Counterexample 106 from Steen and Seebach

As the title suggests, this post discusses counterexample 106 in Steen and Seebach [2]. We extend the discussion by adding two facts not found in [2].

The counterexample 106 is the space $X=\omega_1 \times I^I$, which is the product of $\omega_1$ with the interval topology and the product space $I^I=\prod_{t \in I} I$ where $I$ is of course the unit interval $[0,1]$. The notation of $\omega_1$, the first uncountable ordinal, in Steen and Seebach is $[0,\Omega)$.

Another way to notate the example $X$ is the product space $\prod_{t \in I} X_t$ where $X_0$ is $\omega_1$ and $X_t$ is the unit interval $I$ for all $t>0$. Thus in this product space, all factors except for one factor is the unit interval and the lone non-compact factor is the first uncountable ordinal. The factor of $\omega_1$ makes this product space an interesting example.

The following lists out the basic topological properties of the space that $X=\omega_1 \times I^I$ are covered in [2].

• The space $X$ is Hausdorff and completely regular.
• The space $X$ is countably compact.
• The space $X$ is neither compact nor sequentially compact.
• The space $X$ is neither separable, Lindelof nor $\sigma$-compact.
• The space $X$ is not first countable.
• The space $X$ is locally compact.

All the above bullet points are discussed in Steen and Seebach. In this post we add the following two facts.

• The space $X$ is not normal.
• The space $X$ has a dense subspace that is normal.

It follows from these bullet points that the space $X$ is an example of a completely regular space that is not normal. Not being a normal space, $X$ is then not metrizable. Of course there are other ways to show that $X$ is not metrizable. One is that neither of the two factors $\omega_1$ or $I^I$ is metrizable. Another is that $X$ is not first countable.

____________________________________________________________________

The space $X$ is not normal

Now we are ready to discuss the non-normality of the example. It is a natural question to ask whether the example $X=\omega_1 \times I^I$ is normal. The fact that it was not discussed in [2] could be that the tool for answering the normality question was not yet available at the time [2] was originally published, though we do not know for sure. It turns out that the tool became available in the paper [1] published a few years after the publication of [2]. The key to showing the normality (or the lack of) in the example $X=\omega_1 \times I^I$ is to show whether the second factor $I^I$ is a countably tight space.

The main result in [1] is discussed in this previous post. Theorem 1 in the previous post states that for any compact space $Y$, the product $\omega_1 \times Y$ is normal if and only if $Y$ is countably tight. Thus the normality of the space $X$ (or the lack of) hinges on whether the compact factor $I^I=\prod_{t \in I} I$ is countably tight.

A space $Y$ is countably tight (or has countable tightness) if for each $S \subset Y$ and for each $x \in \overline{S}$, there exists some countable $B \subset S$ such that $x \in \overline{B}$. The definitions of tightness in general and countable tightness in particular are discussed here.

To show that the product space $I^I=\prod_{t \in I} I$ is not countably tight, we let $S$ be the subspace of $I^I$ consisting of points, each of which is non-zero on at most countably many coordinates. Specifically $S$ is defined as follows:

$S=\Sigma_{t \in I} I=\left\{y \in I^I: y(t) \ne 0 \text{ for at most countably many } t \in I \right\}$

The set $S$ just defined is also called the $\Sigma$-product of copies of unit interval $I$. Let $g \in I^I$ be defined by $g(t)=1$ for all $t \in I$. It follows that $g \in \overline{S}$. It can also be verified that $g \notin \overline{B}$ for any countable $B \subset S$. This shows that the product space $I^I=\prod_{t \in I} I$ is not countably tight.

By Theorem 1 found in this link, the space $X=\omega_1 \times I^I$ is not normal.

____________________________________________________________________

The space $X$ has a dense subspace that is normal

Now that we know $X=\omega_1 \times I^I$ is not normal, a natural question is whether it has a dense subspace that is normal. Consider the subspace $\omega_1 \times S$ where $S$ is the $\Sigma$-product $S=\Sigma_{t \in I} I$ defined in the preceding section. The subspace $S$ is dense in the product space $I^I$. Thus $\omega_1 \times S$ is dense in $X=\omega_1 \times I^I$. The space $S$ is normal since the $\Sigma$-product of separable metric spaces is normal. Furthermore, $\omega_1$ can be embedded as a closed subspace of $S=\Sigma_{t \in I} I$. Then $\omega_1 \times S$ is homeomorphic to a closed subspace of $S \times S$. Since $S \times S \cong S$, the space $\omega_1 \times S$ is normal.

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

1. Nogura, T., Tightness of compact Hausdorff space and normality of product spaces, J. Math. Soc. Japan, 28, 360-362, 1976
2. Steen, L. A., Seebach, J. A., Counterexamples in Topology, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1995.

____________________________________________________________________
$\copyright \ 2015 \text{ by Dan Ma}$

Normality in the powers of countably compact spaces

Let $\omega_1$ be the first uncountable ordinal. The topology on $\omega_1$ we are interested in is the ordered topology, the topology induced by the well ordering. The space $\omega_1$ is also called the space of all countable ordinals since it consists of all ordinals that are countable in cardinality. It is a handy example of a countably compact space that is not compact. In this post, we consider normality in the powers of $\omega_1$. We also make comments on normality in the powers of a countably compact non-compact space.

Let $\omega$ be the first infinite ordinal. It is well known that $\omega^{\omega_1}$, the product space of $\omega_1$ many copies of $\omega$, is not normal (a proof can be found in this earlier post). This means that any product space $\prod_{\alpha<\kappa} X_\alpha$, with uncountably many factors, is not normal as long as each factor $X_\alpha$ contains a countable discrete space as a closed subspace. Thus in order to discuss normality in the product space $\prod_{\alpha<\kappa} X_\alpha$, the interesting case is when each factor is infinite but contains no countable closed discrete subspace (i.e. no closed copies of $\omega$). In other words, the interesting case is that each factor $X_\alpha$ is a countably compact space that is not compact (see this earlier post for a discussion of countably compactness). In particular, we would like to discuss normality in $X^{\kappa}$ where $X$ is a countably non-compact space. In this post we start with the space $X=\omega_1$ of the countable ordinals. We examine $\omega_1$ power $\omega_1^{\omega_1}$ as well as the countable power $\omega_1^{\omega}$. The former is not normal while the latter is normal. The proof that $\omega_1^{\omega}$ is normal is an application of the normality of $\Sigma$-product of the real line.

____________________________________________________________________

The uncountable product

Theorem 1
The product space $\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} \omega_1=\omega_1^{\omega_1}$ is not normal.

Theorem 1 follows from Theorem 2 below. For any space $X$, a collection $\mathcal{C}$ of subsets of $X$ is said to have the finite intersection property if for any finite $\mathcal{F} \subset \mathcal{C}$, the intersection $\cap \mathcal{F} \ne \varnothing$. Such a collection $\mathcal{C}$ is called an f.i.p collection for short. It is well known that a space $X$ is compact if and only collection $\mathcal{C}$ of closed subsets of $X$ satisfying the finite intersection property has non-empty intersection (see Theorem 1 in this earlier post). Thus any non-compact space has an f.i.p. collection of closed sets that have empty intersection.

In the space $X=\omega_1$, there is an f.i.p. collection of cardinality $\omega_1$ using its linear order. For each $\alpha<\omega_1$, let $C_\alpha=\left\{\beta<\omega_1: \alpha \le \beta \right\}$. Let $\mathcal{C}=\left\{C_\alpha: \alpha < \omega_1 \right\}$. It is a collection of closed subsets of $X=\omega_1$. It is an f.i.p. collection and has empty intersection. It turns out that for any countably compact space $X$ with an f.i.p. collection of cardinality $\omega_1$ that has empty intersection, the product space $X^{\omega_1}$ is not normal.

Theorem 2
Let $X$ be a countably compact space. Suppose that there exists a collection $\mathcal{C}=\left\{C_\alpha: \alpha < \omega_1 \right\}$ of closed subsets of $X$ such that $\mathcal{C}$ has the finite intersection property and that $\mathcal{C}$ has empty intersection. Then the product space $X^{\omega_1}$ is not normal.

Proof of Theorem 2
Let’s set up some notations on product space that will make the argument easier to follow. By a standard basic open set in the product space $X^{\omega_1}=\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} X$, we mean a set of the form $O=\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} O_\alpha$ such that each $O_\alpha$ is an open subset of $X$ and that $O_\alpha=X$ for all but finitely many $\alpha<\omega_1$. Given a standard basic open set $O=\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} O_\alpha$, the notation $\text{Supp}(O)$ refers to the finite set of $\alpha$ for which $O_\alpha \ne X$. For any set $M \subset \omega_1$, the notation $\pi_M$ refers to the projection map from $\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} X$ to the subproduct $\prod_{\alpha \in M} X$. Each element $d \in X^{\omega_1}$ can be considered a function $d: \omega_1 \rightarrow X$. By $(d)_\alpha$, we mean $(d)_\alpha=d(\alpha)$.

