Cp(X) where X is a separable metric space

Let \tau be an uncountable cardinal. Let \prod_{\alpha < \tau} \mathbb{R}=\mathbb{R}^{\tau} be the Cartesian product of \tau many copies of the real line. This product space is not normal since it contains \prod_{\alpha \in \omega_1} \omega=\omega^{\omega_1} as a closed subspace. However, there are dense subspaces of \mathbb{R}^{\tau} are normal. For example, the \Sigma-product of \tau copies of the real line is normal, i.e., the subspace of \mathbb{R}^{\tau} consisting of points which have at most countably many non-zero coordinates (see this post). In this post, we look for more normal spaces among the subspaces of \mathbb{R}^{\tau} that are function spaces. In particular, we look at spaces of continuous real-valued functions defined on a separable metrizable space, i.e., the function space C_p(X) where X is a separable metrizable space.

For definitions of basic open sets and other background information on the function space C_p(X), see this previous post.

____________________________________________________________________

C_p(X) when X is a separable metric space

In the remainder of the post, X denotes a separable metrizable space. Then, C_p(X) is more than normal. The function space C_p(X) has the following properties:

  • normal,
  • Lindelof (hence paracompact and collectionwise normal),
  • hereditarily Lindelof (hence hereditarily normal),
  • hereditarily separable,
  • perfectly normal.

All such properties stem from the fact that C_p(X) has a countable network whenever X is a separable metrizable space.

Let L be a topological space. A collection \mathcal{N} of subsets of L is said to be a network for L if for each x \in L and for each open O \subset L with x \in O, there exists some A \in \mathcal{N} such that x \in A \subset O. A countable network is a network that has only countably many elements. The property of having a countable network is a very strong property, e.g., having all the properties listed above. For a basic discussion of this property, see this previous post and this previous post.

To define a countable network for C_p(X), let \mathcal{B} be a countable base for the domain space X. For each B \subset \mathcal{B} and for any open interval (a,b) in the real line with rational endpoints, consider the following set:

    [B,(a,b)]=\left\{f \in C(X): f(B) \subset (a,b) \right\}

There are only countably many sets of the form [B,(a,b)]. Let \mathcal{N} be the collection of sets, each of which is the intersection of finitely many sets of the form [B,(a,b)]. Then \mathcal{N} is a network for the function space C_p(X). To see this, let f \in O where O=\bigcap_{x \in F} [x,O_x] is a basic open set in C_p(X) where F \subset X is finite and each O_x is an open interval with rational endpoints. For each point x \in F, choose B_x \in \mathcal{B} with x \in B_x such that f(B_x) \subset O_x. Clearly f \in \bigcap_{x \in F} \ [B_x,O_x]. It follows that \bigcap_{x \in F} \ [B_x,O_x] \subset O.

Examples include C_p(\mathbb{R}), C_p([0,1]) and C_p(\mathbb{R}^\omega). All three can be considered subspaces of the product space \mathbb{R}^c where c is the cardinality of the continuum. This is true for any separable metrizable X. Note that any separable metrizable X can be embedded in the product space \mathbb{R}^\omega. The product space \mathbb{R}^\omega has cardinality c. Thus the cardinality of any separable metrizable space X is at most continuum. So C_p(X) is the subspace of a product space of \le continuum many copies of the real lines, hence can be regarded as a subspace of \mathbb{R}^c.

A space L has countable extent if every closed and discrete subset of L is countable. The \Sigma-product \Sigma_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha of the separable metric spaces \left\{X_\alpha: \alpha \in A \right\} is a dense and normal subspace of the product space \prod_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha. The normal space \Sigma_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha has countable extent (hence collectionwise normal). The examples of C_p(X) discussed here are Lindelof and hence have countable extent. Many, though not all, dense normal subspaces of products of separable metric spaces have countable extent. For a dense normal subspace of a product of separable metric spaces, one interesting problem is to find out whether it has countable extent.

____________________________________________________________________

\copyright \ 2014 \text{ by Dan Ma}

Advertisements

Pixley-Roy hyperspaces

In this post, we introduce a class of hyperspaces called Pixley-Roy spaces. This is a well-known and well studied set of topological spaces. Our goal here is not to be comprehensive but rather to present some selected basic results to give a sense of what Pixley-Roy spaces are like.

A hyperspace refers to a space in which the points are subsets of a given “ground” space. There are more than one way to define a hyperspace. Pixley-Roy spaces were first described by Carl Pixley and Prabir Roy in 1969 (see [5]). In such a space, the points are the non-empty finite subsets of a given ground space. More precisely, let X be a T_1 space (i.e. finite sets are closed). Let \mathcal{F}[X] be the set of all non-empty finite subsets of X. For each F \in \mathcal{F}[X] and for each open subset U of X with F \subset U, we define:

    [F,U]=\left\{B \in \mathcal{F}[X]: F \subset B \subset U \right\}

The sets [F,U] over all possible F and U form a base for a topology on \mathcal{F}[X]. This topology is called the Pixley-Roy topology (or Pixley-Roy hyperspace topology). The set \mathcal{F}[X] with this topology is called a Pixley-Roy space.

The hyperspace as defined above was first defined by Pixley and Roy on the real line (see [5]) and was later generalized by van Douwen (see [7]). These spaces are easy to define and is useful for constructing various kinds of counterexamples. Pixley-Roy played an important part in answering the normal Moore space conjecture. Pixley-Roy spaces have also been studied in their own right. Over the years, many authors have investigated when the Pixley-Roy spaces are metrizable, normal, collectionwise Hausdorff, CCC and homogeneous. For a small sample of such investigations, see the references listed at the end of the post. Our goal here is not to discuss the results in these references. Instead, we discuss some basic properties of Pixley-Roy to solidify the definition as well as to give a sense of what these spaces are like. Good survey articles of Pixley-Roy are [3] and [7].

____________________________________________________________________

Basic Discussion

In this section, we focus on properties that are always possessed by a Pixley-Roy space given that the ground space is at least T_1. Let X be a T_1 space. We discuss the following points:

  1. The topology defined above is a legitimate one, i.e., the sets [F,U] indeed form a base for a topology on \mathcal{F}[X].
  2. \mathcal{F}[X] is a Hausdorff space.
  3. \mathcal{F}[X] is a zero-dimensional space.
  4. \mathcal{F}[X] is a completely regular space.
  5. \mathcal{F}[X] is a hereditarily metacompact space.

