Paracompact spaces and Lindelof spaces are familiar notions of covering properties. The covering properties resulting from replacing the para with meta in the case of paracompact and adding meta to Lindelof are also spaces that had been extensively studied. This is an introduction of meta-Lindelof spaces by way of examples.
Definitions
All spaces under discussion are Hausdorff and regular. A space is paracompact if every open cover of
has a locally finite open refinement. A space
is metacompact if every open cover of
has a point-finite open refinement. A space
is Lindelof if every open cover of
has a countable subcover, i.e., every open cover of
has a countable subcollection that is also a cover of
. A space
is meta-Lindelof if every open cover of
has a point-countable open refinement, i.e., every open cover
of
has a subcollection
such that
is a refinement of
and that
is a point-countable collection. From the definitions, we have the implications shown in the following diagram.
It is well known that any regular Lindelof space is paracompact (the left arrow at the top of the diagram). The two down arrows and the right arrow at the bottom in the diagram follow from the definitions. If there is an up arrow from meta-Lindelof to Lindelof, the diagram would be a closed loop, which would mean all 4 notions are equivalent. At minimum, there are paramcompact spaces that are not Lindelof. For example, any non-separable metric space is paracompact and not Lindelof. Thus, in general it is impossible for the diagram to be a closed loop. In other words, there must be meta-Lindelof spaces that are not Lindelof. However, with additional assumptions, an up arrow from meta-Lindelof to Lindelof is possible. Theorem 1 below shows that the diagram is a closed loop for separable spaces. It is well known that paracompact spaces with the countable chain condition (CCC) are Lindelof (see here). Perhaps an up arrow from meta-Lindelof to Lindelof is possible for spaces with CCC. We discuss some partial results at the end of this article.
Spaces that are not meta-Lindelof
We present two spaces that are not meta-Lindelof (Example 1 and Example 2). The following theorem will make the examples clear.
Theorem 1
Let be a separable space. If
is meta-Lindelof, then
is Lindelof.
Proof
Let be an open cover of
. Since
is meta-Lindelof, there is a point-countable open refinement
of
. Let
be a countable dense subset of
. Let
be defined by
. Since
is point-countable, each point of
can belong to only countably many
. It follows that
is countable. Furthermore,
. The set inclusion
is clear. The set inclusion
follows from the fact that
is a dense subset. To complete the proof, for each
, choose
such that
. Then
is a countable subcover of
. This completes the proof that
is Lindelof.
In the above proof, the countable dense set forces the point-countable open refinement to be countable, thus leading to a countable subcover of the original open cover. We now look at examples.
Example 1
The idea for this example is that any separable space that is known to be non-Lindelof must not be meta-Lindelof due to the above theorem. A handy example is the Sorgenfrey plane . Recall that the Sorgenfrey line
is the real number line topologized by the base consisting of the half open intervals of the form
. It is well known that
is hereditarily Lindelof, separable and not metrizable. The Sorgenfrey line
is a classic example of a Lindelof space whose square is not even normal, thus not Lindelof (see here). By Theorem 1, the Sorgenfrey plane is not meta-Lindelof.
Example 2
This is another example that is separable and non-Lindelof, hence not meta-Lindelof. The space is the Mrowka space (or Psi-space), which is defined here. To define the space, let be uncountable almost disjoint family of subsets of
, that is, for any
with
,
is finite. The underlying set is
. The points in
are isolated. An open neighborhood of
is of the form
where
is a finite set. The space
is not Lindelof since
is an uncountable closed and discrete subset. It is separable since the set of integers,
, is a dense subset. By Theorem 1, the space
must not be meta-Lindelof. This space is a classic example of a space that has a
-diagonal but is not submetrizable.
Example 3
Example 1 is not normal. Example 2 is not normal if the almost disjoint family has cardinality continuum (due to Jones’ Lemma). For Example 2 to be normal, additional set theory axiom is required. Example 3 is a normal example of a space that is not meta-Lindelof.
