Equivalent conditions for hereditarily Lindelof spaces

A topological space X is Lindelof if every open cover X has a countable subcollection that also is a cover of X. A topological space X is hereditarily Lindelof if every subspace of X, with respect to the subspace topology, is a Lindelof space. In this post, we prove a theorem that gives two equivalent conditions for the hereditarily Lindelof property. We consider the following theorem.

Theorem 1
Let X be a topological space. The following conditions are equivalent.

  1. The space X is a hereditarily Lindelof space.
  2. Every open subspace of X is Lindelof.
  3. For every uncountable subspace Y of X, there exists a point y \in Y such that every open subset of X containing y contains uncountably many points of Y.

This is an excellent exercise for the hereditarily Lindelof property and for transfinite induction (for one of the directions). The equivalence 1 \longleftrightarrow 3 is the exercise 3.12.7(d) on page 224 of [1]. The equivalence of the 3 conditions of Theorem 1 is mentioned on page 182 (chapter d-8) of [2].

Proof of Theorem 1
The direction 1 \longrightarrow 2 is immediate. The direction 2 \longrightarrow 3 is straightforward.

3 \longrightarrow 1
We show \text{not } 1 \longrightarrow \text{not } 3. Suppose T is a non-Lindelof subspace of X. Let \mathcal{U} be an open cover of T such that no countable subcollection of \mathcal{U} can cover T. By a transfinite inductive process, choose a set of points \left\{t_\alpha \in T: \alpha < \omega_1 \right\} and a collection of open sets \left\{U_\alpha \in \mathcal{U}: \alpha < \omega_1 \right\} such that for each \alpha < \omega_1, t_\alpha \in U_\alpha and t_\alpha \notin \cup \left\{U_\beta: \beta<\alpha \right\}. The inductive process is possible since no countable subcollection of \mathcal{U} can cover T. Now let Y=\left\{t_\alpha: \alpha<\omega_1 \right\}. Note that each U_\alpha can at most contain countably many points of Y, namely the points in \left\{t_\beta: \beta \le \alpha \right\}.

For each \alpha, let V_\alpha be an open subset of X such that U_\alpha=V_\alpha \cap Y. We can now conclude: for every point t_\alpha of Y, there exists an open set V_\alpha containing t_\alpha such that V_\alpha contains only countably many points of Y. This is the negation of condition 3. \blacksquare

____________________________________________________________________

Remarks

Condition 3 indicates that every uncountable set has a certain special type of limit points. Let p \in X. We say p is a limit point of the set Y \subset X if every open set containing p contains a point of Y different from p. Being a limit point of Y, we only know that each open set containing p contain infinitely many points of Y (assuming a T_1 space). Thus the limit points indicated in condition 3 are a special type of limit points. According to the terminology of [1], if p is a limit point of Y satisfying condition 3, then p is said to be a condensation point of Y. According to Theorem 1, existence of condensation point in every uncountable set is a strong topological property (being equivalent to the hereditarily property). It is easy to see that of condition 3 holds, all but countably many points of any uncountable set Y is a condensation point of Y.

In some situations, we may not need the full strength of condition 3. In such situations, the following corollary may be sufficient.

Corollary 2
If the space X is hereditarily Lindelof, then every uncountable subspace Y of X contains one of its limit points.

As noted earlier, if every uncountable set contains one of its limits, then all but countably many points of any uncountable set are limit points. To contrast the hereditarily Lindelof property with the Lindelof property, consider the following theorem.

Theorem 3
If the space X is Lindelof, then every uncountable subspace Y of X has a limit point.

The condition “every uncountable subspace Y of X has a limit point” has another name. When a space satisfies this condition, it is said to have countable extent. The ideas in Corollary 2 and Theorem 3 are also discussed in this previous post.

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

  1. Engelking, R., General Topology, Revised and Completed edition, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
  2. Hart, K. P., Nagata J. I., Vaughan, J. E., editors, Encyclopedia of General Topology, First Edition, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V, Amsterdam, 2003.

____________________________________________________________________

\copyright \ 2014 \text{ by Dan Ma}

Advertisements

An example of a normal but not Lindelof Cp(X)

In this post, we discuss an example of a function space C_p(X) that is normal and not Lindelof (as indicated in the title). Interestingly, much more can be said about this function space. In this post, we show that there exists a space X such that

  • C_p(X) is collectionwise normal and not paracompact,
  • C_p(X) is not Lindelof but contains a dense Lindelof subspace,
  • C_p(X) is not first countable but is a Frechet space,
  • As a corollary of the previous point, C_p(X) cannot contain a copy of the compact space \omega_1+1,
  • C_p(X) is homeomorphic to C_p(X)^\omega,
  • C_p(X) is not hereditarily normal,
  • C_p(X) is not metacompact.

A short and quick description of the space X is that X is the one-point Lindelofication of an uncountable discrete space. As shown below, the function space C_p(X) is intimately related to a \Sigma-product of copies of real lines. The results listed above are merely an introduction to this wonderful example and are derived by examining the \Sigma-products of copies of real lines. Deep results about \Sigma-product of real lines abound in the literature. The references listed at the end are a small sample. Example 3.2 in [2] is another interesting illustration of this example.

We now define the domain space X=L_\tau. In the discussion that follows, the Greek letter \tau is always an uncountable cardinal number. Let D_\tau be a set with cardinality \tau. Let p be a point not in D_\tau. Let L_\tau=D_\tau \cup \left\{p \right\}. Consider the following topology on L_\tau:

  • Each point in D_\tau an isolated point, and
  • open neighborhoods at the point p are of the form L_\tau-K where K \subset D_\tau is countable.

It is clear that L_\tau is a Lindelof space. The Lindelof space L_\tau is sometimes called the one-point Lindelofication of the discrete space D_\tau since it is a Lindelof space that is obtained by adding one point to a discrete space.

Consider the function space C_p(L_\tau). See this post for general information on the pointwise convergence topology of C_p(Y) for any completely regular space Y.

All the facts about C_p(X)=C_p(L_\tau) mentioned at the beginning follow from the fact that C_p(L_\tau) is homeomorphic to the \Sigma-product of \tau many copies of the real lines. Specifically, C_p(L_\tau) is homeomorphic to the following subspace of the product space \mathbb{R}^\tau.

    \Sigma_{\alpha<\tau}\mathbb{R}=\left\{ x \in \mathbb{R}^\tau: x_\alpha \ne 0 \text{ for at most countably many } \alpha<\tau \right\}

Thus understanding the function space C_p(L_\tau) is a matter of understanding a \Sigma-product of copies of the real lines. First, we establish the homeomorphism and then discuss the properties of C_p(L_\tau) indicated above.

____________________________________________________________________

The Homeomorphism

For each f \in C_p(L_\tau), it is easily seen that there is a countable set C \subset D_\tau such that f(p)=f(y) for all y \in D_\tau-C. Let W_0=\left\{f \in C_p(L_\tau): f(p)=0 \right\}. Then each f \in W_0 has non-zero values only on a countable subset of D_\tau. Naturally, W_0 and \Sigma_{\alpha<\tau}\mathbb{R} are homeomorphic.