For each $t \in X$, let $f_t: \omega_1 \rightarrow X$ be the constant function whose constant value is $t$. Consider the following subspaces of $X^{\omega_1}$.

$H=\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} C_\alpha$

$\displaystyle K=\left\{f_t: t \in X \right\}$

Both $H$ and $K$ are closed subsets of the product space $X^{\omega_1}$. Because the collection $\mathcal{C}$ has empty intersection, $H \cap K=\varnothing$. We show that $H$ and $K$ cannot be separated by disjoint open sets. To this end, let $U$ and $V$ be open subsets of $X^{\omega_1}$ such that $H \subset U$ and $K \subset V$.

Let $d_1 \in H$. Choose a standard basic open set $O_1$ such that $d_1 \in O_1 \subset U$. Let $S_1=\text{Supp}(O_1)$. Since $S_1$ is the support of $O_1$, it follows that $\pi_{S_1}^{-1}(\pi_{S_1}(d_1)) \subset O_1 \subset U$. Since $\mathcal{C}$ has the finite intersection property, there exists $a_1 \in \bigcap_{\alpha \in S_1} C_\alpha$.

Define $d_2 \in H$ such that $(d_2)_\alpha=a_1$ for all $\alpha \in S_1$ and $(d_2)_\alpha=(d_1)_\alpha$ for all $\alpha \in \omega_1-S_1$. Choose a standard basic open set $O_2$ such that $d_2 \in O_2 \subset U$. Let $S_2=\text{Supp}(O_2)$. It is possible to ensure that $S_1 \subset S_2$ by making more factors of $O_2$ different from $X$. We have $\pi_{S_2}^{-1}(\pi_{S_2}(d_2)) \subset O_2 \subset U$. Since $\mathcal{C}$ has the finite intersection property, there exists $a_2 \in \bigcap_{\alpha \in S_2} C_\alpha$.

Now choose a point $d_3 \in H$ such that $(d_3)_\alpha=a_2$ for all $\alpha \in S_2$ and $(d_3)_\alpha=(d_2)_\alpha$ for all $\alpha \in \omega_1-S_2$. Continue on with this inductive process. When the inductive process is completed, we have the following sequences:

• a sequence $d_1,d_2,d_3,\cdots$ of point of $H=\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} C_\alpha$,
• a sequence $S_1 \subset S_2 \subset S_3 \subset \cdots$ of finite subsets of $\omega_1$,
• a sequence $a_1,a_2,a_3,\cdots$ of points of $X$

such that for all $n \ge 2$, $(d_n)_\alpha=a_{n-1}$ for all $\alpha \in S_{n-1}$ and $\pi_{S_n}^{-1}(\pi_{S_n}(d_n)) \subset U$. Let $A=\left\{a_1,a_2,a_3,\cdots \right\}$. Either $A$ is finite or $A$ is infinite. Let’s examine the two cases.

Case 1
Suppose that $A$ is infinite. Since $X$ is countably compact, $A$ has a limit point $a$. That means that every open set containing $a$ contains some $a_n \ne a$. For each $n \ge 2$, define $y_n \in \prod_{\alpha< \omega_1} X$ such that

• $(y_n)_\alpha=(d_n)_\alpha=a_{n-1}$ for all $\alpha \in S_n$,
• $(y_n)_\alpha=a$ for all $\alpha \in \omega_1-S_n$

From the induction step, we have $y_n \in \pi_{S_n}^{-1}(\pi_{S_n}(d_n)) \subset U$ for all $n$. Let $t=f_a \in K$, the constant function whose constant value is $a$. It follows that $t$ is a limit of $\left\{y_1,y_2,y_3,\cdots \right\}$. This means that $t \in \overline{U}$. Since $t \in K \subset V$, $U \cap V \ne \varnothing$.

Case 2
Suppose that $A$ is finite. Then there is some $m$ such that $a_m=a_j$ for all $j \ge m$. For each $n \ge 2$, define $y_n \in \prod_{\alpha< \omega_1} X$ such that

• $(y_n)_\alpha=(d_n)_\alpha=a_{n-1}$ for all $\alpha \in S_n$,
• $(y_n)_\alpha=a_m$ for all $\alpha \in \omega_1-S_n$

As in Case 1, we have $y_n \in \pi_{S_n}^{-1}(\pi_{S_n}(d_n)) \subset U$ for all $n$. Let $t=f_{a_m} \in K$, the constant function whose constant value is $a_m$. It follows that $t=y_n$ for all $n \ge m+1$. Thus $U \cap V \ne \varnothing$.

Both cases show that $U \cap V \ne \varnothing$. This completes the proof the product space $X^{\omega_1}$ is not normal. $\blacksquare$

____________________________________________________________________

The countable product

Theorem 3
The product space $\prod_{\alpha<\omega} \omega_1=\omega_1^{\omega}$ is normal.

Proof of Theorem 3
The proof here actually proves more than normality. It shows that $\prod_{\alpha<\omega} \omega_1=\omega_1^{\omega}$ is collectionwise normal, which is stronger than normality. The proof makes use of the $\Sigma$-product of $\kappa$ many copies of $\mathbb{R}$, which is the following subspace of the product space $\mathbb{R}^{\kappa}$.

$\Sigma(\kappa)=\left\{x \in \mathbb{R}^{\kappa}: x(\alpha) \ne 0 \text{ for at most countably many } \alpha<\kappa \right\}$

It is well known that $\Sigma(\kappa)$ is collectionwise normal (see this earlier post). We show that $\prod_{\alpha<\omega} \omega_1=\omega_1^{\omega}$ is a closed subspace of $\Sigma(\kappa)$ where $\kappa=\omega_1$. Thus $\omega_1^{\omega}$ is collectionwise normal. This is established in the following claims.

Claim 1
We show that the space $\omega_1$ is embedded as a closed subspace of $\Sigma(\omega_1)$.

For each $\beta<\omega_1$, define $f_\beta:\omega_1 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that $f_\beta(\gamma)=1$ for all $\gamma<\beta$ and $f_\beta(\gamma)=0$ for all $\beta \le \gamma <\omega_1$. Let $W=\left\{f_\beta: \beta<\omega_1 \right\}$. We show that $W$ is a closed subset of $\Sigma(\omega_1)$ and $W$ is homeomorphic to $\omega_1$ according to the mapping $f_\beta \rightarrow W$.

First, we show $W$ is closed by showing that $\Sigma(\omega_1)-W$ is open. Let $y \in \Sigma(\omega_1)-W$. We show that there is an open set containing $y$ that contains no points of $W$.

Suppose that for some $\gamma<\omega_1$, $y_\gamma \in O=\mathbb{R}-\left\{0,1 \right\}$. Consider the open set $Q=(\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} Q_\alpha) \cap \Sigma(\omega_1)$ where $Q_\alpha=\mathbb{R}$ except that $Q_\gamma=O$. Then $y \in Q$ and $Q \cap W=\varnothing$.

So we can assume that for all $\gamma<\omega_1$, $y_\gamma \in \left\{0, 1 \right\}$. There must be some $\theta$ such that $y_\theta=1$. Otherwise, $y=f_0 \in W$. Since $y \ne f_\theta$, there must be some $\delta<\gamma$ such that $y_\delta=0$. Now choose the open interval $T_\theta=(0.9,1.1)$ and the open interval $T_\delta=(-0.1,0.1)$. Consider the open set $M=(\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} M_\alpha) \cap \Sigma(\omega_1)$ such that $M_\alpha=\mathbb{R}$ except for $M_\theta=T_\theta$ and $M_\delta=T_\delta$. Then $y \in M$ and $M \cap W=\varnothing$. We have just established that $W$ is closed in $\Sigma(\omega_1)$.

Consider the mapping $f_\beta \rightarrow W$. Based on how it is defined, it is straightforward to show that it is a homeomorphism between $\omega_1$ and $W$.

Claim 2
The $\Sigma$-product $\Sigma(\omega_1)$ has the interesting property it is homeomorphic to its countable power, i.e.

$\Sigma(\omega_1) \cong \Sigma(\omega_1) \times \Sigma(\omega_1) \times \Sigma(\omega_1) \cdots \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \text{(countably many times)}$.

