Counterexample 106 from Steen and Seebach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________

The space X is not normal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________

The space X has a dense subspace that is normal

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

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

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

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

Advertisements

Comparing two function spaces

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

____________________________________________________________________

Tightness

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________

The Frechet-Urysohn property

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

____________________________________________________________________

Normality

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

____________________________________________________________________

Embedding one function space into the other

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________

Remark

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

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________

Initial discussion

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________

Connection to \Sigma-product

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________

A closer look at C_p(\omega_1+1)

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________

Monolithicity and Frechet-Urysohn property

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________

General discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

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

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

Cp(omega 1 + 1) is not normal

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

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

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

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

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

We discuss each of the bullet points separately.

____________________________________________________________________

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

____________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________

Remarks

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

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

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

Normal x compact needs not be subnormal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

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

____________________________________________________________________

\copyright \ 2014 \text{ by Dan Ma}

Normal dense subspaces of products of “omega 1” many separable metric factors

Is every normal dense subspace of a product of separable metric spaces collectionwise normal? This question was posed by Arkhangelskii (see Problem I.5.25 in [2]). One partial positive answer is a theorem attributed to Corson: if Y is a normal dense subspace of a product of separable spaces such that Y \times Y is normal, then Y is collectionwise normal. Another partial positive answer: assuming 2^\omega<2^{\omega_1}, any normal dense subspace of the product space of continuum many separable metric factors is collectionwise normal (see Corollary 4 in this previous post). Another partial positive answer to Arkhangelskii’s question is the theorem due to Reznichenko: If C_p(X), which is a dense subspace of the product space \mathbb{R}^X, is normal, then it is collectionwise normal (see Theorem I.5.12 in [2]). In this post, we highlight another partial positive answer to the question posted in [2]. Specifically, we prove the following theorem:

Theorem 1

    Let X=\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} X_\alpha be a product space where each factor X_\alpha is a separable metric space. Let Y be a dense subspace of X. Then if Y is normal, then Y is collectionwise normal.

Since any normal space with countable extent is collectionwise normal (see Theorem 2 in this previous post), it suffices to prove the following theorem:

Theorem 1a

    Let X=\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} X_\alpha be a product space where each factor X_\alpha is a separable metric space. Let Y be a dense subspace of X. Then if Y is normal, then every closed and discrete subspace of Y is countable, i.e., Y has countable extent.

Arkhangelskii’s question was studied by the author of [3] and [4]. Theorem 1 as presented in this post is essentially the Theorem 1 found in [3]. The proof given in [3] is a beautiful proof. The proof in this post is modeled on the proof in [3] with the exception that all the crucial details are filled in. Theorem 1a (as stated above) is used in [1] to show that the function space C_p(\omega_1+1) contains no dense normal subspace.

It is natural to wonder if Theorem 1 can be generalized to product space of \tau many separable metric factors where \tau is an arbitrary uncountable cardinal. The work of [4] shows that the question at the beginning of this post cannot be answered positively in ZFC. Recall the above mentioned result that assuming 2^\omega<2^{\omega_1}, any normal dense subspace of the product space of continuum many separable metric factors is collectionwise normal (see Corollary 4 in this previous post). A theorem in [4] implies that assuming 2^\omega=2^{\omega_1}, for any separable metric space M with at least 2 points, the product of continuum many copies of M contains a normal dense subspace Y that is not collectionwise normal. A side note: for this normal subspace Y, Y \times Y is necessarily not normal (according to Corson’s theorem). Thus [3] and [4] collectively show that Arkhangelskii’s question stated here at the beginning of the post is answered positively (in ZFC) among product spaces of \omega_1 many separable metric factors and that outside of the \omega_1 case, it is impossible to answer the question positively in ZFC.

____________________________________________________________________

Proving Theorem 1a

We use the following lemma. For a proof of this lemma, see the proof for Lemma 1 in this previous post.

