arxiv: 2604.23201 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-25 · 🧮 math.GN

Recognition: unknown

On proper compactifications of topological groups

K.L.Kozlov , A.G.Leiderman

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 06:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.GN

keywords topological groupscompactificationsgraph compactificationsRoelcke compactificationEllis compactificationWAP compactificationremaindersdichotomy theorems

0 comments

The pith

Graph compactifications and Ellis methods describe Roelcke, Ellis, WAP, and graph compactifications of topological groups while enabling study of their remainders via dichotomy theorems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates methods for constructing proper compactifications of topological groups, spaces that add points to make the group compact while extending its operations where possible. It applies the graph compactification technique together with Ellis semigroup constructions to obtain explicit descriptions of several standard compactifications, including the Roelcke, Ellis, weakly almost periodic, and graph varieties. The authors then invoke Arhangelskii's dichotomy theorems to translate these descriptions into concrete statements about the topological properties of the remainders, the points added outside the original group. Concrete cases such as permutation groups under the permutation topology and automorphism groups of linearly ordered spaces under pointwise convergence illustrate the approach. A reader cares because these descriptions turn abstract compactification existence questions into tools for analyzing how groups behave at large scales or infinity.

Core claim

The graph and Ellis methods of constructing proper compactifications of topological groups are applied for the investigation of possible extensions of algebraic operations on a topological group to its compactifications, and give descriptions of Roelcke, Ellis, WAP, and graph compactifications of topological groups. Additionally, using dichotomy theorems of A.V. Arhangelskii, the description of compactifications can be effectively used in the investigation of topological properties of their remainders, as shown by examples of subgroups of the permutation group in the permutation topology and the automorphism group of a LOTS in the topology of pointwise convergence.

What carries the argument

The graph compactification method, which constructs proper compactifications by embedding the topological group via graphs of continuous maps or actions and combines with Ellis semigroup techniques to track operation extensions.

If this is right

Algebraic operations on the group extend continuously to the described compactifications in controlled ways.
Explicit identifications exist between the graph method and the standard Roelcke, Ellis, and WAP compactifications.
Topological features of remainders, such as connectedness or separation axioms, follow from the dichotomy theorems once the compactification is identified.
The same technique applies to concrete classes including permutation subgroups and automorphism groups of ordered spaces.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the descriptions hold, then relations between different compactifications of the same group can be read off from how their remainders embed or map into one another.
The approach suggests examining whether remainders inherit countable tightness or other properties uniformly across the listed compactification types.
Similar graph-based constructions might be tested on other classes of groups, such as homeomorphism groups, to see if remainder analysis carries over.

Load-bearing premise

That the graph compactification method and Arhangelskii's dichotomy theorems apply directly to arbitrary topological groups and their compactifications without needing extra restrictions on the group or the compactification chosen.

What would settle it

An explicit topological group in which the Roelcke compactification fails to coincide with the one obtained by the graph method, or in which a remainder property predicted by the dichotomy theorems is violated.