We claim that C_p(L_\tau) is homeomorphic to W_0 \times \mathbb{R}. For each f \in C_p(L_\tau), define h(f)=(f-f(p),f(p)). Here, f-f(p) is the function g \in C_p(L_\tau) such that g(x)=f(x)-f(p) for all x \in L_\tau. Clearly h(f) is well-defined and h(f) \in W_0 \times \mathbb{R}. It can be readily verified that h is a one-to-one map from C_p(L_\tau) onto W_0 \times \mathbb{R}. It is not difficult to verify that both h and h^{-1} are continuous.

We use the notation X_1 \cong X_2 to mean that the spaces X_1 and X_2 are homeomorphic. Then we have:

    C_p(L_\tau) \ \cong \ W_0 \times \mathbb{R} \ \cong \ (\Sigma_{\alpha<\tau}\mathbb{R})  \times \mathbb{R} \ \cong \ \Sigma_{\alpha<\tau}\mathbb{R}

Thus C_p(L_\tau) \ \cong \ \Sigma_{\alpha<\tau}\mathbb{R}. This completes the proof that C_p(L_\tau) is topologically the \Sigma-product of \tau many copies of the real lines.

____________________________________________________________________

Looking at the \Sigma-Product

Understanding the function space C_p(L_\tau) is now reduced to the problem of understanding a \Sigma-product of copies of the real lines. Most of the facts about \Sigma-products that we need have already been proved in previous blog posts.

In this previous post, it is established that the \Sigma-product of separable metric spaces is collectionwise normal. Thus C_p(L_\tau) is collectionwise normal. The \Sigma-product of spaces, each of which has at least two points, always contains a closed copy of \omega_1 with the ordered topology (see the lemma in this previous post). Thus C_p(L_\tau) contains a closed copy of \omega_1 and hence can never be paracompact (and thus not Lindelof).

___________________________________

Consider the following subspace of the \Sigma-product \Sigma_{\alpha<\tau}\mathbb{R}:

    \sigma_\tau=\left\{ x \in \Sigma_{\alpha<\tau}\mathbb{R}: x_\alpha \ne 0 \text{ for at most finitely many } \alpha<\tau \right\}

In this previous post, it is shown that \sigma_\tau is a Lindelof space. Though C_p(L_\tau) \cong \Sigma_{\alpha<\tau}\mathbb{R} is not Lindelof, it has a dense Lindelof subspace, namely \sigma_\tau.

___________________________________

A space Y is first countable if there exists a countable local base at each point y \in Y. A space Y is a Frechet space (or is Frechet-Urysohn) if for each y \in Y, if y \in \overline{A} where A \subset Y, then there exists a sequence \left\{y_n: n=1,2,3,\cdots \right\} of points of A such that the sequence converges to y. Clearly, any first countable space is a Frechet space. The converse is not true (see Example 1 in this previous post).

For any uncountable cardinal number \tau, the product \mathbb{R}^\tau is not first countable. In fact, any dense subspace of \mathbb{R}^\tau is not first countable. In particular, the \Sigma-product \Sigma_{\alpha<\tau}\mathbb{R} is not first countable. In this previous post, it is shown that the \Sigma-product of first countable spaces is a Frechet space. Thus C_p(L_\tau) \cong \Sigma_{\alpha<\tau}\mathbb{R} is a Frechet space.

___________________________________

As a corollary of the previous point, C_p(L_\tau) \cong \Sigma_{\alpha<\tau}\mathbb{R} cannot contain a homeomorphic copy of any space that is not Frechet. In particular, it cannot contain a copy of any compact space that is not Frechet. For example, the compact space \omega_1+1 is not embeddable in C_p(L_\tau). The interest in compact subspaces of C_p(L_\tau) \cong \Sigma_{\alpha<\tau}\mathbb{R} is that any compact space that is topologically embeddable in a \Sigma-product of real lines is said to be Corson compact. Thus any Corson compact space is a Frechet space.

___________________________________

It can be readily verified that

    \Sigma_{\alpha<\tau}\mathbb{R} \ \cong \ \Sigma_{\alpha<\tau}\mathbb{R} \ \times \ \Sigma_{\alpha<\tau}\mathbb{R} \ \times \ \Sigma_{\alpha<\tau}\mathbb{R} \ \times \ \cdots \ \text{(countably many times)}

Thus C_p(L_\tau) \cong C_p(L_\tau)^\omega. In particular, C_p(L_\tau) \cong C_p(L_\tau) \times C_p(L_\tau) due to the following observation:

    C_p(L_\tau) \times C_p(L_\tau) \cong C_p(L_\tau)^\omega \times C_p(L_\tau)^\omega \cong C_p(L_\tau)^\omega \cong C_p(L_\tau)

___________________________________

As a result of the peculiar fact that C_p(L_\tau) \cong C_p(L_\tau) \times C_p(L_\tau), it can be concluded that C_p(L_\tau), though normal, is not hereditarily normal. This follows from an application of Katetov’s theorem. The theorem states that if Y_1 \times Y_2 is hereditarily normal, then either Y_1 is perfectly normal or every countably infinite subset of Y_2 is closed and discrete (see this previous post). The function space C_p(L _\tau) is not perfectly normal since it contains a closed copy of \omega_1. On the other hand, there are plenty of countably infinite subsets of C_p(L _\tau) that are not closed and discrete. As a Frechet space, C_p(L _\tau) has many convergent sequences. Each such sequence without the limit is a countably infinite set that is not closed and discrete. As an example, let \left\{x_1,x_2,x_3,\cdots \right\} be an infinite subset of D_\tau and consider the following:

    C=\left\{f_n: n=1,2,3,\cdots \right\}

where f_n is such that f_n(x_n)=n and f_n(x)=0 for each x \in L_\tau with x \ne x_n. Note that C is not closed and not discrete since the points in C converge to g \in \overline{C} where g is the zero-function. Thus C_p(L_\tau) \cong C_p(L_\tau) \times C_p(L_\tau) is not hereditarily normal.

___________________________________

It is well known that collectionwise normal metacompact space is paracompact (see Theorem 5.3.3 in [4] where metacompact is referred to as weakly paracompact). Since C_p(L_\tau) is collectionwise normal and not paracompact, C_p(L_\tau) can never be metacompact.

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

  1. Arkhangelskii, A. V., Topological Function Spaces, Mathematics and Its Applications Series, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1992.
  2. Bella, A., Masami, S., Tight points of Pixley-Roy hyperspaces, Topology Appl., 160, 2061-2068, 2013.
  3. Corson, H. H., Normality in subsets of product spaces, Amer. J. Math., 81, 785-796, 1959.
  4. Engelking, R., General Topology, Revised and Completed edition, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1989.

____________________________________________________________________

\copyright \ 2014 \text{ by Dan Ma}

(Lower case) sigma-products of separable metric spaces are Lindelof

Consider the product space X=\prod_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha. Fix a point b \in \prod_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha, called the base point. The \Sigma-product of the spaces \left\{X_\alpha: \alpha \in A \right\} is the following subspace of the product space X:

    \Sigma_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha=\left\{ x \in X: x_\alpha \ne b_\alpha \text{ for at most countably many } \alpha \in A \right\}

In other words, the space \Sigma_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha is the subspace of the product space X=\prod_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha consisting of all points that deviate from the base point on at most countably many coordinates \alpha \in A. We also consider the following subspace of \Sigma_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha.

