Questions and Answers in General Topology

30 (2012), pp. 21–44

UNIQUENESS OF HYPERSPACES

ALEJANDRO ILLANES

(Communicated by Yasunao Hattori)

Abstract. In general topology, given a space X there are several ways to con-
struct a new space K(X) from X. Examples of this situation are: products,
spaces of maps to the real line, group of homeomorphisms, hyperspaces, etc. A
natural question is if we can recover the space X when we know the space K(X).
In order to reach this aim, the space K(X) must be unique. That is, it must come
only from one X. In this paper we survey what has been done on this direction
when the structure K(X) is one of the hyperspaces 2X , Cn (X) or Fn (X).

1. Introduction
A continuum is a nondegenerate compact connected metric space. Given a con-
tinuum X, with metric d, we consider the following hyperspaces of X.
2X = {A ⊂ X : A is nonempty and closed in X},
Cn (X) = {A ∈ 2X : A has at most n components},
Fn (X) = {A ∈ 2X : A has at most n points},
C(X) = C1 (X) .
All the hyperspaces are considered with the Hausdorff metric H [38, Definition
2.1 and Theorem 2.2] defined as H(A, B) = max{max{d(a, B) : a ∈ A}, max{d(b, A) :
b ∈ B}, where d(a, B) = min{d(a, b) : b ∈ B}.
The hyperspace Fn (X) is known as the n-symmetric product of X. The hy-
perspace F1 (X) is an isometric copy of X embedded in each one of the other
hyperspaces.
Given K(X) ∈ {2X , C(X), Cn (X), Fn (X)}, we say that a continuum X has
unique hyperspace K(X) provided that the following implication holds:

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 54B20; Secondary 54F15.

Key words and phrases. Almost meshed; Continuum; Dendrites; Finite graph; Indecompos-
able; Hyperspace; Meshed; Symmetric product; Unique hyperspace.
⃝c 2012 Symposium of General Topology.
21
22 Alejandro Illanes

If Y is a continuum and K(X) is homeomorphic to K(Y ), then X is

homeomorphic to Y .

In general topology, given a space X there are several ways to construct a new
space K(X) from X. Examples of this situation are: products, spaces of maps to
the real line, group of homeomorphisms, hyperspaces, etc. A natural question is
if we can recover the space X when we know the space K(X). In order to reach
this aim, the space K(X) must be unique. That is, it must come only from one X.
In this paper we survey what has been done on this direction when the structure
K(X) is one of the hyperspaces 2X , Cn (X) or Fn (X).
As we will see, the work on this topic has received much attention recently and
there are still many questions to solve.
Recall that the Hilbert cube is the topological product of countably many inter-
vals [0, 1]. An arc is a continuum homeomorphic to the interval [0, 1].
In general, many continua can share an specific hyperspace. The most general
result in this direction is given by the following classical theorem.

Theorem 1 ([14] and [13] for the case n ≥ 2). If X is a locally connected con-
tinuum, then 2X is homeomorphic to the Hilbert cube. For a continuum X, the
following are equivalent.
(a) X is locally connected and each arc in X has empty interior,
(b) C(X) is homeomorphic to the Hilbert cube,
(c) Cn (X) is homeomorphic to the Hilbert cube for each n.

In particular, Theorem 1 shows that, if we want to find a locally connected

continuum X with unique hyperspace C(X), X must have arcs with nonempty
interior. As we will see later, in such an X the union of such arcs must be dense
(see Theorem 11).
Most of the times, when we want to prove that a certain continuum X has unique
hyperspace K(X), we imagine that we have in our hands the space K(X) and we
see if we can recognize the subspace F1 (X) inside K(X). If we can do this, then
we can recover F1 (X) from K(X) and then we can see from what continuum X
the hyperspace K(X) was constructed. If we can do this, then K(X) is unique. Of
course, in general, we cannot see K(X). In fact (see [35] or [43]), there are only a
few K(X) that can be embedded in the Euclidean space R3 . Thus, we try to see
K(X) with topological tools. For certain families of continua, it is possible to find
a topological property P, defined on K(X) such that property P is only (or almost
only) satisfied by the elements of F1 (X). In this way we can recognize F1 (X) from
K(X) and X has unique hyperspace K(X).
 Uniqueness of hyperspaces 23

2. The hyperspaces Cn (X)

A. Finite Graphs
In order to give the geometrical flavor of some of the ideas used in the area of
uniqueness of hyperspaces, we see some models of hyperspaces.

We start with the simplest continuum, namely the unit interval [0, 1]. Notice
that
C([0, 1]) = {[a, b] : 0 ≤ a ≤ b ≤ 1} .
It is easy to check that the function ϕ : C([0, 1]) → R2 (R2 is the Euclidean
plane) given by ϕ([a, b]) = (a, b) is a homeomorphism between C([0, 1]) and the
triangle T = {(a, b) ∈ R2 : 0 ≤ a ≤ b ≤ 1}, represented in Figure 1.
Thus, we can say that this triangle is a model for C([0, 1]). Observe that the set
of elements in C([0, 1]) that contain 0 (intervals of the form [0, b]) are represented
on an edge of T ; the elements of C([0, 1]) that contain 1 are represented on other
edge of T . The set of singletons F1 ([0, 1]) is represented on the third edge of T (the
diagonal).