Let \mathcal{B}=\left\{[F,U]: F \in \mathcal{F}[X] \text{ and } U \text{ is open in } X \right\}. Note that every finite set F belongs to at least one set in \mathcal{B}, namely [F,X]. So \mathcal{B} is a cover of \mathcal{F}[X]. For A \in [F_1,U_1] \cap [F_2,U_2], we have A \in [A,U_1 \cap U_2] \subset   [F_1,U_1] \cap [F_2,U_2]. So \mathcal{B} is indeed a base for a topology on \mathcal{F}[X].

To show \mathcal{F}[X] is Hausdorff, let A and B be finite subsets of X where A \ne B. Then one of the two sets has a point that is not in the other one. Assume we have x \in A-B. Since X is T_1, we can find open sets U, V \subset X such that x \in U, x \notin V and A \cup B-\left\{ x \right\} \subset V. Then [A,U \cup V] and [B,V] are disjoint open sets containing A and B respectively.

To see that \mathcal{F}[X] is a zero-dimensional space, we show that \mathcal{B} is a base consisting of closed and open sets. To see that [F,U] is closed, let C \notin [F,U]. Either F \not \subset C or C \not \subset U. In either case, we can choose open V \subset X with C \subset V such that [C,V] \cap [F,U]=\varnothing.

The fact that \mathcal{F}[X] is completely regular follows from the fact that it is zero-dimensional.

To show that \mathcal{F}[X] is metacompact, let \mathcal{G} be an open cover of \mathcal{F}[X]. For each F \in \mathcal{F}[X], choose G_F \in \mathcal{G} such that F \in G_F and let V_F=[F,X] \cap G_F. Then \mathcal{V}=\left\{V_F: F \in \mathcal{F}[X] \right\} is a point-finite open refinement of \mathcal{G}. For each A \in \mathcal{F}[X], A can only possibly belong to V_F for the finitely many F \subset A.

A similar argument show that \mathcal{F}[X] is hereditarily metacompact. Let Y \subset \mathcal{F}[X]. Let \mathcal{H} be an open cover of Y. For each F \in Y, choose H_F \in \mathcal{H} such that F \in H_F and let W_F=([F,X] \cap Y) \cap H_F. Then \mathcal{W}=\left\{W_F: F \in Y \right\} is a point-finite open refinement of \mathcal{H}. For each A \in Y, A can only possibly belong to W_F for the finitely many F \subset A such that F \in Y.

____________________________________________________________________

More Basic Results

We now discuss various basic topological properties of \mathcal{F}[X]. We first note that \mathcal{F}[X] is a discrete space if and only if the ground space X is discrete. Though we do not need to make this explicit, it makes sense to focus on non-discrete spaces X when we look at topological properties of \mathcal{F}[X]. We discuss the following points:

  1. If X is uncountable, then \mathcal{F}[X] is not separable.
  2. If X is uncountable, then every uncountable subspace of \mathcal{F}[X] is not separable.
  3. If \mathcal{F}[X] is Lindelof, then X is countable.
  4. If \mathcal{F}[X] is Baire space, then X is discrete.
  5. If \mathcal{F}[X] has the CCC, then X has the CCC.
  6. If \mathcal{F}[X] has the CCC, then X has no uncountable discrete subspaces,i.e., X has countable spread, which of course implies CCC.
  7. If \mathcal{F}[X] has the CCC, then X is hereditarily Lindelof.
  8. If \mathcal{F}[X] has the CCC, then X is hereditarily separable.
  9. If X has a countable network, then \mathcal{F}[X] has the CCC.
  10. The Pixley-Roy space of the Sorgenfrey line does not have the CCC.
  11. If X is a first countable space, then \mathcal{F}[X] is a Moore space.

Bullet points 6 to 9 refer to properties that are never possessed by Pixley-Roy spaces except in trivial cases. Bullet points 6 to 8 indicate that \mathcal{F}[X] can never be separable and Lindelof as long as the ground space X is uncountable. Note that \mathcal{F}[X] is discrete if and only if X is discrete. Bullet point 9 indicates that any non-discrete \mathcal{F}[X] can never be a Baire space. Bullet points 10 to 13 give some necessary conditions for \mathcal{F}[X] to be CCC. Bullet 14 gives a sufficient condition for \mathcal{F}[X] to have the CCC. Bullet 15 indicates that the hereditary separability and the hereditary Lindelof property are not sufficient conditions for the CCC of Pixley-Roy space (though they are necessary conditions). Bullet 16 indicates that the first countability of the ground space is a strong condition, making \mathcal{F}[X] a Moore space.

__________________________________

To see bullet point 6, let X be an uncountable space. Let \left\{F_1,F_2,F_3,\cdots \right\} be any countable subset of \mathcal{F}[X]. Choose a point x \in X that is not in any F_n. Then none of the sets F_i belongs to the basic open set [\left\{x \right\} ,X]. Thus \mathcal{F}[X] can never be separable if X is uncountable.

__________________________________

To see bullet point 7, let Y \subset \mathcal{F}[X] be uncountable. Let W=\cup \left\{F: F \in Y \right\}. Let \left\{F_1,F_2,F_3,\cdots \right\} be any countable subset of Y. We can choose a point x \in W that is not in any F_n. Choose some A \in Y such that x \in A. Then none of the sets F_n belongs to the open set [A ,X] \cap Y. So not only \mathcal{F}[X] is not separable, no uncountable subset of \mathcal{F}[X] is separable if X is uncountable.

__________________________________

To see bullet point 8, note that \mathcal{F}[X] has no countable open cover consisting of basic open sets, assuming that X is uncountable. Consider the open collection \left\{[F_1,U_1],[F_2,U_2],[F_3,U_3],\cdots \right\}. Choose x \in X that is not in any of the sets F_n. Then \left\{ x \right\} cannot belong to [F_n,U_n] for any n. Thus \mathcal{F}[X] can never be Lindelof if X is uncountable.

__________________________________

For an elementary discussion on Baire spaces, see this previous post.

To see bullet point 9, let X be a non-discrete space. To show \mathcal{F}[X] is not Baire, we produce an open subset that is of first category (i.e. the union of countably many closed nowhere dense sets). Let x \in X a limit point (i.e. an non-isolated point). We claim that the basic open set V=[\left\{ x \right\},X] is a desired open set. Note that V=\bigcup \limits_{n=1}^\infty H_n where

    H_n=\left\{F \in \mathcal{F}[X]: x \in F \text{ and } \lvert F \lvert \le n \right\}

We show that each H_n is closed and nowhere dense in the open subspace V. To see that it is closed, let A \notin H_n with x \in A. We have \lvert A \lvert>n. Then [A,X] is open and every point of [A,X] has more than n points of the space X. To see that H_n is nowhere dense in V, let [B,U] be open with [B,U] \subset V. It is clear that x \in B \subset U where U is open in the ground space X. Since the point x is not an isolated point in the space X, U contains infinitely many points of X. So choose an finite set C with at least 2 \times n points such that B \subset C \subset U. For the the open set [C,U], we have [C,U] \subset [B,U] and [C,U] contains no point of H_n. With the open set V being a union of countably many closed and nowhere dense sets in V, the open set V is not of second category. We complete the proof that \mathcal{F}[X] is not a Baire space.