    \sigma=\left\{ x \in \Sigma_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha: x_\alpha \ne b_\alpha \text{ for at most finitely many } \alpha \in A \right\}

For convenience , we call \Sigma_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha the (upper case) Sigma-product (or \Sigma-product) of the spaces X_\alpha and we call the space \sigma the (lower case) sigma-product (or \sigma-product). Clearly, the space \sigma is a dense subspace of \Sigma_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha. In a previous post, we show that the upper case Sigma-product of separable metric spaces is collectionwise normal. In this post, we show that the (lower case) sigma-product of separable metric spaces is Lindelof. Thus when each factor X_\alpha is a separable metric space with at least two points, the \Sigma-product, though not Lindelof, has a dense Lindelof subspace. The (upper case) \Sigma-product of separable metric spaces is a handy example of a non-Lindelof space that contains a dense Lindelof subspace.

Naturally, the lower case sigma-product can be further broken down into countably many subspaces. For each integer n=0,1,2,3,\cdots, we define \sigma_n as follows:

    \sigma_n=\left\{ x \in \sigma: x_\alpha \ne b_\alpha \text{ for at most } n \text{ many } \alpha \in A \right\}

Clearly, \sigma=\bigcup_{n=0}^\infty \sigma_n. We prove the following theorem. The fact that \sigma is Lindelof will follow as a corollary. Understanding the following proof for Theorem 1 is a matter of keeping straight the notations involving standard basic open sets in the product space X=\prod_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha. We say V is a standard basic open subset of the product space X if V is of the form V=\prod_{\alpha \in A} V_\alpha such that each V_\alpha is an open subset of the factor space X_\alpha and V_\alpha=X_\alpha for all but finitely many \alpha \in A. The finite set F of all \alpha \in A such that V_\alpha \ne X_\alpha is called the support of the open set V.

Theorem 1
Let \sigma be the \sigma-product of the separable metrizable spaces \left\{X_\alpha: \alpha \in A \right\}. For each n, let \sigma_n be defined as above. The product space \sigma_n \times Y is Lindelof for each non-negative integer n and for all separable metric space Y.

Proof of Theorem 1
We prove by induction on n. Note that \sigma_0=\left\{b \right\}, the base point. Clearly \sigma_0 \times Y is Lindelof for all separable metric space Y. Suppose the theorem hold for the integer n. We show that \sigma_{n+1} \times Y for all separable metric space Y. To this end, let \mathcal{U} be an open cover of \sigma_{n+1} \times Y where Y is a separable metric space. Without loss of generality, we assume that each element of \mathcal{U} is of the form V \times W where V=\prod_{\alpha \in A} V_\alpha is a standard basic open subset of the product space X=\prod_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha and W is an open subset of Y.

Let \mathcal{U}_0=\left\{U_1,U_2,U_3,\cdots \right\} be a countable subcollection of \mathcal{U} such that \mathcal{U}_0 covers \left\{b \right\} \times Y. For each j, let U_j=V_j \times W_j where V_j=\prod_{\alpha \in A} V_{j,\alpha} is a standard basic open subset of the product space X with b \in V_j and W_j is an open subset of Y. For each j, let F_j be the support of V_j. Note that \alpha \in F_j if and only if V_{j,\alpha} \ne X_\alpha. Also for each \alpha \in F_j, b_\alpha \in V_{j,\alpha}. Furthermore, for each \alpha \in F_j, let V^c_{j,\alpha}=X_\alpha- V_{j,\alpha}. With all these notations in mind, we define the following open set for each \beta \in F_j:

    H_{j,\beta}= \biggl( V^c_{j,\beta} \times \prod_{\alpha \in A, \alpha \ne \beta} X_\alpha \biggr) \times W_j=\biggl( V^c_{j,\beta} \times T_\beta \biggr) \times W_j

Observe that for each point y \in \sigma_{n+1} such that y \in V^c_{j,\beta} \times T_\beta, the point y already deviates from the base point b on one coordinate, namely \beta. Thus on the coordinates other than \beta, the point y can only deviates from b on at most n many coordinates. Thus \sigma_{n+1} \cap (V^c_{j,\beta} \times T_\beta) is homeomorphic to V^c_{j,\beta} \times \sigma_n. Note that V^c_{j,\beta} \times W_j is a separable metric space. By inductive hypothesis, V^c_{j,\beta} \times \sigma_n \times W_j is Lindelof. Thus there are countably many open sets in the open cover \mathcal{U} that covers points of H_{j,\beta} \cap (\sigma_{n+1} \times W_j).

Note that

    \sigma_{n+1} \times Y=\biggl( \bigcup_{j=1}^\infty U_j \cap \sigma_{n+1} \biggr) \cup \biggl( \bigcup \left\{H_{j,\beta} \cap (\sigma_{n+1} \times W_j): j=1,2,3,\cdots, \beta \in F_j \right\} \biggr)

To see that the left-side is a subset of the right-side, let t=(x,y) \in \sigma_{n+1} \times Y. If t \in U_j for some j, we are done. Suppose t \notin U_j for all j. Observe that y \in W_j for some j. Since t=(x,y) \notin U_j, x_\beta \notin V_{j,\beta} for some \beta \in F_j. Then t=(x,y) \in H_{j,\beta}. It is now clear that t=(x,y) \in H_{j,\beta} \cap (\sigma_{n+1} \times W_j). Thus the above set equality is established. Thus one part of \sigma_{n+1} \times Y is covered by countably many open sets in \mathcal{U} while the other part is the union of countably many Lindelof subspaces. It follows that a countable subcollection of \mathcal{U} covers \sigma_{n+1} \times Y. \blacksquare

Corollary 2
It follows from Theorem 1 that

  • If each factor space X_\alpha is a separable metric space, then each \sigma_n is a Lindelof space and that \sigma=\bigcup_{n=0}^\infty \sigma_n is a Lindelof space.
  • If each factor space X_\alpha is a compact separable metric space, then each \sigma_n is a compact space and that \sigma=\bigcup_{n=0}^\infty \sigma_n is a \sigma-compact space.

Proof of Corollary 2
The first bullet point is a clear corollary of Theorem 1. A previous post shows that \Sigma-product of compact spaces is countably compact. Thus \Sigma_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha is a countably compact space if each X_\alpha is compact. Note that each \sigma_n is a closed subset of \Sigma_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha and is thus countably compact. Being a Lindelof space, each \sigma_n is compact. It follows that \sigma=\bigcup_{n=0}^\infty \sigma_n is a \sigma-compact space. \blacksquare

____________________________________________________________________

A non-Lindelof space with a dense Lindelof subspace

Now we put everything together to obtain the example described at the beginning. For each \alpha \in A, let X_\alpha be a separable metric space with at least two points. Then the \Sigma-product \Sigma_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha is collectionwise normal (see this previous post). According to the lemma in this previous post, the \Sigma-product \Sigma_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha contains a closed copy of \omega_1. Thus the \Sigma-product \Sigma_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha is not Lindelof. It is clear that the \sigma-product is a dense subspace of \Sigma_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha. By Corollary 2, the \sigma-product is a Lindelof subspace of \Sigma_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha.

Using specific factor spaces, if each X_\alpha=\mathbb{R} with the usual topology, then \Sigma_{\alpha<\omega_1} X_\alpha is a non-Lindelof space with a dense Lindelof subspace. On the other hand, if each X_\alpha=[0,1] with the usual topology, then \Sigma_{\alpha<\omega_1} X_\alpha is a non-Lindelof space with a dense \sigma-compact subspace. Another example of a non-Lindelof space with a dense Lindelof subspace is given In this previous post (see Example 1).