C([0,1])
[0,1]

Figure 1.

Next, we analyze the model for the unit circle S 1 in R2 , centered at the origin.
For each subarc A of S 1 , let m(A) be the middle point of A in S 1 and let L(A) be
the length of A. Then define F : C(S 1 ) → R2 by
{
[1 − (L(A)/2π)]m(A), if A ̸= S 1 ,
F (A) =
(0, 0), if A = S 1 .

It is easy to check that ϕ is a homeomorphism between C(S 1 ) and the unit disc.
Thus, the disc is a model for C(S 1 ).
We have shown that C([0, 1]) and C(S 1 ) are homeomorphic. Thus [0, 1] (and
S 1 ) does not have unique hyperspace C(X).
24 Alejandro Illanes

F(A) = (1-(L(A)/2p))m(A)

Figure 2.

At this moment we can ask: what happens with the rest of the finite graphs?
(a finite graph is a continuum that can be put as a finite union of arcs such that
every two of them intersect in a finite set). To have an idea of how to answer this
question, we construct the model for the simple triod T which is defined as the
union of three arcs L1 , L2 and L3 , called the legs of T , joined by a point v called
the vertex of T (Figure 3). The hyperspace C(T ) is the union of C(L1 ), C(L2 ),
C(L3 ) and Cv (T ) = {A ∈ C(T ) : v ∈ A}. By the first model we constructed, each
set C(Li ) can be represented as a solid triangle. Notice that the elements of Cv (T )
are uniquely determined by the length of their intersections with each leg. So, they
can be represented by a vector with three coordinates (a, b, c).

T
c

a
v b

Figure 3.

Varying the three lengths a, b and c we obtain a solid cube in R3 . Thus C(T ) is
the union of a solid cube in R3 with three solid triangles, as it is pictured in Figure
4.
In this example we can see that a simple triod generates a cube in the hyperspace
C(X). This situation is more general. For example, in the continuum W illustrated
in Figure 5, the subcontinua of W containing the transversal arc J can be enlarged
in four independent movements (a, b, c and d). Thus, in C(W ), each neighborhood
of J is of dimension at least 4.
 Uniqueness of hyperspaces 25

C(T)
T

Figure 4.

W c
a

J J d
b

Figure 5.

With these examples, we can see that, in general, in a finite graph G, if A is a

subcontinuum of G with a ramification point, then dimA [C(G)] ≥ 3.
In fact, from the work by R. Duda [15] it can be proved the following formula,
for each subcontinuum B of G:
∑
dimB [C(G)] = 2 + (ordG (v) − 2) ,
where v runs on the ramification points of G contained in B. V. Martı́nez-de-
la-Vega [42, Theorem 2.4], has shown the following natural generalization of this
formula to Cn (G).
∑
dimB [Cn (G)] = 2n + (ordG (v) − 2) .
Duda’s formula implies that
D = {B ∈ C(G) : dimB [C(G)] = 2}
= {B ∈ C(G) : B does not have ramification points of G}
= {B ∈ C(G) : B is contained in the interior of an edge of G}
= {B ∈ C(G) : B has a neighborhood M in C(G) such that M is a 2-cell}.
In Figure 6 we illustrate the set D for an example. Now we consider the set
F = {B ∈ C(G) : B has a neighborhood M in C(G) such that M is a 2-cell
and B is in the boundary as manifold of M} .
26 Alejandro Illanes

Notice that the closure of F is a topological copy of G.

G

Figure 6.

This example illustrates the following idea. If we can see the hyperspace C(G),
for a finite graph G, with at least one ramification point, we can look for the
manifold boundary of the 2-dimensional part of C(G) and we will see from what
finite graph G the model was constructed. That is, we can recover G from C(G).
This is the motivation (and the idea of the proof of the following theorem).
Theorem 2. Finite graphs G, different from an arc and a simple closed curve have
unique hyperspace C(G).
Theorem 2 follows essentially from the work by R. Duda [15], it explicitly ap-
peared in [2, Theorem 1]. In his papers [15], [16] and [17], R. Duda made a very
detailed study of the hyperspace C(G) when G is a finite graph.
For a finite graph G, what we have discussed for C(G) is not applicable to
C2 (G). We will see that it is impossible to recognize the hyperspace F1 (G) from
seeing C2 (G). In order to show this we recall how to construct a model for C2 ([0, 1])
(due to R. M. Schori, [29, Lemma 2.2]).
Let C01 = {A ∈ C2 ([0, 1]) : 0, 1 ∈ A} and C1 = {A ∈ C2 ([0, 1]) : 1 ∈ A}. The
typical elements of C01 are of the form A = [0, a] ∪ [b, 1], where 0 ≤ a ≤ b ≤ 1.
We can define ϕ : C01 → R2 by ϕ(A) = (a, b). Then ϕ is not a function since
ϕ([0, 1]) = ϕ([0, a] ∪ [a, 1]) = (a, a) for each a ∈ [0, 1]. The image of ϕ is the
triangle T in Figure 1. If we identify the diagonal ∆ of T to a point we obtain the
space T /∆ and now ϕ is a well defined homeomorphism between C01 and T /∆. This
proves that C01 is a 2-cell. It is easy to show that the function ψ : C01 × [0, 1] → C1
 Uniqueness of hyperspaces 27