Lemma 2

    Let X=\prod_{\alpha \in A} X_\alpha be a product of separable metrizable spaces. Let Y be a dense subspace of X. Then the following conditions are equivalent.

    1. Y is normal.
    2. For any pair of disjoint closed subsets H and K of Y, there exists a countable B \subset A such that \overline{\pi_B(H)} \cap \overline{\pi_B(K)}=\varnothing.
    3. For any pair of disjoint closed subsets H and K of Y, there exists a countable B \subset A such that \pi_B(H) and \pi_B(K) are separated in \pi_B(Y), meaning that \overline{\pi_B(H)} \cap \pi_B(K)=\pi_B(H) \cap \overline{\pi_B(K)}=\varnothing.

For any B \subset \omega_1, let \pi_B be the natural projection from the product space X=\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} X_\alpha into the subproduct space \prod_{\alpha \in B} X_\alpha.

Proof of Theorem 1a
Let Y be a dense subspace of the product space X=\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} X_\alpha where each factor X_\alpha has a countable base. Suppose that D is an uncountable closed and discrete subset of Y. We then construct a pair of disjoint closed subsets H and K of Y such that for all countable B \subset \omega_1, \pi_B(H) and \pi_B(K) are not separated, specifically \pi_B(H) \cap \overline{\pi_B(K)}\ne \varnothing. Here the closure is taken in the space \pi_B(Y). By Lemma 2, the dense subspace Y of X is not normal.

For each \alpha<\omega_1, let \mathcal{B}_\alpha be a countable base for the space X_\alpha. The standard basic open sets in the product space X are of the form O=\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} O_\alpha such that

  • each O_\alpha is an open subset of X_\alpha,
  • if O_\alpha \ne X_\alpha, then O_\alpha \in \mathcal{B}_\alpha,
  • O_\alpha=X_\alpha for all but finitely many \alpha<\omega_1.

We use supp(O) to denote the finite set of \alpha such that O_\alpha \ne X_\alpha. Technically we should be working with standard basic open subsets of Y, i.e., sets of the form O \cap Y where O is a standard basic open set as described above. Since Y is dense in the product space, every standard open set contains points of Y. Thus we can simply work with standard basic open sets in the product space as long as we are working with points of Y in the construction.

Let \mathcal{M} be the collection of all standard basic open sets as described above. Since there are only \omega_1 many factors in the product space, \lvert \mathcal{M} \lvert=\omega_1. Recall that D is an uncountable closed and discrete subset of Y. Let \mathcal{M}^* be the following:

    \mathcal{M}^*=\left\{U \in \mathcal{M}: U \cap D \text{ is uncountable }  \right\}

Claim 1. \lvert \mathcal{M}^* \lvert=\omega_1.

First we show that \mathcal{M}^* \ne \varnothing. Let B \subset \omega_1 be countable. Consider these two cases: Case 1. \pi_B(D) is an uncountable subset of \prod_{\alpha \in B} X_\alpha; Case 2. \pi_B(D) is countable.

Suppose Case 1 is true. Since \prod_{\alpha \in B} X_\alpha is a product of countably many separable metric spaces, it is hereditarily Lindelof. Then there exists a point y \in \pi_B(D) such that every open neighborhood of y (open in \prod_{\alpha \in B} X_\alpha) contains uncountably many points of \pi_B(D). Thus every standard basic open set U=\prod_{\alpha \in B} U_\alpha, with y \in U, contains uncountably many points of \pi_B(D). Suppose Case 2 is true. There exists one point y \in \pi_B(D) such that y=\pi_B(t) for uncountably many t \in D. Then in either case, every standard basic open set V=\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} V_\alpha, with supp(V) \subset B and y \in \pi_B(V), contains uncountably many points of D. Any one such V is a member of \mathcal{M}^*.

We can partition the index set \omega_1 into \omega_1 many disjoint countable sets B. Then for each such B, obtain a V \in \mathcal{M}^* in either Case 1 or Case 2. Since supp(V) \subset B, all such open sets V are distinct. Thus Claim 1 is established.