Consider , the space of the countable ordinals with the ordered topology. This space is not Lindelof since the open cover consisting of
, where
, is an open cover that has no countable subcover. The space
is also not paracompact since some open covers cannot be locally finite. The same idea can show that certain open covers cannot be point-countable open cover. This is due to the pressing down lemma (see here). To see this, for each limit ordinal
, let
be an open set containing
. Then the function
is a so called pressing down function. By the pressing down lemma, there exist some
such that the set
is a stationary subset of
. This implies that the point
would belong to uncountably many open sets
. Thus, any open cover of
containing the sets
cannot be point-countable.
To wrap up the example, let be any open refinement of the open cover consisting of the open sets
. We choose
described above such that each
is contained in some
. This means that
cannot be point-countable. Thus, one open cover of
has no point-countable open refinement, showing that the space of all countable ordinals,
, cannot be meta-Lindelof.
Example 4
This example makes use of Example 3. Consider be the product space of
many copies of the real line
. Each
is a function
. Let
denote
for each
. Let
be the set of all points
in
where
is non-zero for at most countably many
. This space is called the
-product of lines. The topology of
is the inherited product topology from the product space
. The
-product of separable metric spaces is collectionwise normal (see here). The
-product of uncountably many spaces, each of which has at least 2 points, always contains a closed copy of the space
(see here).
Observe that closed subspaces of a meta-Lindelof space are always meta-Lindelof. Thus the -product
defined here cannot be a meta-Lindelof space. This example is revisited in Example 6 below.
Meta-Lindelof but not Lindelof
Example 5
This example is the Michael line , which is the real line topologized by making the irrational numbers isolated and letting the rational numbers retain the usual Euclidean open sets (a basic introduction is found here). The usual Euclidean open sets of the real line are also open in the Michael line. Thus,
is a submetrizable space.
To see that it is meta-Lindelof, let be an open cover of the Michael line
. Choose
such that
covers the rational numbers. Let
. Thus
is a point-countable open refinement of
. This shows that the Michael line
is meta-Lindelof. This fact can also be seen from the above diagram, which shows that paracompact
metacompact
meta-Lindelof. Note that the Michael line is a paracompact space that is not Lindelof.
The Michael line as an example of a meta-Lindelof space is quite informative. Note that in any Lindelof space, all closed and discrete subsets must be countable (such a space is said to have countable extent). However, a meta-Lindelof space can have uncountable closed and discrete subset. There is a closed and discrete subset of the Michael line of cardinality continuum. To see this, note that there is a Cantor set in the real line consisting entirely of irrational numbers. For example, we can construct a Cantor set within the interval . Let
enumerate all rational numbers within this interval. In the first step, we remove a middle part of the interval
such that the two remaining closed intervals have irrational endpoints and will miss
. In the
th step of the construction, we remove the middle part of each of the remaining intervals such that all remaining intervals have irrational endpoints and will miss the rational number
. Let
be the resulting Cantor set, which consists only of irrational numbers since it misses all rational numbers in
. The set
, as a subset of the Michael line, is closed and discrete.
The above paragraph shows one direction in which the two notions of “Lindelof” diverge. Lindelof spaces have countable extent. On the other hand, meta-Lindelof space can have uncountable closed and discrete subsets.
Example 5 actually presents a template for producing meta-Lindelof spaces. In Example 5, start with the real line with the usual topology. Identify a “Lindelof” part (the rationals) and make the remainder discrete (the irrationals). The template is further described in the following theorem.
Theorem 2
Let be a space and let
be a Lindelof subspace of
. Define a new space
such that the underlying set is
and the new topology is defined as follows. Let points
be isolated and let points
retain the original open sets in
.
- Then the space
is a meta-Lindelof space.
- If the original space
is a non-Lindelof space, then
is also not Lindelof.
To see with the new topology is meta-Lindelof, follow the same proof in showing the Michael line is meta-Lindelof. To prove part 2, let
be an open cover of
(in the original topology) such that no countable subcollection of
is a cover of
. Let
be a countable subcollection of
such that
covers
. There must be uncountably many points of
not covered by
. Then
is an open cover of
that has no countable subcover.
Example 6
This example starts with the space in Example 4. To define
, let
, the product space of
many copies of the real line
. Let
and
be the subspaces of
defined as follows:
The space is called the
-product of lines and is collectionwise normal. Note that the
-product of separable metric spaces is collectionwise normal (see here). The space
is called the
-product of lines, which consists of all points in the product space
with non-zero values in at most finitely many coordinates. Note that the
-product of separable metric spaces is a Lindelof space (see here).