given by ψ(A) = t + (1 − t)A is continuous, surjective and its only nondegenerate

fiber is the set C01 × {1}. Thus, C1 is homeomorphic to the cone of C01 . Hence, C1
is a 3-cell. Finally, the function σ : C1 × [0, 1] → C2 ([0, 1]) given by σ(A) = tA is
continuous, surjective and its only nondegenerate fiber is C1 ×{0}. Hence, C2 ([0, 1])
is homeomorphic to the cone over C1 . Therefore, C2 ([0, 1]) is a 4-cell.
When we observe C2 ([0, 1]), we only see a 4-cell. It is easy to show that, in this
model, the boundary as manifold of C2 ([0, 1]) is the set B = {A ∈ C2 ([0, 1]) : either
A is connected or A has a degenerate component or A∩{0, 1} ̸= ∅} and the interior
as manifold of C2 ([0, 1]) is the set C = {A ∈ C2 ([0, 1]) : A has two nondegenerate
components and A ∩ {0, 1} = ∅}. Thus, when we see this 4-cell we cannot say
which of its points represent the elements of C([0, 1]) or the elements of F1 ([0, 1]).
Surprisingly, for n ≥ 3, the situation is very different. Given a finite graph G
and n ≥ 3, there is a topological property that distinguishes the elements of the
set
E = {A ∈ Cn (G) : A does not contain a ramification point and A is connected} .
To describe this topological property, let
F = {A ∈ Cn (G) : A has a neighborhood in Cn (G) that is a 2n-cell} .
In [31, section 3] it is proved that
E = {A ∈ Cn (G) : A ∈
/ F and A has a basis of neighborhoods B in Cn (G)
such that U ∩ F is arcwise connected for each U ∈ B} .
Notice that F is defined in terms of topological properties of Cn (G) and the last
equality shows that there is a topological characterization of the elements of E.
Thus, if we can topologically see the hyperspace Cn (G), we can distinguish the set
E. Given the finite graph G, the set E can be constructed as the example of Figure
6. Thus we can recognize G by observing Cn (G).
What we have discussed in the previous paragraphs, illustrates the reason that,
for proving results of uniqueness of hyperspaces in Cn (X), the case n = 2 is especial
and more difficult that the rest of the cases.
While C([0, 1]) and C(S 1 ) are homeomorphic, C2 ([0, 1]) is not homeomorphic to
C2 (S 1 ). We have seen that C2 ([0, 1]) is a 4-cell and it has been shown that C2 (S 1 )
is the cone over a solid torus [32].
The following theorem was proved in [29] for the case n = 2 and in [31] for the
case n > 2.

Theorem 3. Finite graphs G have unique hyperspace Cn (G) for each n ≥ 2.

28 Alejandro Illanes

B. Hilbert Cubes
There are several ways to identify Hilbert cubes in hyperspaces. We illustrate
this fact in some examples.
Consider the continuum Fω in Figure 7 which is the union of a sequence of arcs
converging to a singleton {v}. Let A = {A ∈ Fω : v ∈ A}. Proceeding as we did
with the simple triod, it is possible to show that A is homeomorphic to the Hilbert
cube.

Fw

Figure 7.

Now, consider the continuum X in Figure 8 which is called the Harmonic fan.
It consists of a sequence of arcs converging to an arc, all of them joined by a
point v. In this case it is also possible to show [18, Theorem 2.2] that the set
A = {A ∈ C(X) : v ∈ A} is homeomorphic to the Hilbert cube.

Figure 8.

The next particular continuum that we consider is the enlarged null comb N
illustrated in Figure 9. In this case it is also possible to prove that the set A =
{A ∈ C(N ) : v ∈ A} is a Hilbert cube (see [8, Theorem 3.1]).
A free arc in a continuum X is an arc α, with end points a and b such that
α − {a, b} is open in X.
If a locally connected continuum X has a point p for which there exists a compact
connected neighborhood M in X such that M does not contain free arcs of X, by
 Uniqueness of hyperspaces 29

Figure 9.

Theorem 1, C(M ) is a neighborhood of the element {p} in C(X) such that C(M )
is homeomorphic to the Hilbert cube.

M
p

Figure 10.

In some cases, when there is a Hilbert cube as the described in the previous
examples, it is possible to prove that X does not have unique hyperspace C(X).
Next, we will describe an idea of the steps to do this.
1. Locate a special point p and a subcontinuum M of C(X) such that M is
homeomorphic to the Hilbert cube and {p} ∈ M.
2. Attach a locally connected continuum D, without free arcs, to X by the point
p to construct the continuum Y = X ∪ D. Then C(Y ) = C(X) ∪ C(D) ∪ Cp (Y ),
where Cp (Y ) = {A ∈ C(Y ) : p ∈ A}.
By Theorem 1, C(D) is a Hilbert cube. Under appropriate conditions Cp (Y )
is (or contains) a Hilbert cube. In this way M ∪ Cp (Y ) ∪ C(D) is the union of
three Hilbert cubes. The Hilbert cube is particularly flexible, this allows to show
that, in appropriate cases, the union of three Hilbert cubes is homeomorphic to
a Hilbert cube. If we get a homeomorphism that does not move the boundary of
M in C(X), then it is possible to construct a homeomorphism between C(X) and
C(Y ). Since D can be chosen from a very large collection of continua, it is possible
to choose D in such a way that X is not homeomorphic to Y . Thus, X does not
have unique hyperspace C(X), see Figure 12.
30 Alejandro Illanes

M
p

Figure 11.