Because each element of $\Sigma(\omega_1)$ is nonzero only at countably many coordinates, concatenating countably many elements of $\Sigma(\omega_1)$ produces an element of $\Sigma(\omega_1)$. Thus Claim 2 can be easily verified. With above claims, we can see that

$\displaystyle \omega_1^{\omega}=\omega_1 \times \omega_1 \times \omega_1 \times \cdots \subset \Sigma(\omega_1) \times \Sigma(\omega_1) \times \Sigma(\omega_1) \cdots \cong \Sigma(\omega_1)$

Thus $\omega_1^{\omega}$ is a closed subspace of $\Sigma(\omega_1)$. Any closed subspace of a collectionwise normal space is collectionwise normal. We have established that $\omega_1^{\omega}$ is normal. $\blacksquare$

____________________________________________________________________

The normality in the powers of $X$

We have established that $\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} \omega_1=\omega_1^{\omega_1}$ is not normal. Hence any higher uncountable power of $\omega_1$ is not normal. We have also established that $\prod_{\alpha<\omega} \omega_1=\omega_1^{\omega}$, the countable power of $\omega_1$ is normal (in fact collectionwise normal). Hence any finite power of $\omega_1$ is normal. However $\omega_1^{\omega}$ is not hereditarily normal. One of the exercises below is to show that $\omega_1 \times \omega_1$ is not hereditarily normal.

Theorem 2 can be generalized as follows:

Theorem 4
Let $X$ be a countably compact space has an f.i.p. collection $\mathcal{C}$ of closed sets such that $\bigcap \mathcal{C}=\varnothing$. Then $X^{\kappa}$ is not normal where $\kappa=\lvert \mathcal{C} \lvert$.

The proof of Theorem 2 would go exactly like that of Theorem 2. Consider the following two theorems.

Theorem 5
Let $X$ be a countably compact space that is not compact. Then there exists a cardinal number $\kappa$ such that $X^{\kappa}$ is not normal and $X^{\tau}$ is normal for all cardinal number $\tau<\kappa$.

By the non-compactness of $X$, there exists an f.i.p. collection $\mathcal{C}$ of closed subsets of $X$ such that $\bigcap \mathcal{C}=\varnothing$. Let $\kappa$ be the least cardinality of such an f.i.p. collection. By Theorem 4, that $X^{\kappa}$ is not normal. Because $\kappa$ is least, any smaller power of $X$ must be normal.

Theorem 6
Let $X$ be a space that is not countably compact. Then $X^{\kappa}$ is not normal for any cardinal number $\kappa \ge \omega_1$.

Since the space $X$ in Theorem 6 is not countably compact, it would contain a closed and discrete subspace that is countable. By a theorem of A. H. Stone, $\omega^{\omega_1}$ is not normal. Then $\omega^{\omega_1}$ is a closed subspace of $X^{\omega_1}$.

Thus between Theorem 5 and Theorem 6, we can say that for any non-compact space $X$, $X^{\kappa}$ is not normal for some cardinal number $\kappa$. The $\kappa$ from either Theorem 5 or Theorem 6 is at least $\omega_1$. Interestingly for some spaces, the $\kappa$ can be much smaller. For example, for the Sorgenfrey line, $\kappa=2$. For some spaces (e.g. the Michael line), $\kappa=\omega$.

Theorems 4, 5 and 6 are related to a theorem that is due to Noble.

Theorem 7 (Noble)
If each power of a space $X$ is normal, then $X$ is compact.

A proof of Noble’s theorem is given in this earlier post, the proof of which is very similar to the proof of Theorem 2 given above. So the above discussion the normality of powers of $X$ is just another way of discussing Theorem 7. According to Theorem 7, if $X$ is not compact, some power of $X$ is not normal.

The material discussed in this post is excellent training ground for topology. Regarding powers of countably compact space and product of countably compact spaces, there are many topics for further discussion/investigation. One possibility is to examine normality in $X^{\kappa}$ for more examples of countably compact non-compact $X$. One particular interesting example would be a countably compact non-compact $X$ such that the least power $\kappa$ for non-normality in $X^{\kappa}$ is more than $\omega_1$. A possible candidate could be the second uncountable ordinal $\omega_2$. By Theorem 2, $\omega_2^{\omega_2}$ is not normal. The issue is whether the $\omega_1$ power $\omega_2^{\omega_1}$ and countable power $\omega_2^{\omega}$ are normal.

____________________________________________________________________

Exercises

Exercise 1
Show that $\omega_1 \times \omega_1$ is not hereditarily normal.

Exercise 2
Show that the mapping $f_\beta \rightarrow W$ in Claim 3 in the proof of Theorem 3 is a homeomorphism.

Exercise 3
The proof of Theorem 3 shows that the space $\omega_1$ is a closed subspace of the $\Sigma$-product of the real line. Show that $\omega_1$ can be embedded in the $\Sigma$-product of arbitrary spaces.

For each $\alpha<\omega_1$, let $X_\alpha$ be a space with at least two points. Let $p \in \prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} X_\alpha$. The $\Sigma$-product of the spaces $X_\alpha$ is the following subspace of the product space $\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} X_\alpha$.

$\Sigma(X_\alpha)=\left\{x \in \prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} X_\alpha: x(\alpha) \ne p(\alpha) \ \text{for at most countably many } \alpha<\omega_1 \right\}$

The point $p$ is the center of the $\Sigma$-product. Show that the space $\Sigma(X_\alpha)$ contains $\omega_1$ as a closed subspace.

Exercise 4
Find a direct proof of Theorem 3, that $\omega_1^{\omega}$ is normal.

____________________________________________________________________
$\copyright \ 2015 \text{ by Dan Ma}$

Comparing two function spaces

Let $\omega_1$ be the first uncountable ordinal, and let $\omega_1+1$ be the successor ordinal to $\omega_1$. Furthermore consider these ordinals as topological spaces endowed with the order topology. It is a well known fact that any continuous real-valued function $f$ defined on either $\omega_1$ or $\omega_1+1$ is eventually constant, i.e., there exists some $\alpha<\omega_1$ such that the function $f$ is constant on the ordinals beyond $\alpha$. Now consider the function spaces $C_p(\omega_1)$ and $C_p(\omega_1+1)$. Thus individually, elements of these two function spaces appear identical. Any $f \in C_p(\omega_1)$ matches a function $f^* \in C_p(\omega_1+1)$ where $f^*$ is the result of adding the point $(\omega_1,a)$ to $f$ where $a$ is the eventual constant real value of $f$. This fact may give the impression that the function spaces $C_p(\omega_1)$ and $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ are identical topologically. The goal in this post is to demonstrate that this is not the case. We compare the two function spaces with respect to some convergence properties (countably tightness and Frechet-Urysohn property) as well as normality.

____________________________________________________________________

Tightness

One topological property that is different between $C_p(\omega_1)$ and $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is that of tightness. The function space $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is countably tight, while $C_p(\omega_1)$ is not countably tight.

Let $X$ be a space. The tightness of $X$, denoted by $t(X)$, is the least infinite cardinal $\kappa$ such that for any $A \subset X$ and for any $x \in X$ with $x \in \overline{A}$, there exists $B \subset A$ for which $\lvert B \lvert \le \kappa$ and $x \in \overline{B}$. When $t(X)=\omega$, we say that $X$ has countable tightness or is countably tight. When $t(X)>\omega$, we say that $X$ has uncountable tightness or is uncountably tight.

First, we show that the tightness of $C_p(\omega_1)$ is greater than $\omega$. For each $\alpha<\omega_1$, define $f_\alpha: \omega_1 \rightarrow \left\{0,1 \right\}$ such that $f_\alpha(\beta)=0$ for all $\beta \le \alpha$ and $f_\alpha(\beta)=1$ for all $\beta>\alpha$. Let $g \in C_p(\omega_1)$ be the function that is identically zero. Then $g \in \overline{F}$ where $F$ is defined by $F=\left\{f_\alpha: \alpha<\omega_1 \right\}$. It is clear that for any countable $B \subset F$, $g \notin \overline{B}$. Thus $C_p(\omega_1)$ cannot be countably tight.

The space $\omega_1+1$ is a compact space. The fact that $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is countably tight follows from the following theorem.

Theorem 1
Let $X$ be a completely regular space. Then the function space $C_p(X)$ is countably tight if and only if $X^n$ is Lindelof for each $n=1,2,3,\cdots$.

Theorem 1 is a special case of Theorem I.4.1 on page 33 of [1] (the countable case). One direction of Theorem 1 is proved in this previous post, the direction that will give us the desired result for $C_p(\omega_1+1)$.