____________________________________________________________________

\copyright \ 2014 \text{ by Dan Ma}

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}

Weakly Lindelof spaces

The weakly Lindelof property is a natural weakening of the familiar Lindelof property. In this post, we discuss some of the basic properties of weakly Lindelof spaces.

We consider topological spaces that are at least T_1 (i.e. finite sets are closed) and regular. A space X is said to be Lindelof if for any open cover \mathcal{U} of X, there is a countable \mathcal{V} \subset \mathcal{U} such that X=\bigcup \mathcal{V}. A natural weakening of the Lindelof property is that we only require the countable \mathcal{V} to cover a dense subset of the space X. Specifically, a space X is said to be a weakly Lindelof space if for any open cover \mathcal{U} of X, there is a countable \mathcal{V} \subset \mathcal{U} such that \bigcup \mathcal{V} is dense in X.

The notion of weakly Lindelof has a brief mention in the Encyclopedia of General Topology (see page 183 in [4]), pointing out a connection to Banach space theory. Furthermore, assuming CH, the weakly Lindelof subspaces of \beta \mathbb{N} are precisely those subspaces which are C^*-embedded into \beta \mathbb{N}. In this post, we focus on the basic properties.

Clearly separable spaces and Lindelof spaces are weakly Lindelof. Another obvious property that implies weakly Lindelof is the existence of a dense Lindelof subspace. It is slightly less obvious that the countable chain condition implies the weakly Lindelof property. We have the following implications.

All the affirmative implications in the above diagram cannot be reversed (see Examples 1, 2 and 3 below).

____________________________________________________________________

Some Cardinal Functions

Some of the properties discussed below can be described by cardinal functions, e.g., Lindelof number and weak Lindelof numbers. So we describe these before going into the basic properties. Let X be a space. The Lindelof number of the space X, denoted by L(X), is the least cardinal number \mathcal{K} such that every open cover \mathcal{U} of X has a subcollection \mathcal{V} \subset \mathcal{U} with \lvert \mathcal{V} \lvert \le \mathcal{K} such that \mathcal{V} is a cover of X. When L(X)=\omega, we say that the space is Lindelof.

The weak Lindelof number of the space X, denoted by wL(X), is the least cardinal number \mathcal{K} such that every open cover \mathcal{U} of X has a subcollection \mathcal{V} \subset \mathcal{U} with \lvert \mathcal{V} \lvert \le \mathcal{K} such that X=\overline{\bigcup \mathcal{V}}. When wL(X)=\omega, we say that the space is weakly Lindelof.

The character at x \in X, denoted by \chi(x,X), is the least cardinal number of a local base at the point x \in X. The character of the space X, denoted by \chi(X), is the supremum of all the cardinal numbers \chi(x,X) over all x \in X. When \chi(X)=\omega, we say that X is first countable.

The cellularity of the space X, denoted by c(X), is the least infinite cardinal number \mathcal{K} such that every collection of pairwise disjoint non-empty open subsets of X has cardinality \le \mathcal{K}. When c(X)=\omega, we say that X has the countable chain condition.

The extent of the space X, denoted by e(X), is the least infinite cardinal number \mathcal{K} such that if A is a closed and discrete subset of X, then \lvert A \lvert \le \mathcal{K}. If e(X)=\omega, then X is said to have countable extent (there are no uncountable closed and discrete subset). It is well known that Lindelof spaces have countable extent. The Lindelof number and the extent is related by the inequality: e(X) \le L(X).

____________________________________________________________________

Basic Properties

Weakly Lindelof spaces behave differently from Lindelof spaces in some ways. For example, closed subsets of a weakly Lindelof space do not have to be weakly Lindelof. In other ways, weakly Lindelof spaces and Lindelof spaces behave similarly. For example, the product of weakly Lindelof spaces needs not be weakly Lindelof and that every continuous image of a weakly Lindelof space is weakly Lindelof. Any Lindelof, Hausdorff and first countable space has cardinality no more than continuum. There is a similar theorem for weakly Lindelof spaces. Despite all these similarities with Lindelof spaces, the weak Lindelof property is a very weak property. It is well known that every Lindelof space has countable extent. There is no bound on the extent of weakly Lindelof spaces. The extent of a weakly Lindelof space can be arbitrarily large (see Example 4 below).

We discuss the following properties of weakly Lindelof spaces.

  1. Any space with the countable chain condition is weakly Lindelof.
  2. Any paracompact weakly Lindelof space is Lindelof.
  3. Every continuous image of a weakly Lindelof space is weakly Lindelof.
  4. The product of a compact space and a weakly lindelof space is weakly Lindelof.
  5. The product of two Lindelof spaces needs not be weakly Lindelof.
  6. Any normal first countable weakly Lindelof space has cardinality \le 2^\omega.
  7. For any infinite cardinal \mathcal{K}, there exists a weakly Lindelof space X such that e(X) \ge \mathcal{K}, i.e., the extent is at least \mathcal{K}. See Example 4 below.

Proof of 1
A space X has the countable chain condition (has the CCC or is CCC for short) if there exists no uncountable collection of non-empty pairwise disjoint open subsets of X. “CCC \Longrightarrow weakly Lindelof” follows from the following theorem (proved in this previous post).

    Theorem
    A space X has the CCC if and only if for every collection \mathcal{U} of non-empty open subsets of X, there is a countable \mathcal{V} \subset \mathcal{U} such that \bigcup \mathcal{U} \subset \overline{\bigcup \mathcal{V}}.

To finish off, let \mathcal{U} be an open cover of X. By the theorem, there exists a countable \mathcal{V} \subset \mathcal{U} such that \bigcup \mathcal{U} \subset \overline{\bigcup \mathcal{V}}. This means that X=\overline{\bigcup \mathcal{V}}. \blacksquare

Comments
Even though CCC implies weakly Lindelof, CCC does not imply the stronger property of having a dense Lindelof subspace (see Example 3 below).

The proof of 1 can be generalized to show that wL(X) \le c(X) for any space X. However, the inequality cannot be made an equality. In fact, the inequality wL(X) \le c(X) can be made as wide as one wishes. Specifically, we can keep wL(X)=\omega while making c(X) as large as one wishes (see Example 2 below). Thus the notions of countable chain condition and the weakly Lindelof property are far apart.

Proof of 2
Let \mathcal{U} be an open cover of a paracompact weakly Lindelof space X. Using the regularity of the space, there is an open refinement \mathcal{V} of \mathcal{U} for each V \in \mathcal{V}, \overline{V} \subset U for some U \in \mathcal{U}. Using the paracompactness, let \mathcal{W} be a locally finite open refinement of \mathcal{V}. Using the weakly Lindelof property, choose a countable \mathcal{C} \subset \mathcal{W} such that X=\overline{\bigcup \mathcal{C}}. With the collection \mathcal{C} being locally finite, we have X=\overline{\bigcup \mathcal{C}}=\bigcup \left\{\overline{C}: C \in \mathcal{C} \right\}. Thus every point of X belongs to some \overline{C} for some C \in \mathcal{C}. Tracing from \mathcal{C} to \mathcal{W}, to \mathcal{V} and then to \mathcal{U}, we see that for every C \in \mathcal{C}, \overline{C} \subset U for some U \in \mathcal{U}. It follows that a countable subcollection of \mathcal{U} is a cover of X. This completes the proof of bullet point 2.