C(X)
M

C(Y) Cp(Y)

C(D) M

Figure 12.
 Uniqueness of hyperspaces 31

In the paragraph above, we have roughly described a technique that is useful to

show that some continua X does not have unique hyperspace C(X) (or Cn (X)).

A smooth fan is a subcontinuum of the cone over the Cantor set. The continuum
Fω and the harmonic fan are examples of smooth fans. C. Eberhart and S. B.
Nadler, Jr. applied the technique described above to show the following theorem.
Theorem 4 ([18]). If X is a smooth fan with infinitely many end points, then X
does not have unique hyperspace C(X).
Problem 5. Can Theorem 4 be extended to the hyperspaces Cn (X) for all n ≥ 2?

C. Dendrites
A dendrite is a locally connected continuum without simple closed curves. Define
D = {X : X is a dendrite with closed set of end points} .
It is known [10] that a dendrite X belongs to D if and only if X does not contain
neither a copy of Fω nor a copy of the enlarged null comb. Figure 13 shows the so
called Gehman dendrite which is a dendrite in class D. For this dendrite, the set
of end points is the Cantor set.

Figure 13.
Dendrites X in class D have the property that they can be approximated by
finite graphs G such that G = clX (int(G)). So, it is not surprising that some of the
results about uniqueness of hyperspaces proved for finite graphs can be extended
to dendrites in class D. We enunciate some of them.
The following theorem was proved in several steps. The case n = 1 was shown
in [22], the case n > 2 in [26] and the case n = 2 needed the papers [24] and [33].
32 Alejandro Illanes

Theorem 6 (D. Herrera, A. Illanes, F. Macı́as-Romero and M. de J. López, [22],

[24], [26] and [33]). Let X be a dendrite belonging to class D. Then
(a) X has unique hyperspace Cn (X) for each n ≥ 2,
(b) if X is not an arc, then X has unique hyperspace C(X).

Theorem 7 ([9] for the case n = 1 and [25] for the case n > 2). Continua with
a base of neighborhoods belonging to class D have unique hyperspace Cn (X) for all
n ̸= 2.

The next result was proved using the technique described in the section B. Since
a dendrite X that does not belong to class D contains a copy of Fω or a copy of the
enlarged null comb, there is special point p where a continuum D can be attached
to X obtaining a continuum Y such that Y is not homeomorphic to X and C(Y )
is homeomorphic to C(X).

Theorem 8 ([8]). If a dendrite X does not belong to D, then X does not have
unique hyperspace C(X).

One can suspect that Theorem 6 can be extended to Cn (X) for n ≥ 2. However,
the technique described in section B does not behave so well for these hyperspaces.
Theorem 6 cannot be extended even for n = 2. The (unexpected) example X,
illustrated in Figure 14 is a dendrite containing the extended null comb and having
unique hyperspace C2 (X) (see [20, Example 39]).

Figure 14.

By Theorems 6 and 8 dendrites with unique hyperspace C(X) are completely

characterized as those belonging to class D. However, example in Figure 14 shows
that there is no such a simple characterization for C2 (X). The following problem
is open.

Problem 9 ([20, Problem 9]). Characterize those dendrites X with unique hyper-
space C2 (X).

D. Framed Continua
Trying to give a unified theory of uniqueness in locally connected continua, in
[20] the following notions were introduced.
 Uniqueness of hyperspaces 33

∪
A locally connected continuum X is almost framed provided that {J ⊂ X : J
is a free arc in X} is dense in X. Let
G(X) = {p ∈ X : p has a neighborhood K in X such that K is a finite graph} .
Clearly, a locally connected continuum X is almost framed if and only if G(X)
is dense in X.
We say that X is framed if it is not a simple closed curve, is almost framed and
has a base of neighborhoods B such that for each U ∈ B, U ∩ G(X) is connected.
It is not hard to prove that finite graphs, dendrites in class D and locally class-D
dendrites are framed continua ([20, Theorem 6]). Figures 15 and 16 show almost
framed continua that are not local dendrites, in both continua, the small squares
are divided infinitely many times. The continuum in Figure 16 is framed and the
one in Figure 18 is not framed.

Figure 15.

Figure 16.
The following theorem generalizes Theorems 2, 6 and 7.
Theorem 10 ([20, Theorems 29, 30 and 35]). Framed continua different from an
arc have unique hyperspace Cn (X) for all n ∈ N.
34 Alejandro Illanes

The technique in Section B is again used to show the following result.

Theorem 11 ([20, Theorem 20]). If X is a locally connected continuum and X is

not almost framed, then X does not have unique hyperspace Cn (X) for each n ∈ N.

The following theorem generalizes Theorem 8.

Theorem 12 ([20, Corollary 23]). If X is almost framed and X − G(X) is not

connected, then X does not have unique hyperspace C(X).

Theory of framed continua can be resumed as follows: locally connected continua

can be divided in three classes. Namely, (a) Non-almost framed continua, (b)
framed continua, and (c) almost framed that are non-framed continua.