__________________________________

To see bullet point 10, let \mathcal{O} be an uncountable and pairwise disjoint collection of open subsets of X. For each O \in \mathcal{O}, choose a point x_O \in O. Then \left\{[\left\{ x_O \right\},O]: O \in \mathcal{O} \right\} is an uncountable and pairwise disjoint collection of open subsets of \mathcal{F}[X]. Thus if \mathcal{F}[X] is CCC then X must have the CCC.

__________________________________

To see bullet point 11, let Y \subset X be uncountable such that Y as a space is discrete. This means that for each y \in Y, there exists an open O_y \subset X such that y \in O_y and O_y contains no point of Y other than y. Then \left\{[\left\{y \right\},O_y]: y \in Y \right\} is an uncountable and pairwise disjoint collection of open subsets of \mathcal{F}[X]. Thus if \mathcal{F}[X] has the CCC, then the ground space X has no uncountable discrete subspace (such a space is said to have countable spread).

__________________________________

To see bullet point 12, let Y \subset X be uncountable such that Y is not Lindelof. Then there exists an open cover \mathcal{U} of Y such that no countable subcollection of \mathcal{U} can cover Y. We can assume that sets in \mathcal{U} are open subsets of X. Also by considering a subcollection of \mathcal{U} if necessary, we can assume that cardinality of \mathcal{U} is \aleph_1 or \omega_1. Now by doing a transfinite induction we can choose the following sequence of points and the following sequence of open sets:

    \left\{x_\alpha \in Y: \alpha < \omega_1 \right\}

    \left\{U_\alpha \in \mathcal{U}: \alpha < \omega_1 \right\}

such that x_\beta \ne x_\gamma if \beta \ne \gamma, x_\alpha \in U_\alpha and x_\alpha \notin \bigcup \limits_{\beta < \alpha} U_\beta for each \alpha < \omega_1. At each step \alpha, all the previously chosen open sets cannot cover Y. So we can always choose another point x_\alpha of Y and then choose an open set in \mathcal{U} that contains x_\alpha.

Then \left\{[\left\{x_\alpha \right\},U_\alpha]: \alpha < \omega_1 \right\} is a pairwise disjoint collection of open subsets of \mathcal{F}[X]. Thus if \mathcal{F}[X] has the CCC, then X must be hereditarily Lindelof.

__________________________________

To see bullet point 13, let Y \subset X. Consider open sets [A,U] where A ranges over all finite subsets of Y and U ranges over all open subsets of X with A \subset U. Let \mathcal{G} be a collection of such [A,U] such that \mathcal{G} is pairwise disjoint and \mathcal{G} is maximal (i.e. by adding one more open set, the collection will no longer be pairwise disjoint). We can apply a Zorn lemma argument to obtain such a maximal collection. Let D be the following subset of Y.

    D=\bigcup \left\{A: [A,U] \in \mathcal{G} \text{ for some open } U  \right\}

We claim that the set D is dense in Y. Suppose that there is some open set W \subset X such that W \cap Y \ne \varnothing and W \cap D=\varnothing. Let y \in W \cap Y. Then [\left\{y \right\},W] \cap [A,U]=\varnothing for all [A,U] \in \mathcal{G}. So adding [\left\{y \right\},W] to \mathcal{G}, we still get a pairwise disjoint collection of open sets, contradicting that \mathcal{G} is maximal. So D is dense in Y.

If \mathcal{F}[X] has the CCC, then \mathcal{G} is countable and D is a countable dense subset of Y. Thus if \mathcal{F}[X] has the CCC, the ground space X is hereditarily separable.

__________________________________

A collection \mathcal{N} of subsets of a space Y is said to be a network for the space Y if any non-empty open subset of Y is the union of elements of \mathcal{N}, equivalently, for each y \in Y and for each open U \subset Y with y \in U, there is some A \in \mathcal{N} with x \in A \subset U. Note that a network works like a base but the elements of a network do not have to be open. The concept of network and spaces with countable network are discussed in these previous posts Network Weight of Topological Spaces – I and Network Weight of Topological Spaces – II.

To see bullet point 14, let \mathcal{N} be a network for the ground space X such that \mathcal{N} is also countable. Assume that \mathcal{N} is closed under finite unions (for example, adding all the finite unions if necessary). Let \left\{[A_\alpha,U_\alpha]: \alpha < \omega_1 \right\} be a collection of basic open sets in \mathcal{F}[X]. Then for each \alpha, find B_\alpha \in \mathcal{N} such that A_\alpha \subset B_\alpha \subset U_\alpha. Since \mathcal{N} is countable, there is some B \in \mathcal{N} such that M=\left\{\alpha< \omega_1: B=B_\alpha \right\} is uncountable. It follows that for any finite E \subset M, \bigcap \limits_{\alpha \in E} [A_\alpha,U_\alpha] \ne \varnothing.

Thus if the ground space X has a countable network, then \mathcal{F}[X] has the CCC.

__________________________________

The implications in bullet points 12 and 13 cannot be reversed. Hereditarily Lindelof property and hereditarily separability are not sufficient conditions for \mathcal{F}[X] to have the CCC. See [4] for a study of the CCC property of the Pixley-Roy spaces.

To see bullet point 15, let S be the Sorgenfrey line, i.e. the real line \mathbb{R} with the topology generated by the half closed intervals of the form [a,b). For each x \in S, let U_x=[x,x+1). Then \left\{[ \left\{ x \right\},U_x]: x \in S \right\} is a collection of pairwise disjoint open sets in \mathcal{F}[S].

__________________________________

A Moore space is a space with a development. For the definition, see this previous post.

To see bullet point 16, for each x \in X, let \left\{B_n(x): n=1,2,3,\cdots \right\} be a decreasing local base at x. We define a development for the space \mathcal{F}[X].

For each finite F \subset X and for each n, let B_n(F)=\bigcup \limits_{x \in F} B_n(x). Clearly, the sets B_n(F) form a decreasing local base at the finite set F. For each n, let \mathcal{H}_n be the following collection:

    \mathcal{H}_n=\left\{[F,B_n(F)]: F \in \mathcal{F}[X] \right\}

We claim that \left\{\mathcal{H}_n: n=1,2,3,\cdots \right\} is a development for \mathcal{F}[X]. To this end, let V be open in \mathcal{F}[X] with F \in V. If we make n large enough, we have [F,B_n(F)] \subset V.