Claim 2.
There exists an uncountable H \subset D such that for each U \in \mathcal{M}^*, U \cap H \ne \varnothing and U \cap (D-H) \ne \varnothing.

Enumerate \mathcal{M}^*=\left\{U_\gamma: \gamma<\omega_1 \right\}. Choose h_0,k_0 \in U_0 \cap D with h_0 \ne k_0. Suppose that for all \beta<\gamma, two points h_\beta,k_\beta are chosen such that h_\beta,k_\beta \in U_\beta \cap D, h_\beta \ne k_\beta and such that h_\beta \notin L_\beta and k_\beta \notin L_\beta where L_\beta=\left\{h_\rho: \rho<\beta \right\} \cup \left\{k_\rho: \rho<\beta \right\}. Then choose h_\gamma,k_\gamma with h_\gamma \ne k_\gamma such that h_\gamma,k_\gamma \in U_\gamma \cap D and h_\gamma \notin L_\gamma and k_\gamma \notin L_\gamma where L_\gamma=\left\{h_\rho: \rho<\gamma \right\} \cup \left\{k_\rho: \rho<\gamma \right\}.

Let H=\left\{h_\gamma: \gamma<\omega_1 \right\} and let K=D-H. Note that K_0=\left\{k_\gamma: \gamma<\omega_1 \right\} \subset K. Based on the inductive process that is used to obtain H and K_0, it is clear that H satisfies Claim 2.

Claim 3.
For each countable B \subset \omega_1, the sets \pi_B(H) and \pi_B(K) are not separated in the space \pi_B(Y).

Let B \subset \omega_1 be countable. Consider the two cases: Case 1. \pi_B(H) is uncountable; Case 2. \pi_B(H) is countable. Suppose Case 1 is true. Since \prod_{\alpha \in B} X_\alpha is a product of countably many separable metric spaces, it is hereditarily Lindelof. Then there exists a point p \in \pi_B(H) such that every open neighborhood of p (open in \prod_{\alpha \in B} X_\alpha) contains uncountably many points of \pi_B(H). Choose h \in H such that p=\pi_B(h). Then the following statement holds:

  1. For every basic open set U=\prod_{\alpha<\omega_1} U_\alpha with h \in U such that supp(U) \subset B, the open set U contains uncountably many points of H.

Suppose Case 2 is true. There exists some p \in \pi_B(H) such that p=\pi_B(t) for uncountably many t \in H. Choose h \in H such that p=\pi_B(h). Then statement 1 also holds.

In either case, there exists h \in H such that statement 1 holds. The open sets U described in statement 1 are members of \mathcal{M}^*. By Claim 2, the open sets described in statement 1 also contain points of K. Since the open sets described in statement 1 have supports \subset B, the following statement holds:

  1. For every basic open set V=\prod_{\alpha \in B} V_\alpha with \pi_B(h) \in V, the open set V contains points of \pi_B(K).

Statement 2 indicates that \pi_B(h) \in \overline{\pi_B(K)}. Thus \pi_B(h) \in \pi_B(H) \cap \overline{\pi_B(K)}. The closure here can be taken in either \prod_{\alpha \in B} X_\alpha or \pi_B(Y) (to apply Lemma 2, we only need the latter). Thus Claim 3 is established.

Claim 3 is the negation of condition 3 of Lemma 2. Therefore Y is not normal. \blacksquare

____________________________________________________________________

Remark

The proof of Theorem 1a, though a proof in ZFC only, clearly relies on the fact that the product space is a product of \omega_1 many factors. For example, in the inductive step in the proof of Claim 2, it is always possible to pick a pair of points not chosen previously. This is because the previously chosen points form a countable set and each open set in \mathcal{M}^* contains \omega_1 many points of the closed and discrete set D. With the “\omega versus \omega_1” situation, at each step, there are always points not previously chosen. When more than \omega_1 many factors are involved, there may be no such guarantee in the inductive process.

