Talk:Supercompact space

Article should be deleted or moved
The article claims that every supercompact space is compact. R is supercompact (having as subbasis all open rays), but R is not compact. I really do believe that this article should be considered for deletion.

Topology Expert (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This article should be considered for deletion. Here is why this should happen:

1. This article is a stub

2. This article should be moved to the name "Alexander's Subbase theorem"

3. This article claims that every supercompact space is compact which is false. Please see the above

4. This article in the best case should be moved under the heading "Alexander's Subbase Theorem" or under "Compactness".

I do not wish to vandalise or anything so please don't take this the wrong way. I just think that this article has no citations and has made claims which are false. Please consider my request.

Topology Expert (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First, Alexander subbase theorem exists. Second, $$\R$$ is not supercompact. The cover $$\{A_r:r\in\R\}$$ where $$A_r:=(r,\infty)$$ is a cover with no finite subcover. Third, there are many stubs that should not be deleted. I am not sure if it is a good idea to move the content of the article or not, but I disagree with many of the reasons you put forth. Oded (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please give me one reference to a book where supercompact spaces are studied. I am a topologist (I don't want to boast) and I have never heard of such a thing. If there are no citations I will contest this page for deletion.

Topology Expert (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, sorry about my mistake. I wasn't thinking when I said "R is supercompact".

Topology Expert (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I really have nothing against this article. I just can't think how such a simple concept can be so important. Please give me a reason why this shouldn't be deleted (how to I contest an article for deletion anyway). Please don't consider me rude.

Topology Expert (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Silly rabbit put in some references for you (thanks). If you search google scholar for supercompact space, you will find that it gets quite a few hits. Scholar lists about 1000 hits, of which I would assume about half are "real". Oded (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have challenged this article for deletion. First of all, compactness is a very important topic in point-set-topology and so is paracompactness. Therefore, both paracompactness and compactness should have their own page. On the other hand, supercompactness is no where near as important as paracompactness and compactness. If not deleted, this article should be moved under compactness. It shouldn't have its own name.

Topology Expert (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
I removed the db-repost tag, since it gave an incorrect speedy deletion reason. If you want to delete the article, the best way to do it is to place a at the top of the article and to follow the instructions. There is a link to a "deletion discussion" there. Be sure to state your reasons for believing that the article should be deleted. Try to base your deletion reason on Wikipedia policy; the basic inclusion criteria can be found in WP:N and WP:NOT. silly rabbit (  talk  ) 11:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Topology expert. Please note that compact space deals with compactness. There is even a category Category:compactness (mathematics). Likewise, there is an article paracompact space. So far, all the reasons you have given were bogus and unfounded. You should perhaps work on your search skills to find wikipedia articles. Oded (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand me. I mean that paracompactness have their own pages because they are very important, SEPARATE topics in mathematics. Supercompactness is not. Please don't call my reasons bogus. I have a good mind to report you to an administrator.

Topology Expert (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[Moved from article by C S (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)]

The following are five reasons why this page should be deleted: Topology Expert (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) . Paracompactness and compactness ARE IMPORTANT topics and shouldn't be deleted. However, supercompactness is not nearly as important and shouldn't be on an encyclopaedia such as this one.
 * 2) . There are no citations given in this page. This material is wrong.
 * 3) . This page has hardly anything. It has just stated facts and has not backed them up with evidence. There are only two points written on this page. It is a useless stub.
 * 4) . There is no point in using a WHOLE page to talk abou supercompactness. This article should be written under Alexander's Subbase Theorem. It has hardly any information.
 * 5) . There is someone who keeps removing this sign for speedy deletion and gives no reasons why he does this. Could an administrator please see that he stops?

Go ahead and delete it, if you will. I wrote the junk (or at least, the initial version of it) and I can't be bothered about the matter. Vipul (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I do accept that I have never heard of this concept even though I am a topologist (I specialise in other areas too). I accept that I don't know everything and perhaps I was wrong to say that supercompactness should be deleted just because I don't know that it is. So, what I am saying is this. I am changing my mind about deleting this because no one will agree. Here are my suggestions which I hope people will consider:

1. Could someone please extend this article a little bit

Topology Expert (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Topology Expert (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is to everyone. If you find what I say unsatisfactory, you may call me a hoax or whatever you like, but please read what I want to say. First of all, I did say that I was going to agree to keep the article. Now, "Oded" said that I should read the deletion policies and that was what I did. Now, after reading these policies, I thought that maybe I am correct to delete the article on "supercompactness" and then went ahead with the deletion process. I am sorry I didn't tell you that I was going to do that. Now, I am certain, and promise that I won't attempt to delete this article for a while. I just believe that perhaps this article should merge with the article on "Alexander Subbase Theorem". This is because, perhaps people will see the link between the two articles. Secondly, from now on I will attempt to improve the article on "Supercompactness" instead of delete it. I was thinking that maybe we could prove the theorems asserted to clarify issues? Perhaps I will do that. Also, I don't think the topic "Supercompact space" is under the category "Compactness". Perhaps we could make that so. I will also make sure that supercompactness can be linked to other concepts in topology so that people will see the benefit of it. I hope that you understand my intentions.

Topology Expert (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Topology Expert. I'm certainly not about to call you a hoax. From your actions it seems like you were always acting with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. It's just unfortunate that your early experiences editing here led to this disagreement: but it can take a while to get used to the minutia of how Wikipedia works. I'm glad that you've left the incident with a positive attitude and are planning on improving the article, especially since some new editors get disillusioned and leave as soon as they meet opposition. Best of luck with your work on the article and elsewhere on the wiki. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)