For each non-empty proper G \subset F, choose an integer f(G) such that [F,B_{f(G)}(F)] \subset V and F \not \subset B_{f(G)}(G). Let m be defined by:

    m=\text{max} \left\{f(G): G \ne \varnothing \text{ and } G \subset F \text{ and } G \text{ is proper} \right\}

We have F \not \subset B_{m}(G) for all non-empty proper G \subset F. Thus F \notin [G,B_m(G)] for all non-empty proper G \subset F. But in \mathcal{H}_m, the only sets that contain F are [F,B_m(F)] and [G,B_m(G)] for all non-empty proper G \subset F. So [F,B_m(F)] is the only set in \mathcal{H}_m that contains F, and clearly [F,B_m(F)] \subset V.

We have shown that for each open V in \mathcal{F}[X] with F \in V, there exists an m such that any open set in \mathcal{H}_m that contains F must be a subset of V. This shows that the \mathcal{H}_n defined above form a development for \mathcal{F}[X].

____________________________________________________________________

Examples

In the original construction of Pixley and Roy, the example was \mathcal{F}[\mathbb{R}]. Based on the above discussion, \mathcal{F}[\mathbb{R}] is a non-separable CCC Moore space. Because the density (greater than \omega for not separable) and the cellularity (=\omega for CCC) do not agree, \mathcal{F}[\mathbb{R}] is not metrizable. In fact, it does not even have a dense metrizable subspace. Note that countable subspaces of \mathcal{F}[\mathbb{R}] are metrizable but are not dense. Any uncountable dense subspace of \mathcal{F}[\mathbb{R}] is not separable but has the CCC. Not only \mathcal{F}[\mathbb{R}] is not metrizable, it is not normal. The problem of finding X \subset \mathbb{R} for which \mathcal{F}[X] is normal requires extra set-theoretic axioms beyond ZFC (see [6]). In fact, Pixley-Roy spaces played a large role in the normal Moore space conjecture. Assuming some extra set theory beyond ZFC, there is a subset M \subset \mathbb{R} such that \mathcal{F}[M] is a CCC metacompact normal Moore space that is not metrizable (see Example I in [8]).

On the other hand, Pixley-Roy space of the Sorgenfrey line and the Pixley-Roy space of \omega_1 (the first uncountable ordinal with the order topology) are metrizable (see [3]).

The Sorgenfrey line and the first uncountable ordinal are classic examples of topological spaces that demonstrate that topological spaces in general are not as well behaved like metrizable spaces. Yet their Pixley-Roy spaces are nice. The real line and other separable metric spaces are nice spaces that behave well. Yet their Pixley-Roy spaces are very much unlike the ground spaces. This inverse relation between the ground space and the Pixley-Roy space was noted by van Douwen (see [3] and [7]) and is one reason that Pixley-Roy hyperspaces are a good source of counterexamples.

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

  1. Bennett, H. R., Fleissner, W. G., Lutzer, D. J., Metrizability of certain Pixley-Roy spaces, Fund. Math. 110, 51-61, 1980.
  2. Daniels, P, Pixley-Roy Spaces Over Subsets of the Reals, Topology Appl. 29, 93-106, 1988.
  3. Lutzer, D. J., Pixley-Roy topology, Topology Proc. 3, 139-158, 1978.
  4. Hajnal, A., Juahasz, I., When is a Pixley-Roy Hyperspace CCC?, Topology Appl. 13, 33-41, 1982.
  5. Pixley, C., Roy, P., Uncompletable Moore spaces, Proc. Auburn Univ. Conf. Auburn, AL, 1969.
  6. Przymusinski, T., Normality and paracompactness of Pixley-Roy hyperspaces, Fund. Math. 113, 291-297, 1981.
  7. van Douwen, E. K., The Pixley-Roy topology on spaces of subsets, Set-theoretic Topology, Academic Press, New York, 111-134, 1977.
  8. Tall, F. D., Normality versus Collectionwise Normality, Handbook of Set-Theoretic Topology (K. Kunen and J. E. Vaughan, eds), Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., Amsterdam, 685-732, 1984.
  9. Tanaka, H, Normality and hereditary countable paracompactness of Pixley-Roy hyperspaces, Fund. Math. 126, 201-208, 1986.

____________________________________________________________________

\copyright \ 2014 \text{ by Dan Ma}

Sorgenfrey Line is not a Moore Space

We found an incorrect statement about the Sorgenfrey line in an entry in Wikipedia about Moore space (link). This statement opens up a discussion on the question of whether the Sorgenfrey line is a Moore space as well as a discussion on Moore space. The following is the incorrect statement found in Wikipedia by the author.

The Sorgenfrey line is the space whose underlying set is the real line S=\mathbb{R} where the topology is generated by a base consisting the half open intervals of the form [a,b). The Sorgenfrey plane is the square S \times S.

Even though the Sorgenfrey line is normal, the Sorgenfrey plane is not normal. In fact, the Sorgenfrey line is the classic example of a normal space whose square is not normal. Both the Sorgenfrey line and the Sorgenfrey plane are not Moore space but not for the reason given. The statement seems to suggest that any normal Moore space is second countable. But this flies in the face of all the profound mathematics surrounding the normal Moore space conjecture, which is also discussed in the Wikipedia entry.

The statement indicated above is only a lead-in to a discussion of Moore space. We are certain that it will be corrected. We always appreciate readers who kindly alert us to errors found in this blog.

______________________________________________________________________________

Moore Spaces

Let X be a regular space. A development for X is a sequence \mathcal{G}_1,\mathcal{G}_2,\mathcal{G}_3,\cdots of open covers of X such that for each x \in X, and for each open subset U of X with x \in U, there exists one cover \mathcal{G}_n satisfying the condition that for any open set V \in \mathcal{G}_n, x \in V \Rightarrow V \subset U. When X has a development, X is said to be a Moore space (also called developable space). A Note On The Sorgenfrey Line is an introductory note on the Sorgenfrey line.

Moore spaces can be viewed as a generalization of metrizable spaces. Moore spaces are first countable (having a countable base at each point). For a development \mathcal{G}_1,\mathcal{G}_2,\mathcal{G}_3,\cdots, the open sets in \mathcal{G}_n are considered “smaller” as the index n increases. In fact, this is how a development is defined for a metric space, where \mathcal{G}_n consists of all open balls with diameters less than \frac{1}{n}. Thus metric spaces are developable. There are plenty of non-metrizable Moore space. One example is the Niemytzki’s Tangent Disc space.