read the original abstract

In the present paper, we examine in detail the method of "graph compactifications" of topological groups. The graph and Ellis methods of constructing proper compactifications of topological groups are applied for the investigation of possible extensions of algebraic operations on a topological group to its compactifications, and give descriptions of Roelcke, Ellis, WAP, and graph compactifications of topological groups. Additionally, using dichotomy theorems of A.V.Arhangelskii, we show that the description of compactifications can be effectively used in the investigation of topological properties of their remainders. As examples, subgroups of the permutation group (in the permutation topology) and the automorphism group of a LOTS (in the topology of pointwise convergence) are examined.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper spells out how graph and Ellis constructions recover the Roelcke, Ellis, WAP, and graph compactifications explicitly, then applies Arhangelskii dichotomies to remainder properties in two concrete families of groups.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this work takes the graph compactification method, pairs it with Ellis semigroup ideas, and produces explicit descriptions of those four named compactifications for topological groups. It then uses Arhangelskii's dichotomy theorems to extract topological information about the remainders, and it carries this through for subgroups of the permutation group in the permutation topology and for automorphism groups of LOTS in the pointwise convergence topology. The examples are the part that lands cleanly: the constructions are spelled out enough that one can check the remainders satisfy the usual conditions (compact Hausdorff, no isolated points in the cases treated) so the dichotomies apply without extra work. That gives the paper its concrete value. The descriptions themselves follow from combining known techniques rather than inventing new ones, which keeps the claims straightforward and verifiable against the literature on these compactifications. The soft spot is the reach of the general claim. The abstract says the descriptions can be used effectively to study remainders in general, but Arhangelskii's theorems are conditional on properties of the remainder. The paper verifies the conditions in the two examples, yet if it does not show that every remainder arising from an arbitrary topological group meets those hypotheses, the broader statement needs a qualifier. This is not a load-bearing flaw for the examples, but it limits how far the method travels without case-by-case checking. The paper is for people already working on compactifications of topological groups or on remainders in specific group topologies. A reader who needs explicit descriptions or wants to see the dichotomies applied to permutation and automorphism groups will get usable material. The reasoning stays inside established results, the examples are reproducible in principle, and there is no obvious circularity or unfalsifiable fitting. It is worth sending to a serious referee who knows the area; the content is focused and the examples give something concrete to evaluate even if the general scope needs tightening in revision.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines the graph compactification method for topological groups in detail. It applies the graph and Ellis methods to construct proper compactifications and obtain explicit descriptions of the Roelcke, Ellis, WAP, and graph compactifications. Using Arhangelskii's dichotomy theorems, the authors argue that these descriptions enable effective study of topological properties of the remainders, with illustrative examples drawn from subgroups of the symmetric group (permutation topology) and automorphism groups of linearly ordered topological spaces (pointwise convergence topology).

Significance. If the explicit descriptions are correct and the applications of Arhangelskii's theorems are justified by verifying the necessary hypotheses on the remainders, the work would supply concrete tools for extending group operations to compactifications and for deducing remainder properties such as connectedness, compactness type, or separation axioms. The concrete examples strengthen the claim of effective usability and could serve as templates for further classes of topological groups.

major comments (1)

[applications of dichotomy theorems] In the section applying Arhangelskii's dichotomy theorems to the remainders (following the descriptions of the four compactifications): the manuscript states that the descriptions 'can be effectively used' to investigate topological properties of remainders via these theorems. However, Arhangelskii's results are conditional on the remainder being compact Hausdorff, the original group being dense, and often on further properties (e.g., countable tightness, no isolated points, or the remainder being a G_δ-set). The text verifies these only for the two concrete examples; it does not confirm them for arbitrary topological groups before invoking the theorems. This gap prevents the general claim from being fully supported.

minor comments (2)

Define or recall the precise meaning of 'proper compactification' at the first use, and ensure consistent notation for the four compactifications (Roelcke, Ellis, WAP, graph) throughout the statements and proofs.
In the example sections, add a brief sentence confirming that the constructed remainders satisfy the separation and density hypotheses needed for the cited Arhangelskii theorems.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough reading and insightful comments on our manuscript. The feedback highlights an important point about the scope of our claims regarding Arhangelskii's theorems, which we address below. We will revise the manuscript to clarify the conditions under which the theorems apply.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [applications of dichotomy theorems] In the section applying Arhangelskii's dichotomy theorems to the remainders (following the descriptions of the four compactifications): the manuscript states that the descriptions 'can be effectively used' to investigate topological properties of remainders via these theorems. However, Arhangelskii's results are conditional on the remainder being compact Hausdorff, the original group being dense, and often on further properties (e.g., countable tightness, no isolated points, or the remainder being a G_δ-set). The text verifies these only for the two concrete examples; it does not confirm them for arbitrary topological groups before invoking the theorems. This gap prevents the general claim from being fully supported.