Not almost Almost framed Framed

framed

Figure 17.

By Theorem 11, continua X in class (a) does not have unique hyperspace Cn (X)
for any n ∈ N; and by Theorem 10, framed continua have unique hyperspace
Cn (X) for each n ∈ N. Thus, with respect to unique hyperspace Cn (X), the
gray zone is continua in class (c). Theorem 12 gives a sufficient condition to have
unique hyperspace Cn (X). Surprisingly, this condition is not necessary since in
[23, Example 38] it was proved that the continuum X in Figure 18 has unique
hyperspace C(X).
Hence, the following problem remains open.

Problem 13. Characterize locally connected continua X which have unique hyper-
space Cn (X).

Figure 18.
 Uniqueness of hyperspaces 35

E. Compactifications of the ray and the real line

Other class of continua having dense set of free arcs is the class of compactifica-
tions of the ray [0, ∞) or of the real line.
Theorem 14 ([2, Theorem 4]). If X is a compactification of the ray and X is not
an arc, then X has unique hyperspace C(X).
Question 15. Do compactifications of the ray have unique hyperspace Cn (X) for
each n ≥ 2?
Theorem 16 ([2, Theorem 6]). If X is a compactification of the real line, X is
not an arc and its remainder is disconnected, then X has unique hyperspace C(X).
Question 17. Do compactifications of the real line with disconnected remainder
have unique hyperspace C2 (X)?
G. Acosta [3, Section 4], proved that, if X and Y are the continua pictured in
Figure 19, then C(X) and C(Y ) are homeomorphic (related results can be found
in [1]). Since Y is a compactification of the real line, we have that the hypothesis
of disconnectedness of the remainder in Theorem 16 is necessary.

X Y

Figure 19.

Question 18. Let X be a compactification of the real line. Does X have unique
hyperspace C2 (X)?

F. Type λ continua
A continuum X which is irreducible between two points p and q is said to be
of type λ provided that there is a monotone (with connected fibers) mapping g :
X → [0, 1] such that g(p) = 0, g(q) = 1 and intX (g −1 (t)) = ∅ for each t ∈ [0, 1]; the
fibers g −1 (t) are called layers of X. The fiber g −1 (t) is called a layer of cohesion
provided that g −1 (t) ⊂ clX ((t, 1]), if t < 1 and g −1 (t) ⊂ clX ([0, t)), if 0 < t.
Theorem 19 ([6, Theorem 4.1]). Let X be a continuum of type λ, each layer of
X is of cohesion, the set of degenerate layers is dense in X and both end layers of
X are nondegenerate, then X has unique hyperspace.
36 Alejandro Illanes

In Theorem 19 the hypothesis that the end layers of X are nondegenerate is

essential. In [3, Theorem 3.7], it was shown that all the continua X in Figure 20
have the same hyperspace C(X).

Figure 20.

G. Indecomposable continua
A continuum is said to be indecomposable provided that it is not the union of two
proper subcontinua. A hereditarily indecomposable continuum is a continuum such
that all its subcontinua are indecomposable. A continuum is called arc continuum
if each of its proper subcontinua is an arc.
It is known [38, Theorem 14.9] that hyperspaces 2X and Cn (X) are arcwise
connected. For hereditarily indecomposable continua the arc structure of 2X and
Cn (X) reflects many properties of the continuum X. In particular, this arc struc-
ture allows to prove the following result.

Theorem 20 ([40] and [41, Theorem 6.1]). If X is a hereditarily indecomposable

continuum, then X has unique hyperspaces 2X and Cn (X) for all n ∈ N.

Theorem 20 has been extended for non-metric continua. A Hausdorff contin-

uum is a compact connected Hausdorff space. I. Lončar [39] proved that if X is
a Hausdorff continuum and X is rim metrizable (it has a base of open sets with
 Uniqueness of hyperspaces 37

metrizable boundary), then X has unique hyperspace C(X) (among all the Haus-
dorff continua). A. Peláez [46] extended this result to all hyperspaces 2X and
Cn (X), still asking that X is rim metrizable. Recently, the author [34] has proved
Theorem 20 for Hausdorff continua without any metrizability assumption.
Problem 21. Find more classes of continua X having unique hyperspace 2X
Other class of continua for which the structure of the subcontinua is relatively
easy are the indecomposable arc continua. Examples of these spaces are the Buck-
ethandle (Figure 21) and the solenoids (see [38, Definition 61.1], for descriptions).

Figure 21.

Theorem 22 ([3, Theorem 2.3]). Indecomposable arc continua X have unique

hyperspace C(X).
Recently, R. Hernández-Gutiérrez, A. Illanes and V. Martı́nez-de-la-Vega [21]
have shown that indecomposable arc continua X have unique hyperspace Cn (X),
for each n ≥ 3, the case n = 2 remains unsolved.
Problem 23. Have indecomposable arc continua X unique hyperspaces 2X and
C2 (X)?