In a Moore space, every closed set is a G_\delta-set. Thus if a Moore space is normal, it is perfectly normal. Any Moore space has a G_\delta-diagonal (the diagonal \Delta=\left\{(x,x): x \in X \right\} is a G_\delta-set in X \times X). It is a well known theorem that every compact space with a G_\delta-diagonal is metrizable. Thus any compact Moore space is metrizable.

The last statement can be shown more directly. Suppose that X is compact and has a development \mathcal{G}_1,\mathcal{G}_2,\mathcal{G}_3,\cdots. Then each \mathcal{G}_n has a finite subcover \mathcal{H}_n. Then \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty \mathcal{H}_n is a countable base for X. Thus any compact Moore space is second countable and hence metrizable.

What about paracompact Moore space? Suppose that X is paracompact and has a development \mathcal{G}_1,\mathcal{G}_2,\mathcal{G}_3,\cdots. Then each \mathcal{G}_n has a locally finite open refinement \mathcal{H}_n. Then \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty \mathcal{H}_n is a \sigma-locally finite base for X. The Smirnov-Nagata metrization theorem states that a space is metrizable if and only if it has a \sigma-locally finite base (see Theorem 23.9 on page 170 of [2]). Thus any paracompact Moore space has a \sigma-locally finite base and is thus metrizable (after using the big gun of the Smirnov-Nagata metrization theorem).

______________________________________________________________________________

Sorgenfrey Line

The Sorgenfrey line is regular and Lindelof. Hence it is paracompact. Since the Sorgenfrey line is not metrizable, by the above discussion it cannot be a Moore space. The Sorgenfrey plane is also not a Moore space. Note that being a Moore space is a hereditary property. So if the Sorgenfrey plane is a Moore space, then every subspace of the Sorgenfrey plane (including the Sorgenfrey line) is a Moore space.

The following theorem is another way to show that the Sorgenfrey line is not a Moore space.

    Bing’s Metrization Theorem
    A topological space is metrizable if and only if it is a collectionwise normal Moore space.

Every paracompact space is collectionwise normal (see Theorem 5.1.18, p.305 of [1]). Thus the Sorgenfrey line is collectionwise normal and hence cannot be a Moore space. A space X is said to be collectionwise normal if X is a T_1-space and for every discrete collection \left\{W_\alpha: \alpha \in A \right\} of closed sets in X, there exists a discrete collection \left\{V_\alpha: \alpha \in A \right\} of open subsets of X such that W_\alpha \subset V_\alpha. For a proof of Bing’s metrization theorem, see page 329 of [1].

______________________________________________________________________________

Remark

The normal Moore space conjecture is the statement that every normal Moore space is metrizable. This conjecture had been one of the key motivating questions for many set theorists and topologists during a large part of the twentieth century. The bottom line is that this statement cannot not be decided just on the basis of the set of generally accepted axioms called Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice, commonly abbreviated ZFC. But Bing’s metrization theorem states that if we strengthen normality to collectionwise normality, we have a definite answer.

______________________________________________________________________________

Reference

  1. Engelking, R., General Topology, Revised and Completed edition, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
  2. Willard, S., General Topology, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1970.

______________________________________________________________________________

\copyright \ \ 2012

Completely Regular Spaces and Function Spaces

This is a continuation of a discussion on completely regular spaces (continuing from this previous post). These spaces are an integral part of many discussions involving topological spaces and/or properties. Some notions are contingent on the existence of certain real-valued continuous functions. Discussion of such notions can be greatly facilitated by working in the class of completely regular spaces. One example given in a previous post is on a discussion of pseudocompact spaces. Another example for requiring complete regularity is when working with function spaces. When the object being studied is the space of real-valued continuous functions defined on a topological space X, it is desirable to have enough continuous functions in the function space being studied. In this post, we illustrate this point by giving the proofs of two simple results in C_p(X), the space of real-valued continuous functions endowed with the pointwise convergence topology.

Basic references are [2] and [4]. Refer to [3] for a discussion of where complete regularity is placed among the separation axioms. An in-depth treatment for C_p theory is [1].
________________________________________________________________________

Completely Regular Spaces

A space X is said to be completely regular if X is a T_0 space and for each x \in X and for each closed subset A of X with x \notin A, there is a continuous function f:X \rightarrow [0,1] such that f(A) \subset \left\{0 \right\} and f(x)=1. Note that the T_0 axiom and the existence of the continuous function imply the T_1 axiom, which is equivalent to the property that single points are closed sets. Completely regular spaces are also called Tychonoff spaces.

________________________________________________________________________

Function Spaces

Let X be a space. Let C(X) be the set of all real-valued continuous functions defined on the space X. The set C(X) is naturally a subspace of the product space \prod \limits_{x \in X} Y_x where each Y_x = \mathbb{R}. We can also write \prod \limits_{x \in X} Y_x = \mathbb{R}^X. Thus C(X) can be endowed with the subspace topology inherited from the product space \mathbb{R}^X. When this is the case, the resulting function space is denoted by C_p(X).

Now we need a good handle on the open sets in the function space C_p(X). A basic open set in the product space \mathbb{R}^X is of the form \prod \limits_{x \in X} U_x where each U_x is open in \mathbb{R} and U_x = \mathbb{R} for all but finitely many x \in X (equivalently U_x \ne \mathbb{R} for only finitely many x \in X). Thus a basic open set in C_p(X) is of the form:

(1) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ C(X) \cap \prod \limits_{x \in X} U_x

where each U_x is open in \mathbb{R} and U_x = \mathbb{R} for all but finitely many x \in X. In addition, when U_x \ne \mathbb{R}, we can take U_x to be an open interval of the form (a,b). To make the basic open sets of C_p(X) more explicit, (1) is translated as follows:

(2) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \bigcap \limits_{x \in F} [x, O_x]

where F \subset X is a finite set, for each x \in F, O_x is an open interval of \mathbb{R}, and [x,O_x] is the set of all f \in C(X) such that f(x) \in O_x. In proving results about C_p(X), we can use basic open sets that are described in (2).

________________________________________________________________________

Completely Regular Spaces and Function Spaces

We now give two simple results in C_p(X) that are good illustrations that complete regularity is the ideal setting for the domain space of C_p function spaces. In Theorem 1, complete regularity is used to generate a non-separable subspace of the function space given a non-Lindelof subspace of the domain space. In Theorem 2, complete regularity is used to generate a non-Lindelof subspace of the function space given a non-separable subspace of the domain space.

Theorem 1
Let X be a completely regular space. Then if C_p(X) is hereditarily separable, then X is hereditarily Lindelof.