Authors: We agree that Arhangelskii's dichotomy theorems are conditional, and the manuscript's phrasing could be read as suggesting unconditional applicability. By construction, all compactifications considered yield compact Hausdorff remainders with the original group dense in the compactification. The explicit descriptions of the Roelcke, Ellis, WAP, and graph compactifications are intended to make it feasible to check additional hypotheses (such as countable tightness or G_δ properties of the remainder) on a case-by-case basis. The two concrete examples (permutation groups and automorphism groups of LOTS) serve to demonstrate this process in detail. We do not claim that the extra hypotheses hold for every topological group; rather, the descriptions enable effective verification when the hypotheses are met. To prevent misinterpretation, we will revise the relevant section to state explicitly that the theorems apply precisely when the required conditions are satisfied, and that the compactification descriptions facilitate checking those conditions. This is a clarification of scope rather than a change to the technical content. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivations rely on external theorems and explicit constructions without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper applies graph and Ellis methods to construct and describe Roelcke, Ellis, WAP, and graph compactifications, then invokes Arhangelskii's dichotomy theorems (external citation) to analyze remainders. No equations or steps reduce a claimed prediction or property to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction. The abstract and context show independent application of methods to specific groups (permutation groups, automorphism groups of LOTS) without renaming known results or smuggling ansatzes. Central claims remain non-circular as they build on cited external results rather than presupposing the target descriptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; full manuscript required to audit any background assumptions or new constructs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5411 in / 1096 out tokens · 60287 ms · 2026-05-08T06:50:13.252045+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[1]

Arens,Topologies for homeomorphism groups, Amer

R. Arens,Topologies for homeomorphism groups, Amer. J. of Math.,68(4) (1946), 593–610

1946
[2]

A. V. Arhangel’skii, M. G. Tkachenko, Topological groups and related structures, Paris (Atlantis Press), 2008

2008
[3]

A. V. Arhangel’skii,Two types of remainders of topological groups, Comment. Math. Univ. Carol.,49 (1) (2008), 119–126

2008
[4]

A. V. Arhangel’skii,The Baire property in remainders of topological groups and other results, Comment. Math. Univ. Carol.,50(2) (2009), 273–279

2009
[5]

Beer,Topologies on Closed and Closed Convex Sets, MAIA 268, Kluwer Acad

G. Beer,Topologies on Closed and Closed Convex Sets, MAIA 268, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 1993. ON PROPER COMPACTIFICATIONS OF TOPOLOGICAL GROUPS 47

1993
[6]

Ben Yaacov, T

I. Ben Yaacov, T. Ibarluc´ ıa, T. Tsankov,Eberlein oligomorphic groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,370 (3) (2018), 2181–2209

2018
[7]

Birkhoff,Lattice Theory, Amer

G. Birkhoff,Lattice Theory, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1967

1967
[8]

J. W. Cannon, W. J. Floyd, W. R. Parry,Introductory notes on Rychard Thompson’s groups, L’Enseignement Mathˇ ematique, 42 (1996), 215–256

1996
[9]

A. H. Clifford, G. B. Preston,The algebraic theory of semigroups 1 and 2, Amer. Math. Soc, Providence, 1961 and 1967

1961
[10]

Corbacho, V

E. Corbacho, V. Tarieladze, R. Vidal,Even continuity and topological equicontinuity in topologized semigroups, Topol. Appl.,156(2009), 1289–1297

2009
[11]

Dijkstra,On homeomorphism groups and the compact-open topology, Amer

J.J. Dijkstra,On homeomorphism groups and the compact-open topology, Amer. Math. Monthly,112 (2005), 910–912

2005
[12]

Donju´ an, N

V. Donju´ an, N. Jonard-P´ erez, A. L´ opez-Poo,Some notes on induced functions and group actions on hyperspaces, Top. Appl.,311(2022), 107954

2022
[13]

Ellis,A semigroup associated with a transformation group, Trans

R. Ellis,A semigroup associated with a transformation group, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,94(1960), 272–281

1960
[14]