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

  1. Arkhangelskii, A. V., Normality and dense subspaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 130 (1), 283-291, 2001.
  2. Arkhangelskii, A. V., Topological Function Spaces, Mathematics and Its Applications Series, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1992.
  3. Baturov, D. P., Normality in dense subspaces of products, Topology Appl., 36, 111-116, 1990.
  4. Baturov, D. P., On perfectly normal dense subspaces of products, Topology Appl., 154, 374-383, 2007.
  5. Engelking, R., General Topology, Revised and Completed edition, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1989.

____________________________________________________________________

\copyright \ 2014 \text{ by Dan Ma}

Pseudonormal spaces

When two disjoint closed sets in a topological space cannot be separated by disjoint open sets, the space fails to be a normal space. When one of the two closed sets is countable, the space fails to satisfy a weaker property than normality. A space X is said to be a pseudonormal space if H and K can always be separated by two disjoint open sets whenever H and K are disjoint closed subsets of X and one of them is countable. In this post, we discuss several non-normal spaces that actually fail to be pseudonormal. We also give an example of a pseudonormal space that is not normal.

We work with spaces that are at minimum T_1 spaces, i.e., spaces in which singleton sets are closed. Then any pseudonormal space is regular. To see this, let X be T_1 and pseudonormal. For any closed subset C of X and for any point x \in X-C, we can always separate the disjoint closed sets \left\{ x \right\} and C by disjoint open sets. This is one reason why we insist on having T_1 separation axiom as a starting point. We now show some examples of spaces that fail to be pseudonormal.

____________________________________________________________________

Some Non-Pseudonormal Examples

All three examples in this section are spaces where the failure of normality is exhibited by the inability of separating a countable closed set and another disjoint closed set.

Example 1
This example of a non-normal space that fails to be pseudonormal is defined in the previous post called An Example of a Completely Regular Space that is not Normal. This is an example of a Hausdorff, locally compact, zero-dimensional (having a base consisting of closed and open sets), metacompact, completely regular space that is not normal. We state the definition of the space and present a proof that it is not pseudonormal.

Let E be the set of all points (x,y) \in \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R} such that y \ge 0. For each real number x, define the following sets:

    V_x=\left\{(x,y) \in E: 0 \le y \le 2 \right\}

    D_x=\left\{(s,s-x) \in E: x \le s \le x+2 \right\}

    O_x=V_x \cup D_x

The set V_x is the vertical line of height 2 at the point (x,0). The set D_x is the line originating at (x,0) and going in the Northeast direction reaching the same vertical height as V_x as shown in the following figure.

The topology on E is defined by the following:

  • Each point (x,y) \in E where y>0 is isolated.
  • For each point (x,0) \in E, a basic open set is of the form O_x - F where (x,0) \notin F and F is a finite subset of O_x.

The x-axis in this example is a closed and discrete set of cardinality continuum. Amy two disjoint subsets of the x-axis are disjoint closed sets. The two closed sets that cannot be separated are:

    H=\left\{(x,0) \in E: x \text{ is rational} \right\}

    K=\left\{(x,0) \in E: x \text{ is irrational} \right\}

For each (x,0), let W_x=O_x-F_x where F_x \subset O_x is finite and (x,0) \notin F_x. Furthermore, break up F_x by letting F_{x,d}=F_x \cap D_x and F_{x,v}=F_x \cap V_x. Let U and V be defined by:

    U_H=\bigcup \limits_{(x,0) \in H} W_x

    U_K=\bigcup \limits_{(x,0) \in K} W_x

The open sets U_H and U_K are essentially arbitrary open sets containing H and K respectively. We claims that U_H \cap U_K \ne \varnothing.