Proof
We show that if X has a subspace that is not Lindelof, then there is a subspace of C_p(X) that is not separable. We use complete regularity to generate the continuous functions that form a non-separable subspace.

Let Y \subset X be a non-Lindelof subspace. There exists an open cover \mathcal{U} of Y such that \mathcal{U} has no countable subcover. Open sets in \mathcal{U} are open sets in Y. We wish to expand these to open sets in X. Let \mathcal{U}^* be the collection of open subsets U of X such that U \cap Y \in \mathcal{U}. It is clear that no countable subcollection of \mathcal{U}^* can cover Y.

For each y \in Y, choose U(y) \in \mathcal{U}^* such that y \in U(y). Here’s where we use complete regularity. For each y \in Y, there is a continuous function f_y:X \rightarrow [0,1] such that f_y(X-U(y)) \subset \left\{0 \right\} and f_y(y) =1. Let T=\left\{f_y:y \in Y \right\}, which is a subspace of C_p(X).

We claim that T is not separable. To see this, let A=\left\{g_1,g_2,g_3,\cdots \right\} be a countable subset of T such that for each i, g_i is obtained from the point y(i) \in Y and the open set U_i=U(y(i)), i.e., g_i=f_{y(i)}. Note that \left\{U_1,U_2,U_3,\cdots \right\} cannot be a cover of Y. Let a \in Y be a point that is not in all U_i.

Consider the function f_a chosen above using complete regularity. Note that f_a(a)=1 and f_a(X-U(a)) \subset \left\{0 \right\}. On the other hand, g_i(a)=f_{y(i)}(a)=0 for all i since a \notin U_i for all i. This means that f_a is not in the closure of A. For example, [a,(0.9,1.1)] is a basic open set containing f_a such that g_i \notin [a,(0.9,1.1)] for all i. Thus no countable subset of T can be dense in T, completing the proof. \blacksquare

Theorem 2
Let X be a completely regular space. Then if C_p(X) is hereditarily Lindelof, then X is hereditarily separable.

Proof
Let Y be a non-separable subspace of X. For each countable A \subset Y, there must be some point y(A) \in Y such that y(A) is not a member of the closure of A (relative to Y). For each countable A \subset Y, let \overline{A} be the closure of A in the entire space X. Clearly y(A) \notin \overline{A}.

Now apply the complete regularity of the space X. For each countable A \subset Y, let f_A: X \rightarrow [0,1] be continuous such that f_A(\overline{A}) \subset \left\{0 \right\} and f_A(y(A))=1. Let W be the set of all f_A where A \subset Y is countable.

We now show that W is a non-Lindelof subspace of C_p(X). For each f_A \in W, let U_A=[y(A),(0.9, 1.1)] \cap W, which is open in C_p(X) and contains f_A. Let \mathcal{U} be the collection of all such open sets U_A.

Then \mathcal{U} is an open cover of W that has no countable subcover. To see this, suppose we have \left\{U_1,U_2,U_3,\cdots \right\} such that for each i, U_i=U_{A(i)} where A(i) \subset Y is countable. Then let B be the set of all A(i) and all points y(A(i)). Note that the set B is still a countable subset of Y. Consider the point y(B) and the continuous function f_B, which is a member of W. We have f_B(y(B))=1 and f_B(t)=0 for all t \in \overline{B}. Note that each y(A(i)) \in B and thus f_B(y(A(i))=0 for all i. This shows that f_B \notin U_i=U_{A(i)} for all i. Then \mathcal{U} is an open cover of W that has no countable subcover, leading to the conclusion that W is a non-Lindelof subspace of C_p(X). \blacksquare

________________________________________________________________________

Remark

The above proofs of Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 are only meant as demonstration of the role played by complete regularity in working with function spaces. They are much weaker versions of a deeper result. These two results can serve to motivate a deeper result that explores the relationship between the hereditary separability (respectively hereditary Lindelof property) of the domain space and the hereditary Lindelof property (respectively the hereditary separability) of the function space. The following theorem is the countable version of a theorem found in [5].

Theorem 3
Let X be a completely regular space. The following conditions are equivalent.

  1. C_p(X) is hereditarily separable (respectively hereditarily Lindelof).
  2. X^\omega is hereditarily Lindelof (respectively hereditarily separable).
  3. For each positive integer n, X^n is hereditarily Lindelof (respectively hereditarily separable).

________________________________________________________________________

Reference

  1. Arhangel’skii, A., Topological Function Spaces, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1992.
  2. Engelking, R., General Topology, Revised and Completed edition, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
  3. Steen, L. A., Seebach, J. A., Counterexamples in Topology, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1995.
  4. Willard, S., General Topology, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1970.
  5. Zenor, P., Hereditarily m-separability and the hereditarily m-lindelof property in product spaces and function spaces, Fund. Math. 106, 175-180, 1980.

Thinking about the Space of Irrationals Topologically

Let \mathbb{R} denote the real number line and \mathbb{P} denote the set of all irrational numbers. The irrational numbers and the set \mathbb{P} occupy an important place in mathematics. The set \mathbb{P} with the Euclidean topology inherited from the full real line is a topological space in its own right. Thus the space \mathbb{P} has some of the same properties inherited from the Euclidean real line, e.g., just to name a few, it is hereditarily separable, hereditarily Lindelof, paracompact and metrizable. The space of the irrational numbers \mathbb{P} has many properties apart from the full real line (e.g. \mathbb{P} is totally disconnected). In this post, we look at a topological description of the space \mathbb{P}.

Let \omega be the set of all nonnegative integers. Then the space \mathbb{P} of irrational numbers is topologically equivalent (i.e. homeomorphic to) the product space \prod \limits_{i=0}^\infty X_i where each X_i=\omega has the discrete topology. We will also denote the product space \prod \limits_{i=0}^\infty X_i by \omega^\omega. We have the following theorem.

Theorem
The space \mathbb{P} of irrational numbers is homeomorphic to the product space \omega^\omega.

Because of this theorem, we can look at irrational numbers as sequences of nonnegative integers. Specifically each irrational number can be identified by a unique sequence of nonnegative integers. We can think of each such unique sequence as an address to locate an irrational number. In the remainder of the post, we describe at a high level how to define the unique addresses, which will also give us a homeomorphic map between the space \mathbb{P} and the product space \omega^\omega.

___________________________________________________________________________

Step 0
Put the rational numbers in a sequence r_0,r_1,r_2,r_3,\cdots such that r_0=0. We divide the real line into countably many non-overlapping intervals. Specifically, let A_0=[0,1], A_1=[-1,0], A_2=[1,2], etc (see the following figure).