This result implies that in any metrizable space, the weakly Lindelof number coincides with the Lindelof number. So in metrizable spaces, the weak Lindelof number is just as good as an indicator of weight as the other cardinal functions such as density and Lindelof number.

Among CCC spaces, paracompactness and the Lindelof property coincide. This result shows that among weakly Lindelof spaces, paracompactness and the Lindelof property also coincide. \blacksquare

The proof of 3 is straightforward. It is very similar to the proof that continuous image of a Lindelof space is Lindelof.

Proof of 4
The proof that the product of a compact space and a weakly Lindelof space is weakly Lindelof makes use of the tube lemma, as in the proof that the product of a compact space and a Lindelof space is Lindelof.

Let X be weakly Lindelof. Let Y be compact. Let \mathcal{U} be an open cover of X \times Y. For each x \in X, let \mathcal{U}_x \subset \mathcal{U} be finite such that \mathcal{U}_x is a cover of \left\{ x \right\} \times Y. By the tube lemma, there exists some open set O_x \subset X such that \left\{ x \right\} \times Y \subset O_x \times Y \subset \bigcup \mathcal{U}_x.

Since X is weakly Lindelof, there exists a countable A \subset X such that X=\overline{\bigcup \limits_{x \in A} O_x}. Let \mathcal{U}_A=\bigcup \limits_{x \in A} \mathcal{U}_x. It is clear that \mathcal{U}_A is a countable subcollection of \mathcal{U}. Note that the set \bigcup \limits_{x \in A} (O_x \times Y) is dense in X \times Y. Thus the set \bigcup \bigcup \limits_{x \in A} \mathcal{U}_x is dense in X \times Y too. Thus X \times Y=\overline{\bigcup \bigcup \limits_{x \in A} \mathcal{U}_x}. This completes the proof that X \times Y is weakly Lindelof. \blacksquare

Proof of 5
An example of two Lindelof spaces whose product is not weakly Lindelof is provided in [3]. \blacksquare

Discussion of 6
Any Lindelof first countable Hausdorff space has cardinality no more than continuum (discussed in this previous post). This fact is a specific case of the general theorem that

    \lvert X \lvert \le 2^{\chi(X) \cdot L(X)}

for any Hausdorff space X. Hence, the cardinality of any first countable Lindelof space is bounded by 2^\omega. It is interesting that there is an analogous result for weakly Lindelof space. In [2], the following inequality was proved:

    \lvert X \lvert \le 2^{\chi(X) \cdot wL(X)}

for any normal space (Theorem 2.1 in [2]). Thus the cardinality of any normal weakly Lindelof space is bounded by 2^\omega.

____________________________________________________________________

Examples

Example 1 and Example 2 below use Lindelof or compact spaces that do not have the CCC as starting point. Here’s several examples of Lindelof non-CCC spaces:

  • One-point Lindelofication of an uncountable set. The space is denoted by L(\mathcal{K}) and is the set \left\{p \right\} \cup D(\mathcal{K}) where D(\mathcal{K}) is the discrete space of cardinality \mathcal{K} and p is a point not in D(\mathcal{K}). The open neighborhoods at p have the form \left\{p \right\} \cup (D(\mathcal{K})-C) where C \subset D(\mathcal{K}) is countable.
  • The space \omega_1+1 with the order topology. Note that \omega_1+1 is the immediate successor of \omega_1, the first uncountable ordinal. See here.
  • The unit square [0,1] \times [0,1] with the lexicographic order. See here.
  • The Alexandroff Double Circle. See here.

In the above four spaces, the first one is Lindelof and the other three are compact. All four do not have the countable chain condition.

Example 1
A non-Lindelof space X_1 that has a dense Lindelof subspace. As a bonus, this space does not have the CCC.

The idea is to start with a space that has a countable dense set of isolated points and an uncountable closed and discrete subset. One such space is a so called psi-space, a space defined using an uncountable almost disjoint family of subsets of \omega. Then replace each of the countably many isolated points with a copy of one of the above examples of a Lindelof space without the CCC.

Let \omega the first infinite ordinal (or the set of all nonnegative integers). Let \mathcal{A} be an uncountable almost disjoint family of subsets of \omega (for the purpose of this example, it does not have to be an maximal almost disjoint family). Let \Psi(\mathcal{A})=\mathcal{A} \cup \omega, where each n \in \omega is isolated and each A \in \mathcal{A} has open neighborhoods of the form \left\{A \right\} \cup (A-F) where F \subset \omega is finite. For a more detailed discussion about Psi-space, see this previous post.

Let Y be any one of the above Lindelof space that is not CCC. For each n \in \omega, let Y_n=Y \times \left\{n \right\}. So the Y_n are distinct copies of the space Y. The underlying set of this example is the following set:

    X_1=\mathcal{A} \cup \bigcup \limits_{n \in \omega} Y_n

The topology on X_1 is defined in such a way that each Y_n is considered a copy of the space Y and each A \in \mathcal{A} has open neighborhoods of the form:

    \left\{A \right\} \cup \bigcup \limits_{n \in A-F} Y_n

where F \subset \omega is finite. The union of all Y_n is a dense Lindelof subspace of X_1. The set \mathcal{A} is an uncountable closed and discrete subset of X_1. Thus X_1 is not Lindelof. Each Y_n has uncountably many disjoint open sets. Thus X_1 does not have the CCC. This example shows that the existence of a dense Lindelof subspace implies neither the CCC nor the Lindelof property.

Example 2
A weakly Lindelof non-CCC space X_2.

Let X be any one of the above three non-CCC compact spaces. Let Y be any space with the CCC, hence is weakly Lindelof. Let X_2=X \times Y. Then X \times Y is weakly Lindelof. It is also clear that X \times Y does not have the CCC. This example shows that the weakly Lindelof property does not imply the countable chain condition.

This example shows that \omega=wL(X_2)<c(X_2). In fact, it is possible to make c(X_2) as large as possible. In the definition of X \times Y in this example, let X be the one-point Lindelofication L(\mathcal{K}) and Y be any CCC space. Then c(L(\mathcal{K})) can be made as large as possible. Hence c(X \times Y) can be made as large as possible.

Example 3
A CCC space X_3 that has no dense Lindelof subspace.

This example is found in a paper of Arhangel’skii (Theorem 1.1 in [1]). Let C(\omega_1+1) be the set of all continuous real-valued functions defined on \omega_1+1. The set C(\omega_1+1) endowed with the pointwise convergence topology is typically denoted by C_p(\omega_1+1). The space we want to use is X_3=C_p(\omega_1+1).

The space C_p(\omega_1+1) is a dense subspace of the product space \mathbb{R}^{\omega_1}. Thus C_p(\omega_1+1) has the CCC. In [1], it is shown that C_p(\omega_1+1) does not contain a dense normal subspace. Hence it does not contain a dense Lindelof subspace. The proof that C_p(\omega_1+1) does not contain a dense normal subspace is a deep and non-trivial result.

The example X_3=C_p(\omega_1+1) shows that even though CCC implies the weakly Lindelof property, it cannot give the stronger property of the existence of a dense Lindelof subspace. It is also an example showing that the implication “existence of a dense Lindelof subspace \Longrightarrow weakly Lindelof” cannot be reversed.

Example 4
An weakly Lindelof space X_4 such that the extent can be made arbitrarily large.