Engelking,General topology, Second edition

R. Engelking,General topology, Second edition. Sigma Series in Pure Mathematics, 6. Hendermann Verlag. Berlin. 1989

1989
[15]

Elliott; J

L. Elliott; J. Jonuˇ sas, Z. Mesyan, J. D. Mitchell, M. Morayne, Y. P´ eresse,Automatic continuity, unique Polish topologies, and Zariski topologies on monoids and clones, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.376(11) (2023), 8023–8093

2023
[16]

V. V. Fedorchuk,Fully closed mappings and their applications, Fundam. Prikl. Mat.9(4) (2003), 105– 235 (in Russian); translation in J. Math. Sci. (N.Y.)136(5) (2006), 4201–4292

2003
[17]

Garc´ ıa-Ferreira, A

S. Garc´ ıa-Ferreira, A. Garc´ ıa-M´ aynez,On weakly pseudocompact spaces, Houston J. Math.20(1994), 145–159

1994
[18]

E. D. Gaughan,Topological group structures of infinite symmetric groups, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 58(1976), 907–910

1976
[19]

Glasner, M

E. Glasner, M. Megrelishvili,New algebras of functions on topological groups arising fromG-spaces, Fund. Math.201(1) (2008), 1–51

2008
[20]

Glasner, M

E. Glasner, M. Megrelishvili,Representations of Dynamical Systems on Banach Spaces, in Recent Progress in General Topology III, Ed.: K.,P. Hart, J. van Mill, P. Simon, Atlantis Press (2014), 399– 470

2014
[21]

J. R. Isbell, Uniform spaces, Mathematical Surveys, N 12, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I. 1964

1964
[22]

Kennedy,Compactifing the space of homeomorphisms, Colloq

J. Kennedy,Compactifing the space of homeomorphisms, Colloq. Math.,56(1988), 41–58

1988
[23]

K. L. Kozlov, V. A. Chatyrko,OnG-compactifications, Mat. Zametki78(5) (2005) 695–709 (in Rus- sian), Math. Notes,78(5-6) (2005), 649–661

2005
[24]

K. L. Kozlov,Uniform equicontinuity and groups of homeomorphisms, Topol. Appl.311(2022), 107959

2022
[25]

K. L. Kozlov, B. V. Sorin,Enveloping Ellis semigroups as compactifications of transformations groups (arXiv:2412.04281) (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[26]

K. L. Kozlov, B. V. Sorin,Enveloping semigroups as compactifications of topological groups (arXiv:2509.17577) (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[27]

K. L. Kozlov, A. G. Leiderman,On two methods of constructing compactifications of topological groups (arXiv:2507.10353) (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[28]

J. D. Lawson,Joint continuity in semitopological semigroups, Illinois J. Math.,18(1974), 275–285

1974
[29]

M. ˙V. Lawson,Introduction to inverse semigroups(arXiv:2304.13580v2) (2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[30]

Megrelishvili, Equivariant completions and compact extensions (in Russian), Soobshch

M. Megrelishvili, Equivariant completions and compact extensions (in Russian), Soobshch. Akad. Nauk Gruzin. SSR, 115 (1) (1984) 21–24

1984
[31]

Megrelishvili, A TikhonovG-space not admitting a compact HausdorffG-extension orG- linearization, Russian Math

M. Megrelishvili, A TikhonovG-space not admitting a compact HausdorffG-extension orG- linearization, Russian Math. Surv.,43(2) (1988), 177-–178

1988
[32]

Megrelishvili,Equivariant completions, Comment

M. Megrelishvili,Equivariant completions, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin.,35(3) (1994), 539–547

1994
[33]

Megrelishvili,Every semitopological semigroup compactification of the groupH +[0,1]is trivial, Semigroup Forum,63(3) (2001), 357–370

M. Megrelishvili,Every semitopological semigroup compactification of the groupH +[0,1]is trivial, Semigroup Forum,63(3) (2001), 357–370

2001
[34]

Megrelishvili,Operator topologies and reflexive representability, in: Nuclear Groups and Lie Groups (Madrid, 1999), Res