H. C-Determined continua
A class of continua G is said to be C-determined, provided that if X and Y are
continua in class G and C(X) is homeomorphic to C(Y ), then X is homeomorphic
to Y .
A chainable continuum is a continuum X such that for each ε > 0, there exists
a finite sequence of open sets U1 , . . . , Un such that: (a) X = U1 ∪ . . . ∪ Un , (b)
diameter(Ui ) < ε for all i and (c) Ui ∩ Uj ̸= ∅ if and only if |i − j| ≤ 1. The
continuum X is said to be circle-like provided that it satisfies similar conditions
but with (c’) Ui ∩ Uj ̸= ∅ if and only if |i − j| ≤ 1 or {i, j} = {1, n}. Answering a
38 Alejandro Illanes

question by S. B. Nadler, Jr. [44, Question 0.62], the author showed that the class
of chainable continua is not C-determined. If X and Y are the examples in Figure
22, then in [27] it was shown that C(X) and C(Y ) are homeomorphic.

Figure 22.

Changing the pattern of the copies of the sin( x1 )-continua in this example, it is
possible to obtain uncountable many examples similar to the one given in Figure
22 [12].

Example 24 ([6, Corollary 3.8]). There exists a chainable continuum X of type

λ such that both end layers are degenerate and there exists infinitely many non-
homeomorphic chainable continua Y such that C(X) is homeomorphic to C(Y ).

The idea of the Example 24 is as follows, take a continuum X as that in Figure 23.
Then C(X) and C(Y ) are homeomorphic, and they are homeomophic to C(Z),
where Z is as in Figure 23. Since Z was constructing by cutting out an arc in Y
and the cutting can be made in countably many places, it is possible to construct
countably many continua Z with the same properties.

Question 25 ([6, Question 3.11]). Does there exist a chainable continuum X and
an uncountable family {Zα : α ∈ J} of pairwise non-homeomorphic chainable
continua such that C(X) is homeomorphic to C(Zα ) for each α ∈ J?

Question 26. Are there two non-homeomorphic chainable continua X and Y such
that C2 (X) and C2 (Y ) are homeomorphic?

The trick suggested in Figure 23 does not work for circle-like continua. So, the
following problem remains open.

Question 27 ([44, Questions 0.62]). Is the class of circle-like continua C-determined?

G. Acosta has obtained some partial answers to Question 27.

 Uniqueness of hyperspaces 39

Figure 23.

Theorem 28. ([5, Theorems 5.3 and 6.6]) (a) The class of arcwise connected
circle-like continua is C-determined. (b) The class of homogeneous circle-like con-
tinua is C-determined.
A dendroid is an arcwise connected continuum such that the intersection of any
two of its subcontinua is connected. It is known [45, Theorem 10.10] that the class
of the dendrites coincides with the class of locally connected dendroids. A fan is a
dendroid with exactly one ramification point.
By Theorem 7, most smooth fans do not have unique hyperspace C(X).

Theorem 29 ([18]). The class of smooth fans is C-determined.

G. Acosta generalized the previous theorem by proving the following.
Theorem 30 ([4]). If X is a smooth fan and Y is a fan such that C(X) is home-
omorphic to C(Y ), then X is homeomorphic to Y .
On the other hand, the author in [28] constructed two non-homeomorphic fans
X and Y such that C(X) and C(Y ) are homeomorphic (see Figure 24).
Question 31. Do there exist two non-homeomorphic fans X and Y such that
C2 (X) and C2 (Y ) are homeomorphic?
Question 32. Let n ≥ 2 and X and Y be smooth fans such that Cn (X) is homeo-
morphic to Cn (Y ). Does it follow that X is homeomorphic to Y ?
40 Alejandro Illanes

Figure 24.

Question 33. Let X and Y be smooth fans such that 2X is homeomorphic to 2Y

and X has infinitely many end points. Does it follow that X is homeomorphic to
Y?

3. The Hyperspaces Fn (X)

As we will see in this section, for the symmetric products Fn (X) it is possible to
prove some results about uniqueness of the hyperspaces. As we discussed before,
when we work with Cn (X), the difficult case for the proof of some results resides
in the case n = 2. In symmetric products Fn (X), the difficult case is when n = 3.
To illustrate the reason of this difficulty, we construct a model for F3 ([0, 1]).

Consider the map ϕ : F3 ([0, 1]) → R2 given by ϕ(A) = (min A, max A). Then ϕ
is a continuous function whose image is the triangle T in Figure 1. Given (a, b) ∈ T ,
the fiber ϕ−1 ((a, b)) is the set {{a, b, c} : a ≤ c ≤ b}. In the case that a < b, the
set {{a, b, c} : a ≤ c ≤ b} is a simple closed curve since c runs on the interval [a, b]
and {a, a, b} = {a, b, b}. In the case that a = b, ϕ−1 ((a, b)) = {{a, b, c} : a ≤ c ≤
b} = {{a}}. Thus, to obtain a model for F3 ([0, 1]) we need to put a circle on each
point (a, b) ∈ T such that a < b and a one-point-set in the points of the diagonal
of T . This can be realized by taking the revolution body that can be obtained by
rotating T around its diagonal. Therefore, F3 ([0, 1]) is a 3-cell.
Notice that the set of singletons F1 ([0, 1]) is represented as the rotation axis
and the elements of the set {{x} ∈ F3 ([0, 1]) : 0 < x < 1} are in the interior
(as manifold) of the 3-cell. Thus, from the topological point of view, they are
undistinguishable from many other elements in F3 ([0, 1]). This implies that it is
 Uniqueness of hyperspaces 41