Let \mathcal{K} be any uncountable cardinal. Let W be a discrete space of cardinality \mathcal{K}. Let \beta W be the Stone-Cech compactification of W. Consider the ordinal S=\omega+1 with the order topology (can just think of it as a sequence of isolated points converging to the limit \omega). The space X_4 is defined as follows:

    X_4=\beta W \times S-(\beta W-W) \times \left\{\omega \right\}

Note that \beta W \times \omega is a \sigma-compact dense subspace of X_4. Hence X_4 is weakly Lindelof. On the other hand, the set W \times \left\{\omega \right\} is a closed and discrete subset of X_4. Since the cardinality of W can be made arbitrarily large, the extent of X_4 can be made arbitrarily large. Thus there is no upper bound on the extent of weakly Lindelof spaces (unlike Lindelof spaces).

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

  1. Arhangel’skii A. V., Normality and Dense Subspaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 48, no. 2, 283-291, 2001.
  2. Bell M., Ginsburg J., Woods G., Cardinal Inequalities for Topological Spaces Involving the Weak Lindelof Number, Pacific J. Math., 79, no. 1, 37-45, 1978.
  3. Hajnal A., Juhasz I., On the Products of Weakly Lindelof Spaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 130, no. 1, 454-456, 1975.
  4. Hart, K. P., Nagata J. I., Vaughan, J. E., editors, Encyclopedia of General Topology, First Edition, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V, Amsterdam, 2003.

____________________________________________________________________

\copyright \ 2014 \text{ by Dan Ma}

A theorem about CCC spaces

It is a well known result in general topology that in any regular space with the countable chain condition, paracompactness and the Lindelof property are equivalent. The proof of this result hinges on one theorem about the spaces with the countable chain condition. In this post we are to put the spotlight on this theorem (Theorem 1 below) and then use it to prove a few results. These results indicate that in a space with the countable chain condition with some weaker covering property is either Lindelof or paracompact.

This post is centered on a theorem about the CCC property (Theorem 1 and Theorem 1a below). So it can be considered as a continuation of a previous post on CCC called Some basic properties of spaces with countable chain condition. The results that are derived from Theorem 1 are also found in [2]. But the theorem concerning CCC is only a small part of that paper among several other focuses. In this post, the exposition is to explain several interesting theorems that are derived from Theorem 1. One of the theorems is the statement that every locally compact metacompact perfectly normal space is paracompact, a theorem originally proved by Arhangelskii (see Theorem 11 below).

____________________________________________________________________

CCC Spaces

All spaces under consideration are at least T_1 and regular. A space X is said to have the countable chain condition (to have the CCC for short) if \mathcal{U} is a disjoint collection of non-empty open subsets of X (meaning that for any A,B \in \mathcal{U} with A \ne B, we have A \cap B=\varnothing), then \mathcal{U} is countable. In other words, in a space with the CCC, there cannot be uncountably many pairwise disjoint non-empty open sets. For ease of making a statement or stating a result, if X has the CCC, we also say that X is a CCC space or X is CCC.

____________________________________________________________________

A Theorem about CCC Spaces

The theorem of CCC spaces we want to discuss has to do with collections of open sets that are “nice”. We first define what we mean by nice. Let \mathcal{A} be a collection of non-empty subsets of the space X. The collection \mathcal{A} is said to be point-finite (point-countable) if each point of X belongs to only finitely (countably) many sets in \mathcal{A}.

Now we define what we mean by “nice” collection of open sets. The collection \mathcal{A} is said to be locally finite (locally countable) at a point x \in X if there exists an open set O \subset X with x \in O such that O meets at most finitely (countably) many sets in \mathcal{A}. The collection \mathcal{A} is said to be locally finite (locally countable) if it is locally finite (locally countable) at each x \in X.

The property of being a separable space implies the CCC. The reverse is not true. However the CCC property is still a very strong property. The CCC property is equivalent to the property that if a collection of non-empty open sets is “nice” on a dense set of points, then the collection of open sets is a countable collection. The following is a precise statement.

    Theorem 1

      Let X be a CCC space. Then if \mathcal{U} is a collection of non-empty open subsets of X such that the following set

        D(\mathcal{U})=\left\{x \in X: \mathcal{U} \text{ is locally-countable at } x \right\}

      is dense in the open subspace \bigcup \mathcal{U}, then \mathcal{U} must be countable.

The collections of open sets in the above theorem do not have to be open covers. However, if they are open covers, the theorem can tie CCC spaces with some covering properties. As long as the space has the CCC, any open cover that is locally-countable on a dense set must be countable. Looking at it in the contrapositive angle, in a CCC space, any uncountable open cover is not locally-countable in some open set.

Proof of Theorem 1
Let \mathcal{U} be a collection of open subsets of X such that the set D(\mathcal{U}) as defined above is dense in the open subspace \bigcup \mathcal{U}. We show that \mathcal{U} is countable. Suppose not.

For each U \in \mathcal{U}, since U \cap D(\mathcal{U}) \ne \varnothing, we can choose a non-empty open set f(U) \subset U such that f(U) has non-empty intersection with only countably many sets in \mathcal{U}. Let \mathcal{U}_f be the following collection:

    \mathcal{U}_f=\left\{f(U): U \in \mathcal{U} \right\}

For H,K \in \mathcal{U}_f, by a chain from H to K, we mean a finite collection

    \left\{W_1,W_2,\cdots,W_n \right\} \subset \mathcal{U}_f

such that H=W_1, K=W_n and W_j \cap W_{j+1} \ne \varnothing for any 1 \le j <n. For each open set W \in \mathcal{U}_f, define \mathcal{C}(W) and \mathcal{E}(W) as follows:

    \mathcal{C}(W)=\left\{V \in \mathcal{U}_f: \text{there exists a chain from } W \text{ to } V \right\}

    \mathcal{E}(W)=\bigcup \mathcal{C}(W)

One observation we make is that for W_1,W_2 \in \mathcal{U}_f, if \mathcal{E}(W_1) \cap \mathcal{E}(W_2) \ne \varnothing, then \mathcal{C}(W_1)=\mathcal{C}(W_2) and \mathcal{E}(W_1)=\mathcal{E}(W_2). So the distinct \mathcal{E}(W) are pairwise disjoint. Because the space X has the CCC, there can be only countably many distinct open sets \mathcal{E}(W). Thus there can be only countably many distinct collections \mathcal{C}(W).

Note that each \mathcal{C}(W) is a countable collection of open sets. Each V \in \mathcal{U}_f meets only countably many open sets in \mathcal{U}. So each V \in \mathcal{U}_f can meet only countably many sets in \mathcal{U}_f, since for each V \in \mathcal{U}_f, V \subset U for some U \in \mathcal{U}. Thus for each W \in \mathcal{U}_f, in considering all finite-length chain starting from W, there can be only countably many open sets in \mathcal{U}_f that can be linked to W. Thus \mathcal{C}(W) must be countable. In taking the union of all \mathcal{C}(W), we get back the collection \mathcal{U}_f. Thus we have:

    \mathcal{U}_f=\bigcup \limits_{W \in \mathcal{U}_f} \mathcal{C}(W)

Because the space X is CCC, there are only countably many distinct collections \mathcal{C}(W) in the above union. Each \mathcal{C}(W) is countable. So \mathcal{U}_f is a countable collection of open sets.