____________________________________________________________________

The Frechet-Urysohn property

In fact, $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ has a property that is stronger than countable tightness. The function space $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is a Frechet-Urysohn space (see this previous post). Of course, $C_p(\omega_1)$ not being countably tight means that it is not a Frechet-Urysohn space.

____________________________________________________________________

Normality

The function space $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is not normal. If $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is normal, then $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ would have countable extent. However, there exists an uncountable closed and discrete subset of $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ (see this previous post). On the other hand, $C_p(\omega_1)$ is Lindelof. The fact that $C_p(\omega_1)$ is Lindelof is highly non-trivial and follows from [2]. The author in [2] showed that if $X$ is a space consisting of ordinals such that $X$ is first countable and countably compact, then $C_p(X)$ is Lindelof.

____________________________________________________________________

Embedding one function space into the other

The two function space $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ and $C_p(\omega_1)$ are very different topologically. However, one of them can be embedded into the other one. The space $\omega_1+1$ is the continuous image of $\omega_1$. Let $g: \omega_1 \longrightarrow \omega_1+1$ be a continuous surjection. Define a map $\psi: C_p(\omega_1+1) \longrightarrow C_p(\omega_1)$ by letting $\psi(f)=f \circ g$. It is shown in this previous post that $\psi$ is a homeomorphism. Thus $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is homeomorphic to the image $\psi(C_p(\omega_1+1))$ in $C_p(\omega_1)$. The map $g$ is also defined in this previous post.

The homeomposhism $\psi$ tells us that the function space $C_p(\omega_1)$, though Lindelof, is not hereditarily normal.

On the other hand, the function space $C_p(\omega_1)$ cannot be embedded in $C_p(\omega_1+1)$. Note that $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is countably tight, which is a hereditary property.

____________________________________________________________________

Remark

There is a mapping that is alluded to at the beginning of the post. Each $f \in C_p(\omega_1)$ is associated with $f^* \in C_p(\omega_1+1)$ which is obtained by appending the point $(\omega_1,a)$ to $f$ where $a$ is the eventual constant real value of $f$. It may be tempting to think of the mapping $f \rightarrow f^*$ as a candidate for a homeomorphism between the two function spaces. The discussion in this post shows that this particular map is not a homeomorphism. In fact, no other one-to-one map from one of these function spaces onto the other function space can be a homeomorphism.

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

1. Arkhangelskii, A. V., Topological Function Spaces, Mathematics and Its Applications Series, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1992.
2. Buzyakova, R. Z., In search of Lindelof $C_p$‘s, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae, 45 (1), 145-151, 2004.

____________________________________________________________________
$\copyright \ 2014 \text{ by Dan Ma}$

Cp(omega 1 + 1) is monolithic and Frechet-Urysohn

This is another post that discusses what $C_p(X)$ is like when $X$ is a compact space. In this post, we discuss the example $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ where $\omega_1+1$ is the first compact uncountable ordinal. Note that $\omega_1+1$ is the successor to $\omega_1$, which is the first (or least) uncountable ordinal. The function space $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is monolithic and is a Frechet-Urysohn space. Interestingly, the first property is possessed by $C_p(X)$ for all compact spaces $X$. The second property is possessed by all compact scattered spaces. After we discuss $C_p(\omega_1+1)$, we discuss briefly the general results for $C_p(X)$.

____________________________________________________________________

Initial discussion

The function space $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is a dense subspace of the product space $\mathbb{R}^{\omega_1}$. In fact, $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is homeomorphic to a subspace of the following subspace of $\mathbb{R}^{\omega_1}$:

$\Sigma(\omega_1)=\left\{x \in \mathbb{R}^{\omega_1}: x_\alpha \ne 0 \text{ for at most countably many } \alpha < \omega_1 \right\}$

The subspace $\Sigma(\omega_1)$ is the $\Sigma$-product of $\omega_1$ many copies of the real line $\mathbb{R}$. The $\Sigma$-product of separable metric spaces is monolithic (see here). The $\Sigma$-product of first countable spaces is Frechet-Urysohn (see here). Thus $\Sigma(\omega_1)$ has both of these properties. Since the properties of monolithicity and being Frechet-Urysohn are carried over to subspaces, the function space $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ has both of these properties. The key to the discussion is then to show that $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is homeopmophic to a subspace of the $\Sigma$-product $\Sigma(\omega_1)$.

____________________________________________________________________

Connection to $\Sigma$-product

We show that the function space $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is homeomorphic to a subspace of the $\Sigma$-product of $\omega_1$ many copies of the real lines. Let $Y_0$ be the following subspace of $C_p(\omega_1+1)$:

$Y_0=\left\{f \in C_p(\omega_1+1): f(\omega_1)=0 \right\}$

Every function in $Y_0$ has non-zero values at only countably points of $\omega_1+1$. Thus $Y_0$ can be regarded as a subspace of the $\Sigma$-product $\Sigma(\omega_1)$.

By Theorem 1 in this previous post, $C_p(\omega_1+1) \cong Y_0 \times \mathbb{R}$, i.e, the function space $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is homeomorphic to the product space $Y_0 \times \mathbb{R}$. On the other hand, the product $Y_0 \times \mathbb{R}$ can also be regarded as a subspace of the $\Sigma$-product $\Sigma(\omega_1)$. Basically adding one additional factor of the real line to $Y_0$ still results in a subspace of the $\Sigma$-product. Thus we have:

$C_p(\omega_1+1) \cong Y_0 \times \mathbb{R} \subset \Sigma(\omega_1) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (1)$

Thus $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ possesses all the hereditary properties of $\Sigma(\omega_1)$. Another observation we can make is that $\Sigma(\omega_1)$ is not hereditarily normal. The function space $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is not normal (see here). The $\Sigma$-product $\Sigma(\omega_1)$ is normal (see here). Thus $\Sigma(\omega_1)$ is not hereditarily normal.

____________________________________________________________________

A closer look at $C_p(\omega_1+1)$

In fact $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ has a stronger property that being monolithic. It is strongly monolithic. We use homeomorphic relation in (1) above to get some insight. Let $h$ be a homeomorphism from $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ onto $Y_0 \times \mathbb{R}$. For each $\alpha<\omega_1$, let $H_\alpha$ be defined as follows:

$H_\alpha=\left\{f \in C_p(\omega_1+1): f(\gamma)=0 \ \forall \ \alpha<\gamma<\omega_1 \right\}$

Clearly $H_\alpha \subset Y_0$. Furthermore $H_\alpha$ can be considered as a subspace of $\mathbb{R}^\omega$ and is thus metrizable. Let $A$ be a countable subset of $C_p(\omega_1+1)$. Then $h(A) \subset H_\alpha \times \mathbb{R}$ for some $\alpha<\omega_1$. The set $H_\alpha \times \mathbb{R}$ is metrizable. The set $H_\alpha \times \mathbb{R}$ is also a closed subset of $Y_0 \times \mathbb{R}$. Then $\overline{A}$ is contained in $H_\alpha \times \mathbb{R}$ and is therefore metrizable. We have shown that the closure of every countable subspace of $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is metrizable. In other words, every separable subspace of $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is metrizable. This property follows from the fact that $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is strongly monolithic.

____________________________________________________________________

Monolithicity and Frechet-Urysohn property

As indicated at the beginning, the $\Sigma$-product $\Sigma(\omega_1)$ is monolithic (in fact strongly monolithic; see here) and is a Frechet-Urysohn space (see here). Thus the function space $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is both strongly monolithic and Frechet-Urysohn.

Let $\tau$ be an infinite cardinal. A space $X$ is $\tau$-monolithic if for any $A \subset X$ with $\lvert A \lvert \le \tau$, we have $nw(\overline{A}) \le \tau$. A space $X$ is monolithic if it is $\tau$-monolithic for all infinite cardinal $\tau$. It is straightforward to show that $X$ is monolithic if and only of for every subspace $Y$ of $X$, the density of $Y$ equals to the network weight of $Y$, i.e., $d(Y)=nw(Y)$. A longer discussion of the definition of monolithicity is found here.

A space $X$ is strongly $\tau$-monolithic if for any $A \subset X$ with $\lvert A \lvert \le \tau$, we have $w(\overline{A}) \le \tau$. A space $X$ is strongly monolithic if it is strongly $\tau$-monolithic for all infinite cardinal $\tau$. It is straightforward to show that $X$ is strongly monolithic if and only if for every subspace $Y$ of $X$, the density of $Y$ equals to the weight of $Y$, i.e., $d(Y)=w(Y)$.