To facilitate the remaining construction, we denote the left endpoint of the interval A_i by L_i and denote the right endpoint by R_i.

Step 1
In each of the interval A_i, we further divide it into non-overlapping intervals. The left endpoint and the right endpoint of the interval A_i are L_i and R_i, respectively. We choose a sequence x_{i,0}, x_{i,1}, x_{i,2},\cdots of rational numbers converging to the right endpoint R_i. Then let A_{i,0}=[L_i,x_{i,0}], A_{i,1}=[x_{i,0},x_{i,1}], A_{i,2}=[x_{i,1},x_{i,2}], etc (see the following figure).

Two important points to consider in Step 1. One is that we make sure the rational number r_1 is chosen as an endpoint of some interval in Step 1. The second is that the length of each A_{i,j} is less than \displaystyle \frac{1}{2^1}.

Step 2
In each of the interval A_{i,j}, we further divide it into non-overlapping intervals. The left endpoint and the right endpoint of the interval A_{i,j} are L_{i,j} and R_{i,j}, respectively. We choose a sequence x_{i,j,0}, x_{i,j,1}, x_{i,j,2},\cdots of rational numbers converging to the left endpoint L_{i,j}. Then let A_{i,j,0}=[x_{i,j,0},R_{i,j}], A_{i,j,1}=[x_{i,j,1},x_{i,j,0}], A_{i,j,2}=[x_{i,j,2},x_{i,j,1}], etc (see the following figure).

As in the previous step, two important points to consider in Step 2. One is that we make sure the rational number r_2 is chosen as an endpoint of some interval in Step 2. The second is that the length of each A_{i,j,k} is less than \displaystyle \frac{1}{2^2}.

___________________________________________________________________________
Remark

In the process described above, the endpoints of the intervals A_{f(0),\cdots,f(n)} are rational numbers and we make sure that all the rational numbers are used as endpoints. We also make sure that the intervals from the successive steps are nested closed intervals with lengths \rightarrow 0. The consequence of this point is that the nested decreasing closed intervals will collapse to one single point (since the real line is a complete metric space) and this single point must be an irrational number (since all the rational numbers are used up as endpoints of the nested closed intervals).

In Step i where i is an odd integer, we make the endpoints of the new intervals converge to the right. In Step i where i>1 is an even integer, we make the endpoints of the new intervals converge to the left. This manipulation is to ensure that the nested closed intervals will never share the same endpoint from one step all the way to the end of the process.

Thus if we have f \in \omega^\omega, then \bigcap \limits_{n=0}^\infty A_{f(0),\cdots,f(n)} \ne \varnothing and in fact has only one point that is an irrational number.

On the other hand, for each point x \in \mathbb{P}, we can locate inductively a sequence of intervals, A_{f(0)}, A_{f(0),f(1)}, A_{f(0),f(1),f(2)}, \cdots, containing the point x. This sequence of nested closed intervals must collapse to a single point and the single point must be the irrational number x.

The process described above gives us a one-to-one mapping from \mathbb{P} onto the product space \omega^\omega. This mapping is also continuous in both directions, making it a homeomorphism. the nested intervals defined above form a base for the Euclidean topology on \mathbb{P}. These basic open sets have a natural correspondance with basic open sets in the product space \omega^\omega.

For example, for f \in \omega^\omega, \left\{ A_{f(0),\cdots,f(n)} \cap \mathbb{P}: n \in \omega \right\} is a local base at the point x \in \bigcap \limits_{n=0}^\infty A_{f(0),\cdots,f(n)}. One the other hand, each A_{f(0),\cdots,f(n)} \cap \mathbb{P} has a natural counterpart in a basic open set in the product space, namely the following set:

\displaystyle . \ \ \ \ \left\{g \in \omega^\omega: g \restriction n = f \restriction n \right\}

___________________________________________________________________________

The above process establishes that the countable product of the integers, \omega^\omega, is equivalent topologically to the Euclidean space \mathbb{P}.

When is a Lindelof Space Normal?

When is a Lindelof space normal? This question may seem strange since it is a well known basic result that Lindelof spaces are normal (see Theorem 3.8.2 in [1] and Theorem 16.8 in [6]). The proofs in both of these theorems require that the Lindelof space is also a regular space. We present an example showing that the requirement of regularity cannot be removed. The example defined below is a space that is Hausdorff, hereditarily Lindelof, not separable, not regular and not normal.

The example defined below makes it clear that we need to be careful in making the leap from the Lindelof property to normality of a space. We need to make sure that the space in question is also a regular space. The Lindelof property is a powerful property; it also implies paracompactness. But for this to happen, some separation axiom is required (it needs to be a regular space).

Another motivation for looking at examples such as the one defined here is that they are background information to the theory of S-spaces and L-spaces (see the remark given at the end of the post).

______________________________________________________________________________

The example is the Example 14.7 in [2]. The underlying set is the real number line \mathbb{R}. Let \tau be the usual topology on \mathbb{R}. Let X=\mathbb{R}. We use the following collection of sets as a base for a new topology on X:

    \displaystyle \mathbb{B}=\left\{O-C: O \in \tau, C \subset \mathbb{R}, \lvert C \vert \le \omega \right\}

The collection \mathbb{B} needs to satisfy two conditions for being a base for a topology. One is that it covers the underlying set. The second is that whenever B_1, B_2 \in \mathbb{B} with x \in B_1 \cap B_2, there is some B_3 \in \mathbb{B} such that x \in B_3 \subset B_1 \cap B_2. Note that \tau \subset \mathbb{B}. This implies that \mathbb{B} is a cover of X. It is also clear that the second condition is satisfied.

Let \tau^{*} be the topology generated by the base \mathbb{B}. Another consequence of \tau \subset \mathbb{B} is that the new topology on X is finer than the usual topology, i.e., \tau \subset \tau^{*}. It is then clear that (X, \tau^{*}) is a Hausdorff space.

We denote the real line with the new topology \tau^{*} by X rather than (X, \tau^{*}) since the new topology \tau^{*} is the primary focus.

In X, the complement of every countable set is open. So no countable set can be dense in X, making it not separable. Equivalently, every countable subset of X is closed.

To see that X is not regular, we first make the following observation.

    Observation
    Let W \subset \mathbb{R} be a Euclidean open set. Let A \subset \mathbb{R} be a countable set that is dense in W (dense with respect to the Euclidean topology). Then for each x \in A \cap W, x \in \overline{W-A} (with respect to the topology \tau^*).