Furthermore, each U \in \mathcal{U} contains at least one set in \mathcal{U}_f. From the way we choose sets in \mathcal{U}_f, we see that for each V \in \mathcal{U}_f, V=f(U) \subset U for at most countably many U \in \mathcal{U}. The argument indicates that we have a one-to-countable mapping from \mathcal{U}_f to \mathcal{U}. Thus the original collection \mathcal{U} must be countable. \blacksquare

The property in Theorem 1 is actually equivalent to the CCC property. Just that the proof of Theorem 1 represents the hard direction that needs to be proved. Theorem 1 can be expanded to be the following theorem.

    Theorem 1a

      Let X be a space. Then the following conditions are equivalent.

      1. The space X has the CCC.
      2. If \mathcal{U} is a collection of non-empty open subsets of X such that the following set

          D(\mathcal{U})=\left\{x \in X: \mathcal{U} \text{ is locally-countable at } x \right\}

        is dense in the open subspace \bigcup \mathcal{U}, then \mathcal{U} must be countable.

      3. If \mathcal{U} is a collection of non-empty open subsets of X such that \mathcal{U} is locally-countable at every point in the open subspace \bigcup \mathcal{U}, then \mathcal{U} must be countable.

The direction 1 \rightarrow 2 has been proved above. The directions 2 \rightarrow 3 and 3 \rightarrow 1 are straightforward.

____________________________________________________________________

Tying Theorem 1 to “Nice” Open Covers

One easy application of Theorem 1 is to tie it to locally-finite and locally-countable open covers. We have the following theorem.

    Theorem 2

      In any CCC space, any locally-countable open cover must be countable. Thus any locally-finite open cover must also be countable.

Theorem 2 gives the well known result that any CCC paracompact space is Lindelof (see Theorem 5 below). In fact, Theorem 2 gives the result that any CCC para-Lindelof space is Lindelof (see Theorem 6 below). A space X is para-Lindelof if every open cover has a locally-countable open refinement.

Can Theorem 2 hold for point-finite covers (or point-countable covers)? The answer is no (see Example 1 below). With the additional property of having a Baire space, we have the following theorem.

    Theorem 3

      In any Baire space with the CCC, any point-finite open cover must be countable.

A Space X is a Baire space if U_1,U_2,U_3,\cdots are dense open subsets of X, then \bigcap \limits_{j=1}^\infty U_j \ne \varnothing. For more information about Baire spaces, see this previous post.
.

Proof of Theorem 3
Let X be a Baire space with the CCC. Let \mathcal{U} be a point-finite open cover of X. Suppose that \mathcal{U} is uncountable. We show that this assumption with lead to a contradiction. Thus \mathcal{U} must be countable.

By Theorem 1, there exists an open set V \subset X such that \mathcal{U} is not locally-countable at any point in V. For each positive integer n, let H_n be the following:

    H_n=\left\{x \in V: x \text{ is in at most } n \text{ sets in } \mathcal{U} \right\}

Note that V=\bigcup \limits_{j=1}^\infty H_j. Furthermore, each H_n is a closed set in the space V. Since X is a Baire space, every non-empty open subset of X is of second category (i.e. it cannot be a union of countably many closed and nowhere dense sets). Thus it cannot be that each H_n is nowhere dense in V. For some n, H_n is not nowhere dense. There must exist some open W \subset V such that H_n \cap W is dense in W. Because H_n is closed, W \subset H_n.

Choose y \in W. The point y is in at most n open sets in \mathcal{U}. Let U_1,U_2,\cdots,U_m \in \mathcal{U} such that y \in \bigcap \limits_{j=1}^m U_j. Clearly 1 \le m \le n. Let U=W \cap U_1 \cap \cdots \cap U_m. Note that y \in U \subset H_n \subset V.

Every point in U belongs to at most n many sets in \mathcal{U} and already belong to m sets in \mathcal{U}. So each point in U can belong to at most n-m additional open sets in \mathcal{U}. Consider the case n-m=0 and the case n-m>0. We show that each case leads to a contradiction.

Suppose that n-m=0. Then each point of U can only meet n open sets in \mathcal{U}, namely U_1,U_2,\cdots,U_m. This contradicts that \mathcal{U} is not locally-countable at points in U \subset V.

Suppose that k=n-m>0. Let \mathcal{U}^*=\mathcal{U}-\left\{U_1,\cdots,U_m \right\}. Let \mathcal{M} be the following collection:

    \mathcal{M}=\left\{U \cap \bigcap \limits_{O \in M} O \ne \varnothing: M \subset \mathcal{U}^* \text{ and } \lvert M \lvert=k \right\}

Each element of \mathcal{M} is an open subset of U that is the intersection of exactly n many open sets in \mathcal{U}. So \mathcal{M} is a collection of pairwise disjoint open sets. The open set U as a topological space has the CCC. So \mathcal{M} is at most countable. Thus the open set U meets at most countably many open sets in \mathcal{U}, contradicting that \mathcal{U} is not locally-countable at points in U \subset V.

Both cases n-m=0 and n-m>0 lead to contradiction. So \mathcal{U} must be countable. The proof to Theorem 3 is completed. \blacksquare

As a corollary to Theorem 3, we have the result that every Baire CCC metacompact space is Lindelof.

____________________________________________________________________

Some Applications of Theorems 2 and 3

In proving paracompactness in some of the theorems, we need a theorem involving the concept of star-countable open cover. A collection \mathcal{A} of subsets of a space X is said to be star-finite (star-countable) if for each A \in \mathcal{A}, only finitely (countably) many sets in \mathcal{A} meets A, i.e., the following set

    \left\{B \in \mathcal{A}: B \cap A \ne \varnothing \right\}

is finite (countable). The proof of the following theorem can be found in Engleking (see the direction (iv) implies (i) in the proof of Theorem 5.3.10 on page 326 in [1]).

    Theorem 4

      If every open cover of a regular space X has a star-countable open refinement, then X is paracompact.

As indicated in the above section, Theorem 2 and Theorem 3 have some obvious applications. We have the following theorems.

    Theorem 5

      Let X be a CCC space. Then X is paracompact if and only of X is Lindelof.

Proof of Theorem 5
The direction \Longleftarrow follows from the fact that any regular Lindelof space is paracompact.

The direction \Longrightarrow follows from Theorem 2. \blacksquare

    Theorem 6

      Every CCC para-Lindelof space is Lindelof.

Proof of Theorem 6
This also follows from Theorem 2. \blacksquare

    Theorem 7

      Every Baire CCC metacompact space is Lindelof.

Proof of Theorem 7
Let X be a Baire CCC metacompact space. Let \mathcal{U} be an open cover of X. By metacompactness, let \mathcal{V} be a point-finite open refinement of \mathcal{U}. By Theorem 3, \mathcal{V} must be countable. \blacksquare

    Theorem 8

      Every Baire CCC hereditarily metacompact space is hereditarily Lindelof.

Proof of Theorem 8
Let X be a Baire CCC hereditarily metacompact space. To show that X is hereditarily Lindelof, it suffices to show that every non-empty open subset is Lindelof. Let Y \subset X be open. Then Y has the CCC and is also metacompact. Being a Baire space is hereditary with respect to open subspaces. So Y is a Baire space too. By Theorem 7, Y is Lindelof. \blacksquare

    Theorem 9

      Every locally CCC regular para-Lindelof space is paracompact.