In any monolithic space, the density and the network weight coincide for any subspace, and in particular, any subspace that is separable has a countable network. As a result, any separable monolithic space has a countable network. Thus any separable space with no countable network is not monolithic, e.g., the Sorgenfrey line. On the other hand, any space that has a countable network is monolithic.

In any strongly monolithic space, the density and the weight coincide for any subspace, and in particular any separable subspace is metrizable. Thus being separable is an indicator of metrizability among the subspaces of a strongly monolithic space. As a result, any separable strongly monolithic space is metrizable. Any separable space that is not metrizable is not strongly monolithic. Thus any non-metrizable space that has a countable network is an example of a monolithic space that is not strongly monolithic, e.g., the function space $C_p([0,1])$. It is clear that all metrizable spaces are strongly monolithic.

The function space $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is not separable. Since it is strongly monolithic, every separable subspace of $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is metrizable. We can see this by knowing that $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is a subspace of the $\Sigma$-product $\Sigma(\omega_1)$, or by using the homeomorphism $h$ as in the previous section.

For any compact space $X$, $C_p(X)$ is countably tight (see this previous post). In the case of the compact uncountable ordinal $\omega_1+1$, $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ has the stronger property of being Frechet-Urysohn. A space $Y$ is said to be a Frechet-Urysohn space (also called a Frechet space) if for each $y \in Y$ and for each $M \subset Y$, if $y \in \overline{M}$, then there exists a sequence $\left\{y_n \in M: n=1,2,3,\cdots \right\}$ such that the sequence converges to $y$. As we shall see below, $C_p(X)$ is rarely Frechet-Urysohn.

____________________________________________________________________

General discussion

For any compact space $X$, $C_p(X)$ is monolithic but does not have to be strongly monolithic. The monolithicity of $C_p(X)$ follows from the following theorem, which is Theorem II.6.8 in [1].

Theorem 1
Then the function space $C_p(X)$ is monolithic if and only if $X$ is a stable space.

See chapter 3 section 6 of [1] for a discussion of stable spaces. We give the definition here. A space $X$ is stable if for any continuous image $Y$ of $X$, the weak weight of $Y$, denoted by $ww(Y)$, coincides with the network weight of $Y$, denoted by $nw(Y)$. In [1], $ww(Y)$ is notated by $iw(Y)$. The cardinal function $ww(Y)$ is the minimum cardinality of all $w(T)$, the weight of $T$, for which there exists a continuous bijection from $Y$ onto $T$.

All compact spaces are stable. Let $X$ be compact. For any continuous image $Y$ of $X$, $Y$ is also compact and $ww(Y)=w(Y)$, since any continuous bijection from $Y$ onto any space $T$ is a homeomorphism. Note that $ww(Y) \le nw(Y) \le w(Y)$ always holds. Thus $ww(Y)=w(Y)$ implies that $ww(Y)=nw(Y)$. Thus we have:

Corollary 2
Let $X$ be a compact space. Then the function space $C_p(X)$ is monolithic.

However, the strong monolithicity of $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ does not hold in general for $C_p(X)$ for compact $X$. As indicated above, $C_p([0,1])$ is monolithic but not strongly monolithic. The following theorem is Theorem II.7.9 in [1] and characterizes the strong monolithicity of $C_p(X)$.

Theorem 3
Let $X$ be a space. Then $C_p(X)$ is strongly monolithic if and only if $X$ is simple.

A space $X$ is $\tau$-simple if whenever $Y$ is a continuous image of $X$, if the weight of $Y$ $\le \tau$, then the cardinality of $Y$ $\le \tau$. A space $X$ is simple if it is $\tau$-simple for all infinite cardinal numbers $\tau$. Interestingly, any separable metric space that is uncountable is not $\omega$-simple. Thus $[0,1]$ is not $\omega$-simple and $C_p([0,1])$ is not strongly monolithic, according to Theorem 3.

For compact spaces $X$, $C_p(X)$ is rarely a Frechet-Urysohn space as evidenced by the following theorem, which is Theorem III.1.2 in [1].

Theorem 4
Let $X$ be a compact space. Then the following conditions are equivalent.

1. $C_p(X)$ is a Frechet-Urysohn space.
2. $C_p(X)$ is a k-space.
3. The compact space $X$ is a scattered space.

A space $X$ is a scattered space if for every non-empty subspace $Y$ of $X$, there exists an isolated point of $Y$ (relative to the topology of $Y$). Any space of ordinals is scattered since every non-empty subset has a least element. Thus $\omega_1+1$ is a scattered space. On the other hand, the unit interval $[0,1]$ with the Euclidean topology is not scattered. According to this theorem, $C_p([0,1])$ cannot be a Frechet-Urysohn space.

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

1. Arkhangelskii, A. V., Topological Function Spaces, Mathematics and Its Applications Series, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1992.

____________________________________________________________________
$\copyright \ 2014 \text{ by Dan Ma}$

Cp(omega 1 + 1) is not normal

In this and subsequent posts, we consider $C_p(X)$ where $X$ is a compact space. Recall that $C_p(X)$ is the space of all continuous real-valued functions defined on $X$ and that it is endowed with the pointwise convergence topology. One of the compact spaces we consider is $\omega_1+1$, the first compact uncountable ordinal. There are many interesting results about the function space $C_p(\omega_1+1)$. In this post we show that $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is not normal. An even more interesting fact about $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is that $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ does not have any dense normal subspace [1].

Let $\omega_1$ be the first uncountable ordinal, and let $\omega_1+1$ be the successor ordinal to $\omega_1$. The set $\omega_1$ is the first uncountable ordinal. Furthermore consider these ordinals as topological spaces endowed with the order topology. As mentioned above, the space $\omega_1+1$ is the first compact uncountable ordinal. In proving that $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is not normal, a theorem that is due to D. P. Baturov is utilized [2]. This theorem is also proved in this previous post.

For the basic working of function spaces with the pointwise convergence topology, see the post called Working with the function space Cp(X).

The fact that $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is not normal is established by the following two points.

• If $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is normal, then $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ has countable extent, i.e. every closed and discrete subspace of $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is countable.
• There exists an uncountable closed and discrete subspace of $C_p(\omega_1 +1)$.

We discuss each of the bullet points separately.

____________________________________________________________________

The function space $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ is a dense subspace of $\mathbb{R}^{\omega_1}$, the product of $\omega_1$ many copies of $\mathbb{R}$. According to a result of D. P. Baturov [2], any dense normal subspace of the product of $\omega_1$ many separable metric spaces has countable extent (also see Theorem 1a in this previous post). Thus $C_p(\omega_1+1)$ cannot be normal if the second bullet point above is established.

____________________________________________________________________

Now we show that there exists an uncountable closed and discrete subspace of $C_p(\omega_1 +1)$. For each $\alpha$ with $0<\alpha<\omega_1$, define $h_\alpha:\omega_1 + 1 \rightarrow \left\{0,1 \right\}$ by:

$h_\alpha(\gamma) = \begin{cases} 1 & \mbox{if } \gamma \le \alpha \\ 0 & \mbox{if } \alpha<\gamma \le \omega_1 \end{cases}$

Clearly, $h_\alpha \in C_p(\omega_1 +1)$ for each $\alpha$. Let $H=\left\{h_\alpha: 0<\alpha<\omega_1 \right\}$. We show that $H$ is a closed and discrete subspace of $C_p(\omega_1 +1)$. The fact that $H$ is closed in $C_p(\omega_1 +1)$ is establish by the following claim.

Claim 1
Let $h \in C_p(\omega_1 +1) \backslash H$. There exists an open subset $U$ of $C_p(\omega_1 +1)$ such that $h \in U$ and $U \cap H=\varnothing$.

First we get some easy cases out of the way. Suppose that there exists some $\alpha<\omega_1$ such that $h(\alpha) \notin \left\{0,1 \right\}$. Then let $U=\left\{f \in C_p(\omega_1 +1): f(\alpha) \in \mathbb{R} \backslash \left\{0,1 \right\} \right\}$. Clearly $h \in U$ and $U \cap H=\varnothing$.

Another easy case: If $h(\alpha)=0$ for all $\alpha \le \omega_1$, then consider the open set $U$ where $U=\left\{f \in C_p(\omega_1 +1): f(0) \in \mathbb{R} \backslash \left\{1 \right\} \right\}$. Clearly $h \in U$ and $U \cap H=\varnothing$.