The -product
is not Lindelof because it contains a closed copy of
(see here). Thus,
is a non-Lindelof space with a Lindelof subspace
, which is exactly what is required in Theorem 2. Define the space
as described in Theorem 2. The resulting
is meta-Lindelof but not Lindelof.
Note that the Lindelof is a dense subset of
-product
. Thus, though
is not Lindelof, it has a dense Lindelof subspace. In Example 4, we see that
is not meta-Lindelof since it contains a non-meta-Lindelof space as a closed subspace. However, re-topologizing it by making the points not in
isolated and making the points in
retain the open sets in the
-product topology produces a meta-Lindelof space.
Concluding Remarks
A few observations can be made from the six examples discussed above.
- Among the separable spaces, meta-Lindelofness and Lindelofness are the same (Theorem 1). This gives a handy way to show that any separable space that is not Lindelof is not meta-Lindelof.
- It is possible that the product of Lindelof spaces is not meta-Lindelof (Example 1).
- A question can be asked for Example 2, which is a Moore space. Any Lindelof Morre space is second countable. Example 2 is not meta-Lindelof. Must a meta-Lindelof Moore space be second countable?
- The first uncountable ordinal
with the order topology is not paracompact since it is not possible to cover the limit ordinals with a locally finite collection of open sets. The same idea shows that
does not even satisfy the weaker property of meta-Lindelof (Example 3).
- One take away from Example 4 is that meta-Lindelof spaces resemble Lindelof spaces in one respect, that is, meta-Lindelofness is hereditary with respect to closed subspaces. Because the
-product of the real lines contains a closed copy of
, it is not meta-Lindelof.
- The Michael line (Example 5) demonstrates one critical difference between meta-Lindelof and Lindelof. Any Lindelof space has countable extent. It is different for meta-Lindelof spaces. In the Michael line, there is an uncountable closed and discrete subset. One way to see this is to construct a Cantor set in the real line consisting of only irrational numbers.
- The Michael line (Example 5) gives the hint of a recipe for producing meta-Lindelof spaces. The recipe is described in Theorem 2. Example 6 is a demonstration of the recipe. The
-product discussed inExample 4 is non-Lindelof with a dense Lindelof subspace
. By letting
retain the original
-product open sets and making the complement of
discrete, we produce another meta-Lindelof space that is not Lindelof.
The rest of the remark focuses on the diagram given earlier (repeated belo
Theorem 1 shows that for separable spaces, meta-Lindelof Lindelof. As a result, the diagram becomes a closed loop, meaning all 4 notions in the diagram are equivalent for separable spaces. As pointed out earlier, CCC may be a good candidate for replacing separable since among CCC spaces, paracompactness equates Lindelofness. It turns out that for CCC spaces, meta-Lindelof does not imply Lindelof. A handy example is the Pixley-Roy space
, which is non-Lindelof, metacompact (hence meta-Lindelof) and satisfies the CCC (see the follow up discussion in the next post). We found the following partial result in p. 971 of the Handbook of Set-Theoretic Topology (Chapter 22 on Borel Measures by Gardner and Pfeffer).
Theorem 3 (MA + not CH)
Each locally compact meta-Lindelof space satisfying the CCC is Lindelof.
Theorem 3 is Corollary 4.9 in the article in the Handbook. It implies that for locally compact CCC space, the above diagram is a closed loop but only under Martin’s axiom and the negation of CH.
The Handbook was published in 1984. We wonder if there is any update since then. For any reader who has updated information regarding the consistency result in Theorem 3, please kindly comment in the space below.
For more information on meta-Lindelof and other covering properties, see Chapter 9 in the Handbook of Set-Theoretic Topology (the chapter by D. Burke on covering properties).
Dan Ma topology
Daniel Ma topology
Dan Ma Lindelof spaces
Daniel Ma Lindelof spaces
Dan Ma meta-Lindelof spaces
Daniel Ma meta-Lindelof spaces
2022 – Dan Ma
Posted: 10/29/2022
Updated: 10/30/2022
Updated: 11/1/2022
Pingback: A Pixley-Roy Meta-Lindelof Space | Dan Ma's Topology Blog