Define the projection map \tau_1:\mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R} by \tau_1(x,y)=x. Let A and B be defined by:

    A=\bigcup \left\{\tau_1(F_{x,d}): (x,0) \in H \right\}

    B=\left\{(x,0) \in K: (x,0) \notin A \right\}

The set A is countable. So the set B is uncountable. Choose (x,0) \in B. Choose (a,0) \in H on the left of (x,0) and close enough to (x,0) such that V_x \cap D_a=\left\{t \right\} and t \notin F_{x,v}. This means that

    t \in V_x \cup D_x -F_x=O_x-F_x=W_x

    t \in V_a \cup D_a -F_a=O_a-F_a=W_a.

Thus U_H \cap U_K \ne \varnothing. We have shown that the space E is not pseudonormal and thus not normal.

Example 2
The Sorgenfrey line is the real line \mathbb{R} topologized by the base consisting of half open and half closed intervals of the form [a,b)=\left\{x \in \mathbb{R}: a \le x < b \right\}. In this post, we use S to denote the real line \mathbb{R} with this topology.

The Sorgenfrey line S is a classic example of a normal space whose square S \times S is not normal. In the Sorgenfrey plane S \times S, the set \left\{(x,-x) \in S \times S: x \in \mathbb{R} \right\} is a closed and discrete set and is called the anti-diagonal. The proof presented in this previous post shows that the following two disjoint closed subsets of S \times S

    H=\left\{(x,-x) \in S \times S: x \text{ is rational} \right\}

    K=\left\{(x,-x) \in S \times S: x \text{ is irrational} \right\}

cannot be separated by disjoint open sets. The argument is based on the fact that the real line with the usual topology is of second category. The key point in the argument is that the set of the irrationals cannot be the union of countably many closed and nowhere dense sets (in the usual topology of the real line).

Thus S \times S fails to be pseudonormal. This example shows that normality can fail to be preserved by taking Cartesian product in such a way that even pseudonormality cannot be achieved in the Cartesian product!

Example 3
Another example of a non-normal space that fails to be pseudonormal is the Niemmytzkis’ plane (Example 2 in in this previous post). The underlying set is N=\left\{(x,y) \in \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}: y \ge 0 \right\}. The points lying above the x-axis have the usual Euclidean open neighborhoods. A point (x,0) in the x-axis has as neighborhoods \left\{(x,0) \right\} together with the interior of a disc in the upper half plane that is tangent at the point (x,0). Consider the following the two disjoint closed sets on the x-axis:

    H=\left\{(x,0): x \text{ is rational} \right\}

    K=\left\{(x,0): x \text{ is irrational} \right\}

The disjoint closed sets H and K cannot be separated by disjoint open sets (see Niemytzki’s Tangent Disc Topology in [2], Example 82). Like Example 2 above, the argument that H and K cannot be separated is also a Baire category argument.

____________________________________________________________________

An Example of Pseudonormal but not Normal

Example 4
One way to find such a space is to look for spaces that are non-normal and see which one is pseudonormal. On the other hand, in a pseudonormal space, countable closed sets are easily separated from other disjoint closed sets. One space in which “countable” is nice is the first uncountable ordinal \omega_1 with the order topology. But \omega_1 is normal. So we look at the Cartesian product \omega_1 \times (\omega_1 +1). The second factor is the successor ordinal to \omega_1 or as a space that is obtained by tagging one more point to \omega_1 that is considered greater than all the points in \omega_1. Let’s use X \times Y=\omega_1 \times (\omega_1 +1) to denote this space.

The space X \times Y is not normal (shown in this previous post). In the previous post, X \times Y is presented as an example showing that the product of a normal space with a compact space needs not be normal. However, in this case at least, the product is pseudonormal.

Let \alpha < \omega_1. Then the square \alpha \times \alpha as a subspace of X \times Y is a countable space and a first countable space. So it has a countable base (second countable) and thus metrizable, and in particular normal. Any countable subset of X \times Y is contained in one of these countable squares, making it easy to separate a countable closed set from another closed set.