From now on we can assume that $h(\omega_1+1) \subset \left\{0,1 \right\}$ and that $h$ is not identically the zero function. Suppose Claim 1 is not true. Then $h \in \overline{H}$. Next observe the following:

Observation.
If $h(\beta)=1$ for some $\beta \le \omega_1$, then $h(\alpha)=1$ for all $\alpha \le \beta$.

To see this, if $h(\alpha)=0$, $h(\beta)=1$ and $\alpha<\beta$, then define the open set $V$ by $V=\left\{f \in C_p(\omega_1 +1): f(\alpha) \in (-0.1,0.1) \text{ and } f(\beta) \in (0.9,1.1) \right\}$. Note that $h \in V$ and $V \cap H=\varnothing$, contradicting that $h \in \overline{H}$. So the above observation is valid.

Now either $h(\omega_1)=1$ or $h(\omega_1)=0$. We claim that $h(\omega_1)=1$ is not possible. Suppose that $h(\omega_1)=1$. Let $V=\left\{f \in C_p(\omega_1 +1): f(\omega_1) \in (0.9,1.1) \right\}$. Then $h \in V$ and $V \cap H=\varnothing$, contradicting that $h \in \overline{H}$. It must be the case that $h(\omega_1)=0$.

Because of the continuity of $h$ at the point $x=\omega_1$, of all the $\gamma<\omega_1$ for which $h(\gamma)=1$, there is the largest one, say $\beta$. Now $h(\beta)=1$. According to the observation made above, $h(\alpha)=1$ for all $\alpha \le \beta$. This means that $h=h_\beta$. This is a contradiction since $h \notin H$. Thus Claim 1 must be true and the fact that $H$ is closed is established.

Next we show that $H$ is discrete in $C_p(\omega_1 +1)$. Fix $h_\alpha$ where $0<\alpha<\omega_1$. Let $W=\left\{f \in C_p(\omega_1 +1): f(\alpha) \in (0.9,1.1) \text{ and } f(\alpha+1) \in (-0.1,0.1) \right\}$. It is clear that $h_\alpha \in W$. Furthermore, $h_\gamma \notin W$ for all $\alpha < \gamma$ and $h_\gamma \notin W$ for all $\gamma <\alpha$. Thus $W$ is open such that $\left\{h_\alpha \right\}=W \cap H$. This completes the proof that $H$ is discrete.

We have established that $H$ is an uncountable closed and discrete subspace of $C_p(\omega_1 +1)$. This implies that $C_p(\omega_1 +1)$ is not normal.

____________________________________________________________________

Remarks

The set $H=\left\{h_\alpha: 0<\alpha<\omega_1 \right\}$ as defined above is closed and discrete in $C_p(\omega_1 +1)$. However, the set $H$ is not discrete in a larger subspace of the product space. The set $H$ is also a subset of the following $\Sigma$-product:

$\Sigma(\omega_1)=\left\{x \in \mathbb{R}^{\omega_1}: x_\alpha \ne 0 \text{ for at most countably many } \alpha < \omega_1 \right\}$

Because $\Sigma(\omega_1)$ is the $\Sigma$-product of separable metric spaces, it is normal (see here). By Theorem 1a in this previous post, $\Sigma(\omega_1)$ would have countable extent. Thus the set $H$ cannot be closed and discrete in $\Sigma(\omega_1)$. We can actually see this directly. Let $\alpha<\omega_1$ be a limit ordinal. Define $t:\omega_1 + 1 \rightarrow \left\{0,1 \right\}$ by $t(\beta)=1$ for all $\beta<\alpha$ and $t(\beta)=0$ for all $\beta \ge \alpha$. Clearly $t \notin C_p(\omega_1 +1)$ and $t \in \Sigma(\omega_1)$. Furthermore, $t \in \overline{H}$ (the closure is taken in $\Sigma(\omega_1)$).

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

1. Arhangel’skii, A. V., Normality and Dense Subspaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 48, no. 2, 283-291, 2001.
2. Baturov, D. P., Normality in dense subspaces of products, Topology Appl., 36, 111-116, 1990.

____________________________________________________________________
$\copyright \ 2014 \text{ by Dan Ma}$

Normal x compact needs not be subnormal

In this post, we revisit a counterexample that was discussed previously in this blog. A previous post called “Normal x compact needs not be normal” shows that the Tychonoff product of two normal spaces needs not be normal even when one of the factors is compact. The example is $\omega_1 \times (\omega_1+1)$. In this post, we show that $\omega_1 \times (\omega_1+1)$ fails even to be subnormal. Both $\omega_1$ and $\omega_1+1$ are spaces of ordinals. Thus they are completely normal (equivalent to hereditarily normal). The second factor is also a compact space. Yet their product is not only not normal; it is not even subnormal.

A subset $M$ of a space $Y$ is a $G_\delta$ subset of $Y$ (or a $G_\delta$-set in $Y$) if $M$ is the intersection of countably many open subsets of $Y$. A subset $M$ of a space $Y$ is a $F_\sigma$ subset of $Y$ (or a $F_\sigma$-set in $Y$) if $Y-M$ is a $G_\delta$-set in $Y$ (equivalently if $M$ is the union of countably many closed subsets of $Y$).

A space $Y$ is normal if for any disjoint closed subsets $H$ and $K$ of $Y$, there exist disjoint open subsets $U_H$ and $U_K$ of $Y$ such that $H \subset U_H$ and $K \subset U_K$. A space $Y$ is subnormal if for any disjoint closed subsets $H$ and $K$ of $Y$, there exist disjoint $G_\delta$ subsets $V_H$ and $V_K$ of $Y$ such that $H \subset V_H$ and $K \subset V_K$. Clearly any normal space is subnormal.

A space $Y$ is pseudonormal if for any disjoint closed subsets $H$ and $K$ of $Y$ (one of which is countable), there exist disjoint open subsets $U_H$ and $U_K$ of $Y$ such that $H \subset U_H$ and $K \subset U_K$. The space $\omega_1 \times (\omega_1+1)$ is pseudonormal (see this previous post). The Sorgenfrey plane is an example of a subnormal space that is not pseudonormal (see here). Thus the two weak forms of normality (pseudonormal and subnormal) are not equivalent.

The same two disjoint closed sets that prove the non-normality of $\omega_1 \times (\omega_1+1)$ are also used for proving non-subnormality. The two closed sets are:

$H=\left\{(\alpha,\alpha): \alpha<\omega_1 \right\}$

$K=\left\{(\alpha,\omega_1): \alpha<\omega_1 \right\}$

The key tool, as in the proof for non-normality, is the Pressing Down Lemma ([1]). The lemma has been used in a few places in this blog, especially for proving facts about $\omega_1$ (e.g. this previous post on the first uncountable ordinal). Lemma 1 below is a lemma that is derived from the Pressing Down Lemma.

Pressing Down Lemma
Let $S$ be a stationary subset of $\omega_1$. Let $f:S \rightarrow \omega_1$ be a pressing down function, i.e., $f$ satisfies: $\forall \ \alpha \in S, f(\alpha)<\alpha$. Then there exists $\alpha<\omega_1$ such that $f^{-1}(\alpha)$ is a stationary set.

Lemma 1
Let $L=\left\{(\alpha,\alpha) \in \omega_1 \times \omega_1: \alpha \text{ is a limit ordinal} \right\}$. Suppose that $L \subset \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty O_n$ where each $O_n$ is an open subset of $\omega_1 \times \omega_1$. Then $[\gamma,\omega_1) \times [\gamma,\omega_1) \subset \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty O_n$ for some $\gamma<\omega_1$.

Proof of Lemma 1
For each $n$ and for each $\alpha<\omega_1$ where $\alpha$ is a limit, choose $g_n(\alpha)<\alpha$ such that $[g_n(\alpha),\alpha] \times [g_n(\alpha),\alpha] \subset O_n$. The function $g_n$ can be chosen since $O_n$ is open in the product $\omega_1 \times \omega_1$. By the Pressing Down Lemma, for each $n$, there exists $\gamma_n < \omega_1$ and there exists a stationary set $S_n \subset \omega_1$ such that $g_n(\alpha)=\gamma_n$ for all $\alpha \in S_n$. It follows that $[\gamma_n,\omega_1) \times [\gamma_n,\omega_1) \subset O_n$ for each $n$. Choose $\gamma<\omega_1$ such that $\gamma_n<\gamma$ for all $n$. Then $[\gamma,\omega_1) \times [\gamma,\omega_1) \subset O_n$ for each $n$. $\blacksquare$

Theorem 2
The product space $\omega_1 \times (\omega_1+1)$ is not subnormal.