Figure 25.

not possible to identify (topologically) the set F1 ([0, 1]) when we observe hyperspace
F3 ([0, 1]).
Fortunately, for n ≥ 4, it is possible to recognize the subset F1 (G) from Fn (G)
for some continua G. To illustrate how this can be achieved, we suppose that G is
a finite graph. Let
F = {A ∈ Fn (G) : A has a neighborhood in Fn (G) that is a 2n-cell} .
In [11, Corollary 4.4] it is proved that
F = {A ∈ Fn (G) : A has exactly n points and A does not have
ramification points of G} .
And, in Lemma 4.5 of [11], it is shown that
C = {A ∈ F1 (G) : A does not contain a ramification point of G}
= {A ∈
/ F : A has a basis B of neighborhoods in Fn (G) such that
U ∩ F is arcwise connected for each U ∈ B} .
Therefore, C can be topologically distinguished in Fn (G). Since clFn (G) (C) =
F1 (G), we have that F1 (G) can be distinguished in Fn (G) and G has unique hy-
perspace Fn (G).

Theorem 34 ([11]). Finite graphs G have unique hyperspace Fn (G) for every n ∈
N.

Theorem 35 ([7], [23] and [30]). Dendrites X in class D have unique hyperspace
Fn (X).

Problem 36. Have all dendrites X unique hyperspace Fn (X)?

42 Alejandro Illanes

Theorem 37 ([37, Theorems 3 and 4]). Compactifications X of the ray [0, ∞)

have unique hyperspace Fn (X) for each n ̸= 3.
Theorem 38 ([37, Theorem 10]). Compactifications X of the ray [0, ∞) such that
the remainder is an ANR have unique hyperspace F3 (X).
Question 39 ([37, Question 11]). Have all compactifications X of the ray [0, ∞)
unique hyperspace F3 (X)?
Question 40. Have all chainable (circle-like) continua X unique hyperspace Fn (X)?
Question 41. Have all fans X unique hyperspace Fn (X)?
Question 42. Have all indecomposable arc continua X unique hyperspace F2 (X)
or F3 (X)?
Question 43. Does there exist a finite dimensional continuum X without unique
hyperspace Fn (X)?
Question 44. Do hereditarily indecomposable continua X have unique hyperspace
F2 (X)?
Question 45. Does the Pseudo-arc have unique hyperspace F2 (X)?
We denote by Q the Hilbert cube. V. V. Fedorchuk has shown that for each
n ≥ 2, Fn (Q) is homeomorphic to Q [19, p. 223]. However, Q is not the only
continuum X for which Fn (X) is homeomorphic to Q. In [36, p. 139] it was
shown that if X is the union of two Hilbert cubes joined by a point, then F2 (X) is
homeomorphic to Q. Hence Q does not have unique hyperspace F2 (Q).

Acknowledgement. The author whishes to thank Leonardo Espinosa for his

technical help in the preparation of this paper.
Added in proofs. In a recent paper (“Rigidity of symmetric products”, preprint)
Rodrigo Hernández-Gutiérrez and Verónica Martı́nez-de-la-Vega have solved ques-
tions 41 and 42 in the positive for all n ≥ 4.

References
[1] G. Acosta, On compactifications of the real line and unique hyperspace, Topology Proc. 25
(2000), 1–25.
[2] G. Acosta, Continua with unique hyperspace, Continuum theory (Denton, TX, 1999, 33-49
Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math. 230, Dekker, New York, 2002.
[3] G. Acosta, Continua with almost unique hyperspace, Topology Appl. 117 (2002), 175–189.
[4] G. Acosta, On smooth fans and unique hyperspace, Houston J. Math. 30 (2004), 99–115.
[5] G. Acosta, Homogeneous circle-like continua are C-determined, Topology Proc. 30, (2006),
1–23.
[6] G. Acosta, J. J. Charatonik and A. Illanes, Irreducible continua of type λ with almost unique
hyperspace, Rocky Mountain J. Math. 31 (2001), 745–772.
 Uniqueness of hyperspaces 43

[7] G. Acosta, R. Hernández-Gutiérrez and V. Martı́nez-de-la-Vega, Dendrites and symmetric