Proof of Theorem 9
A space is locally CCC if every point has an open neighborhood that has the CCC. Let X be a regular space that is locally CCC and para-Lindelof. Let \mathcal{U} be an open cover of X. Using the locally CCC assumption and by taking a refinement of \mathcal{U} if necessary, we can assume that each open set in \mathcal{U} has the CCC. By the para-Lindelof assumption, let \mathcal{V} be a locally-countable open refinement of \mathcal{U}. So each open set in \mathcal{V} has the CCC too.

Now we show that \mathcal{V} is star-countable. Let V \in \mathcal{V}. Let \mathcal{G} be the following collection:

    \mathcal{G}=\left\{V \cap W: W \in \mathcal{V} \right\}

which is is open cover of V. Within the subspace V, \mathcal{G} is a locally-countable open cover. By Theorem 2, \mathcal{G} must be countable. The collection \mathcal{G} represents all the open sets in \mathcal{V} that have non-empty intersection with V. Thus only countably many open sets in \mathcal{V} can meet V. So \mathcal{V} is a star-countable open refinement of \mathcal{U}. By Theorem 4, X is paracompact. \blacksquare

    Theorem 10

      Every locally CCC regular metacompact Baire space is paracompact.

Proof of Theorem 10
Let X be a regular space that is locally CCC and is a metacompact Baire space. Let \mathcal{U} be an open cover of X. Using the locally CCC assumption and by taking a refinement of \mathcal{U} if necessary, we can assume that each open set in \mathcal{U} has the CCC. By the metacompact assumption, let \mathcal{V} be a point-finite open refinement of \mathcal{U}. So each open set in \mathcal{V} has the CCC too. Each open set in \mathcal{V} is also a Baire space.

Now we show that \mathcal{V} is star-countable. Let V \in \mathcal{V}. Let \mathcal{G} be the following collection:

    \mathcal{G}=\left\{V \cap W: W \in \mathcal{V} \right\}

which is is open cover of V. Within the subspace V, \mathcal{G} is a point-finite open cover. By Theorem 3, \mathcal{G} must be countable. The collection \mathcal{G} represents all the open sets in \mathcal{V} that have non-empty intersection with V. Thus only countably many open sets in \mathcal{V} can meet V. So \mathcal{V} is a star-countable open refinement of \mathcal{U}. By Theorem 4, X is paracompact. \blacksquare

    Theorem 11

      Every locally compact metacompact perfectly normal space is paracompact.

Proof of Theorem 11
This follows from Theorem 10 after we prove the following two points:

  • Any locally compact space is a Baire space.
  • Any perfect locally compact space is locally CCC.

To see the first point, let Y be a locally compact space. Let W_1,W_2,W_3,\cdots be dense open sets in Y. Let y \in Y and let W \subset Y be open such that y \in W and \overline{W} is compact. We show that W contains a point that belongs to all W_n. Let X_1=W \cap W_1, which is open and non-empty. Next choose non-empty open X_2 such that \overline{X_2} \subset X_1 and X_2 \subset W_2. Next choose non-empty open X_3 such that \overline{X_3} \subset X_2 and X_3 \subset W_3. Continue in this manner, we have a sequence of open sets X_1,X_2,X_3,\cdots such that for each n, \overline{X_{n+1}} \subset X_n and \overline{X_n} is compact. The intersection of all the X_n is non-empty. The points in the intersection must belong to each W_n.

To see the second point, let Y be a locally compact space such that every closed set is a G_\delta-set. Suppose that Y is not locally CCC at y \in Y. Let U \subset Y be open such that y \in U and \overline{U} is compact. Then U must not have the CCC. Let \left\{U_\alpha: \alpha<\omega_1 \right\} be a pairwise disjoint collection of open subsets of U. Let O=\bigcup \limits_{\alpha<\omega_1} U_\alpha and let C=Y-O.

Let C=\bigcap \limits_{n=1}^\infty V_n where each V_n is open in Y and V_{n+1} \subset V_n for each integer n. For each \alpha<\omega_1, pick y_\alpha \in U_\alpha. For each y_\alpha, there is some integer f(\alpha) such that y_\alpha \notin V_{f(\alpha)}. So there must exist some integer n such that A=\left\{y_\alpha: f(\alpha)=n \right\} is uncountable.

The set A is an infinite subset of the compact set \overline{U}. So A has a limit point, say p (also called cluster point). Clearly p \notin O. So p \in C. In particular, p \in V_n. Then V_n contains some points of A. But for any y_\alpha \in A, y_\alpha \notin V_n=V_{f(\alpha)}, a contradiction. So Y must be locally CCC at each y \in Y. \blacksquare

____________________________________________________________________

Some Examples

Example 1
A CCC space X with an uncountable point-finite open covers. This example demonstrates that in Theorem 2, locally-finite or locally-countable cannot be replaced by point-finite. Consider the following product space:

    Y=\prod \limits_{\alpha < \omega_1} \left\{0,1 \right\}=\left\{0,1 \right\}^{\omega_1}

i.e, the product space of \omega_1 many copies of the two-point discrete space \left\{0,1 \right\}. Let X be the set of all points h \in Y such that h(\alpha)=1 for only finitely many \alpha<\omega_1.

The product space Y is the product of separable spaces, hence has the CCC. The space X is dense in Y. Hence X has the CCC. For each \alpha<\omega_1, define U_\alpha as follows:

    U_\alpha=\left\{h \in X: h(\alpha)=1 \right\}

Then \left\{U_\alpha:\alpha<\omega_1  \right\} is a point-finite open cover of X. Of course, X in this example is not a Baire space. \blacksquare

The following three examples center around the four properties in Theorem 7 (Baire + CCC + metacompact imply Lindelof). These examples show that each property in the hypothesis is crucial.

Example 2
A separable non-Lindelof space that is a Baire space. This example shows that the metacompact assumption is crucial for Theorem 7.

The example is the Sorgenfrey plane S \times S where S is the real line with the Sorgenfrey topology (generated by the half-open intervals of the form [a,b)). It is well known that S \times S is not Lindelof. The Sorgenfrey plane is Baire and is separable (hence CCC). Furthermore, S \times S is not metacompact (if it were, it would be Lindelof by Theorem 7). \blacksquare

Example 3
A non-Lindelof metacompact Baire space M. This example shows that the CCC assumption in Theorem 7 is necessary.

This space M is the subspace of Bing’s Example G that has finite support (defined and discussed in the post A subspace of Bing’s example G. It is normal and not collectionwise normal (hence cannot be Lindelof) and metacompact. The space M does not have CCC since it has uncountably many isolated points. Any space with a dense set of isolated points is a Baire space. Thus the space M is also a Baire space. \blacksquare

Example 4
A non-Lindelof CCC metacompact non-Baire space W. This example shows that the Baire space assumption in Theorem 7 is necessary.

Let W be the set of all non-empty finite subsets of the real line with the Pixley-Roy topology. Note that W is non-Lindelof and has the CCC and is metacompact. Of course it is not Baire. For more information on Pixley-Roy spaces, see the post called Pixley-Roy hyperspaces. For the purpose of this example, the Pixley-Roy space can be built on any uncountable separable metrizable space.

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

  1. Engelking, R., General Topology, Revised and Completed edition, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
  2. Tall, F. D., The Countable Chain Condition Versus Separability – Applications of Martin’s Axiom, Gen. Top. Appl., 4, 315-339, 1974.

____________________________________________________________________

\copyright \ 2014 \text{ by Dan Ma}

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}