Proof of Theorem 2
Let $H$ and $K$ be defined as above. Suppose $H \subset \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty U_n$ and $K \subset \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty V_n$ where each $U_n$ and each $V_n$ are open in $\omega_1 \times (\omega_1+1)$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $U_n \cap (\omega_1 \times \left\{\omega_1 \right\})=\varnothing$, i.e., $U_n$ is open in $\omega_1 \times \omega_1$ for each $n$. By Lemma 1, $[\gamma,\omega_1) \times [\gamma,\omega_1) \subset \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty U_n$ for some $\gamma<\omega_1$.

Choose $\beta>\gamma$ such that $\beta$ is a successor ordinal. Note that $(\beta,\omega_1) \in \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty V_n$. For each $n$, there exists some $\delta_n<\omega_1$ such that $\left\{\beta \right\} \times [\delta_n,\omega_1] \subset V_n$. Choose $\delta<\omega_1$ such that $\delta >\delta_n$ for all $n$ and that $\delta >\gamma$. Note that $\left\{\beta \right\} \times [\delta,\omega_1) \subset \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty V_n$. It follows that $\left\{\beta \right\} \times [\delta,\omega_1) \subset [\gamma,\omega_1) \times [\gamma,\omega_1) \subset \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty U_n$. Thus there are no disjoint $G_\delta$ sets separating $H$ and $K$. $\blacksquare$

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

1. Kunen, K., Set Theory, An Introduction to Independence Proofs, First Edition, North-Holland, New York, 1980.

____________________________________________________________________

$\copyright \ 2014 \text{ by Dan Ma}$

The normality of the product of the first uncountable ordinal with a compact factor

The product of a normal space with a compact space needs not be normal. For example, the product space $\omega_1 \times (\omega_1+1)$ is not normal where $\omega_1$ is the first uncountable ordinal with the order topology and $\omega_1+1$ is the immediate successor of $\omega_1$ (see this post). However, $\omega_1 \times I$ is normal where $I=[0,1]$ is the unit interval with the usual topology. The topological story here is that $I$ has countable tightness while the compact space $\omega_1+1$ does not. In this post, we prove the following theorem:

Theorem 1

Let $Y$ be an infinite compact space. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

1. The product space $\omega_1 \times Y$ is normal.
2. $Y$ has countable tightness, i.e., $t(Y)=\omega$.

Theorem 1 is a special case of the theorem found in [4]. The proof for the direction of countable tightness of $Y$ implies $\omega_1 \times Y$ is normal given in [4] relies on a theorem in another source. In this post we attempt to fill in some of the gaps. For the direction $2 \Longrightarrow 1$, we give a complete proof. For the direction $1 \Longrightarrow 2$, we essentially give the same proof as in [4], proving it by using a series of lemmas (stated below).

The authors in [2] studied the normality of $X \times \omega_1$ where $X$ is not necessarily compact. The necessary definitions are given below. All spaces are at least Hausdorff.

____________________________________________________________________

Definitions and Lemmas

Let $X$ be a topological space. The tightness of $X$, denoted by $t(X)$, is the least infinite cardinal number $\kappa$ such that for any $A \subset X$ and for any $x \in \overline{A}$, there exists a $B \subset A$ such that $x \in \overline{B}$ and $\lvert B \lvert \le \kappa$. When $t(X)=\omega$, we say $X$ has countable tightness or is countably tight. When $t(X)>\omega$, we say $X$ has uncountably tightness or is uncountably tight. An handy example of a space with uncountably tightness is $\omega_1+1=\omega_1 \cup \left\{\omega_1 \right\}$. This space has uncountable tightness at the point $\omega_1$. All first countable spaces and all Frechet spaces have countable tightness. The concept of countable tightness and tightness in general are discussed in more details here.

A sequence $\left\{x_\alpha: \alpha<\tau \right\}$ of points of a space $X$ is said to be a free sequence if for each $\alpha<\tau$, $\overline{\left\{x_\beta: \beta<\alpha \right\}} \cap \overline{\left\{x_\beta: \beta \ge \alpha \right\}}=\varnothing$. When a free sequence is indexed by the cardinal number $\tau$, the free sequence is said to have length $\tau$. The cardinal function $F(X)$ is the least infinite cardinal $\kappa$ such that if $\left\{x_\alpha \in X: \alpha<\tau \right\}$ is a free sequence of length $\tau$, then $\tau \le \kappa$. The concept of tightness was introduced by Arkhangelskii and he proved that $t(X)=F(X)$ (see p. 15 of [3]). This fact implies the following lemma.

Lemma 2

Let $X$ be compact. If $t(X) \ge \tau$, then there exists a free sequence $\left\{x_\alpha \in X: \alpha<\tau \right\}$ of length $\tau$.

A proof of Lemma 2 can be found here.

The proof of the direction $1 \Longrightarrow 2$ also uses the following lemmas.

Lemma 3

For any compact space $Y$, $\beta (\omega_1 \times Y)=(\omega_1+1) \times Y$.

Lemma 4

Let $X$ be a normal space. For every pair $H$ and $K$ of disjoint closed subsets of $X$, $H$ and $K$ have disjoint closures in $\beta X$.

For Lemma 3, see 3.12.20(c) on p. 237 of [1]. For Lemma 4, see 3.6.4 on p. 173 of [1].

____________________________________________________________________

Proof of Theorem 1

$1 \Longrightarrow 2$
Let $X=\omega_1 \times Y$. Suppose that $X$ is normal. Suppose that $Y$ has uncountable tightness, i.e., $t(Y) \ge \omega_1$. By Lemma 2, there exists a free sequence $\left\{y_\alpha \in Y: \alpha<\omega_1 \right\}$. For each $\beta<\omega_1$, let $C_\beta=\left\{y_\alpha: \alpha>\beta \right\}$. Then the collection $\left\{\overline{C_\beta}: \beta<\omega_1 \right\}$ has the finite intersection property. Since $Y$ is compact, $\bigcap_{\beta<\omega_1} \overline{C_\beta} \ne \varnothing$. Let $p \in \bigcap_{\beta<\omega_1} \overline{C_\beta}$. Consider the following closed subsets of $X=\omega_1 \times Y$.

$H=\overline{\left\{(\alpha,y_\alpha): \alpha<\omega_1 \right\}}$
$K=\left\{(\alpha,p): \alpha<\omega_1 \right\}$

We claim that $H \cap K=\varnothing$. Suppose that $(\alpha,p) \in H \cap K$. Either $p \in \overline{\left\{y_\delta: \delta< \alpha+1 \right\}}$ or $p \in \overline{\left\{y_\delta: \delta \ge \alpha+1 \right\}}$. The latter case is not possible. Note that $[0,\alpha] \times Y$ is an open set containing $(\alpha,p)$. This open set cannot contain points of the form $(\delta,p)$ where $\delta \ge \alpha+1$. So the first case $p \in \overline{\left\{y_\delta: \delta< \alpha+1 \right\}}$ must hold. Since $p \in \bigcap_{\beta<\omega_1} \overline{C_\beta}$, $p \in \overline{C_\alpha}=\overline{\left\{y_\delta: \delta \ge \alpha+1 \right\}}$, a contradiction. So $H$ and $K$ are disjoint closed subsets of $X=\omega_1 \times Y$.

Now consider $\beta X$, the Stone-Cech compactification of $X=\omega_1 \times Y$. By Lemma 3, $\beta X=\beta (\omega_1 \times Y)=(\omega_1+1) \times Y$. Let $H^*=\overline{H}$ and $K^*=\overline{K}$ (closures in $\beta X$). We claim that $(\omega_1,p) \in H^* \cap K^*$. Let $O=(\theta,\omega_1] \times V$ be an open set in $\beta X$ with $(\omega_1,p) \in O$. Note that $p \in \overline{C_\theta}=\left\{y_\delta: \delta>\theta \right\}$. Thus $V \cap \overline{C_\theta} \ne \varnothing$. Choose $\delta>\theta$ such that $y_\delta \in V$. We have $(\delta,y_\delta) \in (\theta,\omega_1] \times V$ and $(\delta,y_\delta) \in H^*$. On the other hand, $(\delta,p) \in K^*$. Thus $(\omega_1,p) \in H^* \cap K^*$, a contradiction. Since $X=\omega_1 \times Y$ is normal, Lemma 4 indicates that $H$ and $K$ should have disjoint closures in $\beta X=(\omega_1+1) \times Y$. Thus $Y$ has countable tightness.