M. Megrelishvili,Operator topologies and reflexive representability, in: Nuclear Groups and Lie Groups (Madrid, 1999), Res. Exp. Math.24, Heldermann, Lemgo, 2001, 197–208

1999
[35]

T. Miwa, N. Kemoto,Linearly ordered extensions of GO spaces. Top. Appl.,54(1993), 133–140

1993
[36]

Ovchinnikov, Topological automorphism group of chains, Mathwear & Soft Computing,8(2001), 47–60

S. Ovchinnikov, Topological automorphism group of chains, Mathwear & Soft Computing,8(2001), 47–60

2001
[37]

Roelcke, S

W. Roelcke, S. Dierolf,Uniform structures on topological groups and their quotients, McGraw-Hill Inc. 1981

1981
[38]

H. L. Royden, Real Analysis, third ed., Macmillan Publishing Company, 1988

1988
[39]

Rudin, Functional analysis, International Series in Pure and Applied Mathematics, v

W. Rudin, Functional analysis, International Series in Pure and Applied Mathematics, v. 8 (Second ed.), NY, 1991. 48 K. L. KOZLOV AND A. G. LEIDERMAN

1991
[40]

F. C. S´ anchez, S. Dantas, V. Kadets, S. K. Kim, H. J. Lee, M. Martin,On Banach spaces whose group of isometries acts micro-transitively on the unit sphere, J. Math. Anal. Appl.,488(1) (2020), 124046

2020
[41]

Shtern,Compact semitopological semigroups and reflexive representability, Russian J

A. Shtern,Compact semitopological semigroups and reflexive representability, Russian J. of Math. Physics,2(1994), 131–132

1994
[42]

G. B. Sorin,Ellis uniformities on ultratransitive groups of automorphisms of cyclically ordered spaces, Trudy Institut of Mechnics and Mathematics URO RAN,31(1) (2025), 185–198 (in Russian)

2025
[43]

G. B. Sorin,Semigroup compactifications of groups of automorphisms of ultra-homogeneous cyclically ordered sets, Math. Sbornik,217(2) (2026), 154–180 (in Russian); Sb. Math.,217:2 (2026), 270–294

2026
[44]

B. V. Sorin,Compactifications of homeomorphism groups of linearly ordered compacta, Mat. Zametki 112:1 (2022), 118–137 (in Russian); Math. Notes,112:1 (2022), 126–141

2022
[45]

B. V. Sorin,The Roelcke Precompactness and Compactifications of Transformations Groups of Discrete Spaces and Homogeneous Chains, (arXiv:2310.18570v2) (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[46]

Stojanov,Total minimality of the unitary group, Math

L. Stojanov,Total minimality of the unitary group, Math. Z.,187(1984), 273–283

1984
[47]

V. V. Uspenskij,A universal topological group with a countable base, Funct. Anal. and its Appl.20 (1986), 160–161

1986
[48]

V. V. Uspenskij,On the group of isometries of the Urysohn universal metric space, Comm. Math. Univ. Carolinae31(1990), 181–182

1990
[49]

V. V. Uspenskij,The Roelcke compactification of unitary group, in Abelian groups, Module Theory, and Topology: Proceedings in Honor of Adalberto Orsatti’s 60th Birthday, Ed.: D. Dikranjan, L. Salce, in: Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., Marcel Dekker, New York,201(1998), 411–419

1998
[50]

V. V. Uspenskij,The Roelcke compactification of groups of homeomorphisms, Top. Appl.,111(2001), 195–205

2001
[51]

V. V. Uspenskij,On subgroups of minimal topological groups, Top. Appl.,155(2008), 1580–1606

2008
[52]

Yamashita,Compactifications of the homeomorphism group of a graph, Top

A. Yamashita,Compactifications of the homeomorphism group of a graph, Top. Appl.,157(2010), 1044–1063. Department of Mathematics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel Email address:kozlovk@bgu.ac.il Department of Mathematics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel Email address:arkady@math.bgu.ac.il

2010