. Thus the second subdivision is an abstract simplicial complex $L$.

The affine subdivision maps are compatible with every face identification, so their realizations are homeomorphisms. Consequentlywhere $L$ is finite. This proves triangulation of a polygon with paired sides by the second barycentric subdivision of a delta-complex construction.^[ref]

With the quotient realization defined in part (i), the answers are no and no. Write $W=|K|$ as countably many closed arms $[0,1{]}_n$ with all their zero endpoints identified to $v$.

First, the outer vertices $D=\{u_n:n\ge 1\}$ form a closed discrete subset. Its intersection with every closed arm is the closed singleton at coordinate one, so $D$ is closed by the weak topology. The terminal half-arm $(1/2,1{]}_n$ is an open neighbourhood of $u_n$ meeting $D$ only there. Thus $D$ is infinite, closed and discrete. Since closed discrete subsets of compact spaces are finite, $W$ is not compact. A homeomorphism to a compact subset of the plane would make $W$ compact, which is impossible.

For the stronger obstruction, suppose $(U_n)$ were a countable neighbourhood basis at $v$. Each $U_n$ contains an initial interval in arm $n$, so choose $x_n\in U_n$ on that arm with coordinate $t_n\in (0,1)$. Define $V$ to meet arm $n$ in $[0,t_n/2)$. It is an open neighbourhood of $v$, because each of these intersections is open in the closed interval $[0,1]$. But $x_n\in U_n\setminus V$ for every $n$, so no $U_n$ is contained in $V$. This contradicts the basis condition.

Hence $W$ is not first countable. Every metric space is first-countable, with local basis of balls of radius $1/n$, and this property passes to subsets with the subspace topology. Thus $W$ is not homeomorphic to any subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. This is the weak realization of a countable star.

The realization convention matters. For the metric realization of a simplicial complex using Euclidean distance on barycentric coordinates, the second answer would be yes: map the point on arm $n$ at parameter $t$ to $t{e}^{i/n}$. Each ray is isolated away from zero, and at zero both spaces have neighbourhood bases given by a single radius on all arms. This gives the metric realization of a countable star as a planar subset, still noncompact. It does not give the quotient topology used in part (i).

The quotient is a Klein bottle, equivalently a connected sum of two real projective planes.

Use $z\in S^1$ for the angular coordinate and $r\in [1/2,1]$ for the radius. Parametrize the first annulus by $\tau =2r-1\in [0,1]$, running from its inner to its outer boundary. Parametrize the second by $\tau =3-2r\in [1,2]$, running from its outer to its inner boundary. The outer-boundary identity gluing puts them together at $\tau =1$. The remaining inner-boundary identification reverses the angle, so the entire quotient isThis is the mapping torus of reflection of a circle, after rescaling the interval.

To verify the homeomorphism, send $rz$ in the first annulus to $[z,2r-1]$ in $M$, and $rz$ in the second to $[z,3-2r]$. Both formulas are continuous, agree under the outer gluing, and agree under the reflected inner gluing. They therefore descend by the universal property of the quotient topology. Conversely, on the lower half of the cylinder send $(z,\tau )$ to the class of $((1+\tau )/2)z$ in the first annulus; on the upper half send it to the class of $((3-\tau )/2)z$ in the second. The formulas agree at $\tau =1$, and at the identified endpoints. The pasting lemma and the quotient property give a continuous inverse. Thus the two quotient descriptions are homeomorphic.

The quotient $M$ is compact. Its equivalence relation on the compact Hausdorff cylinder is closed: it is the union of the diagonal and the two graphs of the boundary reflection. Therefore $M$ is Hausdorff by compact Hausdorff quotient by a closed equivalence relation. Away from the seam its local charts are circle arcs times open intervals. At the seam, an arc near $z$ at $\tau =0$ glues to its conjugate arc at $\tau =2$; using the reflection as the transition gives another open rectangle. These are disc neighbourhoods, and a finite choice of such charts gives a countable basis. Hence $M$ is a closed surface.

Cutting the circle coordinate gives a rectangle with its vertical sides matched and its horizontal sides reflected. The reflection changes the sign of the angular coordinate while leaving the interval direction unchanged, so an orientation transported around the interval loop comes back reversed. Thus $M$ is a nonorientable surface. The rectangle quotient has one vertex, two edges and one face, giving Euler characteristic zero. By the classification theorem for closed combinatorial surfaces, the nonorientable genus is $k=2-\chi (M)=2$, so $M\cong {\mathbb{RP}}^2\#{\mathbb{RP}}^2$. This is the gluing annuli with one reflected boundary construction.