Let H and K be disjoint closed sets in X \times Y such that H is countable. Then there is some successor ordinal \mu < \omega_1 (\mu=\alpha+1 for some ordinal \alpha<\omega_1) such that H \subset \mu \times \mu. Based on the discussion in the preceding paragraph, there are disjoint open sets O_H and O_K in \mu \times \mu such that H \subset O_H and (K \cap (\mu \times \mu)) \subset O_K. With \mu being a successor ordinal, the square \mu \times \mu is both closed and open in X \times Y. Then the following sets

    V_H=O_H

    V_K=O_K \cup (X \times Y-\mu \times \mu)

are disjoint open sets in X \times Y separating H and K.

____________________________________________________________________

Some Comments about Examples 1 – 3

In each of Examples 1, 2 and 3 discussed above, there is a closed and discrete set of cardinality continuum (the x-axis in Examples 1 and 3 and the anti-diagonal in Example 2). So the extent of each of these three spaces is continuum. Note that the extent of a space is the maximum cardinality of a closed and discrete subset.

In each of these examples, it just so happens that it is not possible to separate the rationals from the irrationals in the x-axis or the anti-diagonal by disjoint open sets, making each example not only not normal but also not pseudonormal.

What if we consider a smaller subset of the x-axis or anti-diagonal? For example, consider an uncountable set of cardinality less than continuum. Then what can we say about the pseudonormality or normality of the resulting subspaces? For Example 1, the picture is clear cut.

In Example 1, the argument that H and K cannot be separated is a “countable vs. uncountable” argument. The argument will work as long as H is a countable dense set in the x-axis (dense in the usual topology) and K is any uncountable set.

For Example 2 and Example 3, the argument that H and K cannot be separated is not a “countable vs. uncountable” argument and instead is a Baire category argument. The fact that one of the closed sets is the irrationals is a crucial point. On the other hand, both Example 2 and Example 3 (especially Example 3) are set-theoretic sensitive examples. For Example 2 and Example 3, the normality of the resulting smaller subspaces is dependent on some extra axioms beyond ZFC. For pseudonormality, it could be set-theoretic sensitive too. We give some indication here why this is so.

Let S be the Sorgenfrey line as in Example 2 above. Assuming Martin’s Axiom and the negation of the continuum hypothesis (abbreviated by MA + not CH), for any uncountable X \subset S with \lvert X \lvert < c, X \times X is normal but not paracompact (see Example 6.3 in [1] and see [3]). Even though X \times X is not exactly a comparable example, this example shows that restricting to a smaller subset on the anti-diagonal seems to make the space normal.

Example 3 has an illustrious history with respect to the normal Moore space conjecture. There is not surprise that extra set-theory axioms are used. For any subset B of the x-axis, let N(B) be the space defined as in Example 3 above except that only points of B are used on the x-axis. Assuming MA + not CH, for any uncountable B that is of cardinality less than continuum, it can be shown that N(B) is normal non-metrizable Moore space (see Example F in [4]). So by assuming extra axiom of MA + not CH, we cannot get a non-pseudonormal example out of Example 3 by restricting to a smaller uncountable subset of the x-axis. Under other set-theoretic axioms, there exists no normal non-metrizable Moore space. Just because this is a set-theoretic sensitive example, it is conceivable that N(B) could be a space that is not pseudonormal under some other axioms.

____________________________________________________________________

Reference

  1. Burke, D. K., Covering Properties, Handbook of Set-Theoretic Topology (K. Kunen and J. E. Vaughan, eds), Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., Amsterdam, 347-422, 1984.
  2. Steen, L. A., Seebach, J. A., Counterexamples in Topology, Dover Publications, Inc, Amsterdam, New York, 1995.
  3. Przymusinski, T. C., A Lindelof space X such that X \times X is normal but not paracompact, Fund. Math., 91, 161-165, 1973.
  4. 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.

____________________________________________________________________

\copyright \ 2014 \text{ by Dan Ma}