To see that this observation is correct, let x \in A \cap W and let V-B be an open set containing x, where V is a Euclidean open set and B is a countable set. We can assume that V \subset W. Let A_0=A-\left\{x \right\}. Note that x \in V-(A_0 \cup B) \subset V-B and that V-(A_0 \cup B) \subset W-A_0. Furthermore, for any y \in V-(A_0 \cup B) with y \ne x, y \in W-A. Thus any open set containing x contains many points of W-A. Hence, we have x \in \overline{W-A}.

To see that X is not regular, we show that there is a closed set C \subset X such that for any open set O \subset X-C, \overline{O} \cap C \ne \varnothing.

Let C=\mathbb{Q} (the set of all rational numbers). Let O be open in X such that O \subset X-C. We assume that O=W-A where W is open in the Euclidean topology and A is countable. Note that O=W-A consisting of entirely of irrational numbers. Then \mathbb{Q} \cap W \subset A. Thus A is dense in W (with respect to the Euclidean topology). By the above observation, any point of A is a member of \overline{W-A} (with respect to the topology \tau^*). In particular, for each x \in C=\mathbb{Q}, x \in \overline{W-A}. Thus X is not regular.

Any space that is not regular is also not normal. Thus X is not normal. But we can also see this directly. Let H=\mathbb{Q} and K=\left\{x \right\} where x is any irrational number. Then H and K are two disjoint closed sets that cannot be separated by disjoint open sets in X.

The space X is Lindelof and also hereditarily Lindelof (both properties are piggy backed on the same properties of the Euclidean real line). To see that X is Lindelof, suppose that a collection of open sets O_a-A_a \in \mathbb{B} is a cover of X. The Euclidean open sets O_a also form a cover of X=\mathbb{R}. Then pick countably many O_a that also cover the real line (using the Lindelof property of the Euclidean real line). Then these countably many O_a-A_a will cover X except for countably many points. A countable subcover will result once we use open sets in the original cover to cover these countably many points. Using the same proof, it can be shown that every subspace of X is also Lindelof.

______________________________________________________________________________

Remark

An S-space is any regular topological space that is hereditarily separable but not Lindelof. An L-space is any regular topological space that is hereditarily Lindelof but not separable. Elementary examples of hereditarily separable space that is not Lindelof and hereditarily Lindelof space that is not separable are quite easy to define (but they are not regular). The example we define above is an example of non-regular hereditarily Lindelof space that is not separable. Thus S-space and L-space are typically defined with the requirement of regularity.

It was shown in the early 1980’s that the existence of S-space is independent of the usual axioms of ZFC. This means that to prove the existence of an S-space or to prove the non-existence of S-space, one needs to assume axioms beyond those of ZFC. The L-space problem (whether an L-space can exist without assuming additional set-theoretic assumptions beyond those of ZFC) was not resolved until quite recently. For quite a long time, it was believed the L-space problem would have a similar solution (that its existence would be independent of ZFC). In 2005, Justin Tatch-Moore solved the L-space problem by constructing an L-space without assuming additional axioms.

For back ground information about S-space and L-space, see [3] and [4]. For Justin Moore’s proof, see [5].

______________________________________________________________________________

Reference

  1. Engelking, R., General Topology, Revised and Completed edition, 1989, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin.
  2. Hodel, R.,Cardinal Functions I, Handbook of Set-Theoretic Topology, (K. Kunen and J. E. Vaughan, eds), 1984, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., Amsterdam, 1-61.
  3. Mastros, S.,S and L Spaces, Master’s Thesis, 2009, University of Pittsburgh. Link
  4. Roitman, J.,Basic S and L, Handbook of Set-Theoretic Topology, (K. Kunen and J. E. Vaughan, eds), 1984, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., Amsterdam, 295-326.
  5. Tatch-Moore, J.,A solution to the L space problem, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 19 (2006), 3, 717—736. Link
  6. Willard, S., General Topology, 1970, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

An observation about hereditarily separable function spaces

For any completely regular space X, by C_p(X) we mean the space of all real-valued continuous functions on X endowed with the pointwise convergent topology. It is known that C_p(X) is hereditarily separable if and only if X^n is hereditarily Lindelof for all positive integer n if and only if X^\omega is hereditarily Lindelof where \omega is the first infinite ordinal (a result that follows from a theorem of Zenor in [4]). This result points to a duality between hereditary separability of the function space C_p(X) and the hereditary Lindelof property of the domain space X and is restated below.

Theorem
Let X be a completely regular space. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

  1. C_p(X) is hereditarily separable.
  2. X^n is hereditarily Lindelof for all positive integer n.
  3. X^\omega is hereditarily Lindelof.

As an introduction to this theorem, we present the proof to one direction of this theorem for n=1.

Observation
Let X be any completely regular space. We have the following obervation:

If C_p(X) is hereditarily separable, then X is hereditarily Lindelof.

Suppose X is not hereditarily Lindelof. We aim to show that C_p(X) is not hereditarily separable by producing a non-separable subspace \mathcal{F} of C_p(X).

Let Y \subset X be a subspace that is not Lindelof. Let \mathcal{U} be a collection of open subsets of X such that \mathcal{U} covers Y and no countable subcollection of \mathcal{U} covers Y.

For each y \in Y, choose U_y \in \mathcal{U} such that y \in U_y. By the completely regularity of X, choose a continuous f_y: X \rightarrow \mathbb{R} such that f_y maps X-U_y to 0 and f_y(y)=1. Let \mathcal{F}=\left\{f_y:y \in X \right\}. It can be shown that \mathcal{F} is a non-separable subspace of C_p(X). That is, no countable subset of \mathcal{F} can be dense in \mathcal{F}. \blacksquare

For any completely regular space X, it is also known (see [2]) that C_p(X) is separable if and only if X has a weaker separable metrizable topology (i.e. X has a weaker topology such that X with this weaker topology is a separable metrizable space). The result in [2] combined with the observation presented here provides a way to obtain sepearable C_p(X) that is not hereditarily separable. Look for any X that is not hereditarily Lindelof but has a weaker separable metrizable topology. One such example is the Michael Line.

The observation we make here is a rather weak result. The double arrow space Z is hereditarily Lindelof. Yet C_p(Z) is not even separable since Z is compact space that is not metrizable. Note that Z^2 is not hereditarily Lindelof since it contains a copy of the Sorgenfrey plane (see the previous post on double arrow space).

Reference

  1. Engelking, R., General Topology, Revised and Completed edition, 1989, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin.
  2. Noble, N., The density character of function spaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 42:1 (1974) 228-233.
  3. Willard, S., General Topology, 1970, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
  4. Zenor, P., Hereditarily m-separability and the hereditarily m-lindelof property in product spaces and function spaces, Fund. Math. 106 (1980), 175-180