$2 \Longrightarrow 1$
Suppose $t(Y)=\omega$. Let $H$ and $K$ be disjoint closed subsets of $\omega_1 \times Y$. The following series of claims will complete the proof:

Claim 1
For each $y \in Y$, there exists an $\alpha<\omega_1$ such that either $W_{H,y} \subset \alpha+1$ or $W_{K,y} \subset \alpha+1$ where

$W_{H,y}=\left\{\delta<\omega_1: (\delta,y) \in H \right\}$
$W_{K,y}=\left\{\delta<\omega_1: (\delta,y) \in K \right\}$

Proof of Claim 1
Let $y \in Y$. The set $V=\omega_1 \times \left\{y \right\}$ is a copy of $\omega_1$. It is a known fact that in $\omega_1$, there cannot be two disjoint closed and unbounded sets. Let $V_H=V \cap H$ and $V_K=V \cap K$. If $V_H \ne \varnothing$ and $V_K \ne \varnothing$, they cannot be both unbounded in $V$. Thus the claim follows if both $V_H \ne \varnothing$ and $V_K \ne \varnothing$. Now suppose only one of $V_H$ and $V_K$ is non-empty. If the one that is non-empty is bounded, then the claim follows. Suppose the one that is non-empty is unbounded, say $V_K$. Then $W_{H,y}=\varnothing$ and the claim follows.

Claim 2
For each $y \in Y$, there exists an $\alpha<\omega_1$ and there exists an open set $O_y \subset Y$ with $y \in O_y$ such that one and only one of the following holds:

$H \cap (\omega_1 \times \overline{O_y}) \subset (\alpha+1) \times \overline{O_y} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (1)$
$K \cap (\omega_1 \times \overline{O_y}) \subset (\alpha+1) \times \overline{O_y} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (2)$

Proof of Claim 2
Let $y \in Y$. Let $\alpha<\omega_1$ be as in Claim 1. Assume that $W_{H,y} \subset \alpha+1$. We want to show that there exists an open set $O_y \subset Y$ with $y \in O_y$ such that (1) holds. Suppose that for each open $O \subset Y$ with $y \in O$, there is a $q \in \overline{O}$ and there exists $\delta_q>\alpha$ such that $(\delta_q,q) \in H$. Let $S$ be the set of all such points $q$. Then $y \in \overline{S}$. Since $Y$ has countable tightness, there exists countable $T \subset S$ such that $y \in \overline{T}$. Since $T$ is countable, choose $\gamma >\omega_1$ such that $\alpha<\delta_q<\gamma$ for all $q \in T$. Note that $[\alpha,\gamma] \times \left\{y \right\}$ does not contain points of $H$ since $W_{H,y} \subset \alpha+1$. For each $\theta \in [\alpha,\gamma]$, the point $(\theta,y)$ has an open neighborhood that contains no point of $H$. Since $[\alpha,\gamma] \times \left\{y \right\}$ is compact, finitely many of these neighborhoods cover $[\alpha,\gamma] \times \left\{y \right\}$. Let these finitely many open neighborhoods be $M_i \times N_i$ where $i=1,\cdots,m$. Let $N=\bigcap_{i=1}^m N_i$. Then $y \in N$ and $N$ would contain a point of $T$, say $q$. Then $(\delta_q,q) \in M_i \times N_i$ for some $i$, a contradiction. Note that $(\delta_q,q)$ is a point of $H$. Thus there exists an open $O_y \subset Y$ with $y \in O_y$ such that (1) holds. This completes the proof of Claim 2.

Claim 3
For each $y \in Y$, there exists an $\alpha<\omega_1$ and there exists an open set $O_y \subset Y$ with $y \in O_y$ such that there are disjoint open subsets $Q_H$ and $Q_K$ of $\omega_1 \times \overline{O_y}$ with $H \cap (\omega_1 \times \overline{O_y}) \subset Q_H$ and $K \cap (\omega_1 \times \overline{O_y}) \subset Q_K$.

Proof of Claim 3
Let $y \in Y$. Let $\alpha$ and $O_y$ be as in Claim 2. Assume (1) in the statement of Claim 2 holds. Note that $(\alpha+1) \times \overline{O_y}$ is a product of two compact spaces and is thus compact (and normal). Let $R_{H,y}$ and $R_{K,y}$ be disjoint open sets in $(\alpha+1) \times \overline{O_y}$ such that $H \cap (\alpha+1) \times \overline{O_y} \subset R_{H,y}$ and $K \cap (\alpha+1) \times \overline{O_y} \subset R_{K,y}$. Note that $[\alpha+1,\omega_1) \times \overline{O_y}$ contains no points of $H$. Then $Q_{H,y}=R_{H,y}$ and $Q_{K,y}=R_{K,y} \cup [\alpha+1,\omega_1) \times \overline{O_y}$ are the desired open sets. This completes the proof of Claim 3.

To make the rest of the proof easier to see, we prove the following claim , which is a general fact that is cleaner to work with. Claim 4 describes precisely (in a topological way) what is happening at this point in the proof.

Claim 4
Let $Z$ be a space. Let $C$ and $D$ be disjoint closed subsets of $Z$. Suppose that $\left\{U_1,U_2,\cdots,U_m \right\}$ is a collection of open subsets of $Z$ covering $C \cup D$ such that for each $i=1,2,\cdots,m$, only one of the following holds:

$C \cap \overline{U_i} \ne \varnothing \text{ and } D \cap \overline{U_i}=\varnothing$
$C \cap \overline{U_i} = \varnothing \text{ and } D \cap \overline{U_i} \ne \varnothing$

Then there exist disjoint open subsets of $Z$ separating $C$ and $D$.

Proof of Claim 4
Let $U_C=\cup \left\{U_i: \overline{U_i} \cap C \ne \varnothing \right\}$ and $U_D=\cup \left\{U_i: \overline{U_i} \cap D \ne \varnothing \right\}$. Note that $\overline{U_C}=\cup \left\{\overline{U_i}: \overline{U_i} \cap C \ne \varnothing \right\}$. Likewise, $\overline{U_D}=\cup \left\{\overline{U_i}: \overline{U_i} \cap D \ne \varnothing \right\}$. Let $V_C=U_C-\overline{U_D}$ and $V_D=U_D-\overline{U_C}$. Then $V_C$ and $V_D$ are disjoint open sets. Furthermore, $C \subset V_C$ and $D \subset V_D$. This completes the proof of Claim 4.

Now back to the proof of Theorem 1. For each $y \in Y$, let $O_y$, $Q_{H,y}$ and $Q_{K,y}$ be as in Claim 3. Since $Y$ is compact, there exists $\left\{y_1,y_2,\cdots,y_n \right\} \subset Y$ such that $\left\{O_{y_1},O_{y_2},\cdots,O_{y_n} \right\}$ is a cover of $Y$. For each $i=1,\cdots,n$, let $L_i=Q_{H,y_i} \cap (\omega_1 \times O_y)$ and $M_i=Q_{K,y_i} \cap (\omega_1 \times O_y)$. Note that both $L_i$ and $M_i$ are open in $\omega_1 \times Y$. To apply Claim 4, rearrange the open sets $L_i$ and $M_i$ and re-label them as $U_1,U_2,\cdots,U_m$. By letting $Z=\omega_1 \times Y$, $C=H$ and $D=K$, the open sets $U_i$ satisfy Claim 4. Tracing the $U_i$ to $L_j$ or $M_j$ and then to $Q_{H,y_j}$ and $Q_{K,y_j}$, it is clear that the two conditions in Claim 4 are satisfied:

$H \cap \overline{U_i} \ne \varnothing \text{ and } K \cap \overline{U_i}=\varnothing$
$H \cap \overline{U_i} = \varnothing \text{ and } K \cap \overline{U_i} \ne \varnothing$

Then by Claim 4, the disjoint closed sets $H$ and $K$ can be separated by two disjoint open subsets of $\omega_1 \times Y$. $\blacksquare$

The theorem proved in [4] is essentially the statement that for any compact space $Y$, the product $\kappa^+ \times Y$ is normal if and only $t(Y) \le \kappa$. Here $\kappa^+$ is the first ordinal of the next cardinal that is greater than $\kappa$.

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

1. Engelking, R., General Topology, Revised and Completed edition, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
2. Gruenhage, G., Nogura, T., Purisch, S., Normality of $X \times \omega_1$, Topology and its Appl., 39, 263-275, 1991.
3. Hart, K. P., Nagata J. I., Vaughan, J. E., editors, Encyclopedia of General Topology, First Edition, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V, Amsterdam, 2003.
4. Nogura, T., Tightness of compact Hausdorff space and normality of product spaces, J. Math. Soc. Japan, 28, 360-362, 1976.

____________________________________________________________________

$\copyright \ 2014 - 2015 \text{ by Dan Ma}$