products, Glas. Mat., III. Ser. 44 (2009), 195–210.
[8] G. Acosta and D. Herrera-Carrasco, Dendrites without unique hyperspace, Houston J. Math.
35 (2009), 451–467.
[9] G. Acosta, D. Herrera-Carrasco and F. Macı́as-Romero, Local dendrites with unique hyper-
space C(X), Topology Appl. 157 (2010), 2069–2085.
[10] D. Arévalo, W. J. Charatonik, P. Pellicer-Covarrubias and L. Simón, Dendrites with a closed
set of end points, Topology Appl. 115 (2001), 1–17.
[11] E. Castañeda and A. Illanes, Finite graphs have unique symmetric products, Topology Appl.
153 (2006), 1434–1450.
[12] J. J. Charatonik, On chainable continua with almost unique hyperspace, Questions Answers
Gen. Topology 18 (2000), 167–169.
[13] D. Curtis, Growth hyperspaces of Peano continua, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 238 (1978),
271–283.
[14] D. Curtis and R. M. Schori, Hyperspaces of Peano continua are Hilbert cubes, Fund. Math.
101 (1978), 19–38.
[15] R. Duda, On the hyperspace of subcontinua of a finite graph, I, Fund. Math. 62 (1968),
265–286.
[16] R. Duda, Correction to the paper “On the hyperspace of subcontinua of a finite graph, I”,
Fund. Math. 69 (1970), 207–211.
[17] R. Duda, On the hyperspace of subcontinua of a finite graph, II, Fund. Math. 63 (1968),
225–255.
[18] C. Eberhart and S. B. Nadler, Jr., Hyperspaces of cones and fans, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
77 (1979), 279–288.
[19] V. V. Fedorchuk, Covariant functors in the category of compacta, absolute retracts, and
Q–manifolds, Russian Math. Surveys 36 (3) (1981), 211–233.
[20] R. Hernández-Gutiérrez, A. Illanes and V. Martı́nez-de-la-Vega, Uniquenes of hyperspaces of
Peano continua, to appear in Rocky Mountain J. Math.
[21] R. Hernández-Gutiérrez, A. Illanes and V. Martı́nez-de-la-Vega, Rigidity on hyperspaces,
preprint.
[22] D. Herrera-Carrasco, Dendrites with unique hyperspace, Houston J. Math. 33 (2007), 795–
805.
[23] D. Herrera-Carrasco, M. de J. López and F. Macı́as-Romero, Dendrites with unique symmet-
ric products, Topology Proc. 34 (2009) 175–190.
[24] D. Herrera-Carrasco, A. Illanes, M. de J. López and F. Macı́as-Romero, Dendrites with
unique hyperspace C2 (X), Topology Appl. 156 (2009), 549–557.
[25] D. Herrera-Carrasco and F. Macı́as-Romero, Local dendrites with unique n-fold hyperspace,
Topology Appl. 158 (2011), 244-251.
[26] D. Herrera-Carrasco and F. Macı́as-Romero, Dendrites with unique n-fold hyperspace, Topol-
ogy Proc. 32 (2008), 321–337.
[27] A. Illanes, Chainable continua are not C-determined, Topology Appl. 98 (1999), 211–216.
[28] A. Illanes, Fans are not C-determined, Colloq. Math. 81 (2) (1999), 299–308.
[29] A. Illanes, The hyperspace C2 (X) for a finite graph X is unique, Glas. Mat. Ser. III 37 (57)
(2002), 347–363.
[30] A. Illanes, Dendrites with unique hyperspace F2 (X), JP J. Geom. Topol. 2 (2002), 75–96.
[31] A. Illanes, Finite graphs X have unique hyperspaces Cn (X), Topology Proc. 27, (2003)
179–188.
44 Alejandro Illanes

[32] A. Illanes, A model for the hyperspace C2 (S 1 ), Questions Answers Gen. Topology 22 (2004),
117–130.
[33] A. Illanes, Dendrites with unique hyperspace C2 (X), II. Topology Proc. 34 (2009), 77–96.
[34] A. Illanes, Hereditarily indecomposable Hausdorff continua have unique hyperspaces 2X and
Cn (X), Publ. Inst. Math. (Beograd) (N.S.) 89 (103) (2011), 49–56.
[35] A. Illanes, Models of hyperspaces, preprint.
[36] A. Illanes, S. Macı́as and S. B. Nadler, Jr., Symmetric Products and Q-manifolds, Geometry
and Topology in Dynamics, Contemporary Math. Series of Amer. Math. Soc. 246, 1999,
Providence, RI, 137–141.
[37] A. Illanes and Jorge Martı́nez-Montejano, Compactifications of [0, ∞) with unique hyperspace
Fn (X), Glas. Mat., III. Ser. 44 (2009), 457–478.
[38] A. Illanes and S. B. Nadler, Jr., Hyperspaces: Fundamentals and Recent Advances, Mono-
graphs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 216, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New
York and Basel, 1999.
[39] I. Lončar, Non-metric rim-metrizable continua and unique hyperspace, Publ. Inst. Math.,
Nouv. Sér. 73 (87) (2003), 97–113.
[40] S. Macı́as, Hereditarily indecomposable continua have unique hyperspace 2X , Bol. Soc. Mat.
Mex., III. Ser. 5, (1999), 415–418.
[41] S. Macı́as, On the hyperspaces Cn (X) of a continuum X, II, Topology Proc. 25 (2000),
255–276.
[42] V. Martı́nez-de-la-Vega, Dimension of n-fold hyperspaces of graphs, Houston J. Math. 32
(2006), 783–799.
[43] Verónica Martı́nez-de-la-Vega and Norberto Ordoñez, Embedding hyperspaces, to appear in
Topology Appl.
[44] S. B. Nadler, Jr., Hyperspaces of sets: A text with research questions, Monographs and
Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 49, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York and
Basel, 1978.
[45] S. B. Nadler, Jr., Continuum Theory, Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied
Mathematics, 158, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York and Basel, 1992.
[46] A. Peláez, On the uniqueness of the hyperspaces 2X and Cn (X) of rim-metrizable continua,
Topology Proc. 30 (2006) 565–576.

Instituto de Matematicas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Circuito

Exterior, Cd. Universitaria, Mexico 04510, D.F.
E-mail address: illanes@matem.unam.mx

Received February 10, 2011 and revised August 19, 2011