Stone-Cech Compactification of the Integers – Basic Facts

This is another post Stone-Cech compactification. The links for other posts on Stone-Cech compactification can be found below. In this post, we prove a few basic facts about \beta \omega, the Stone-Cech compactification of the discrete space of the non-negative integers, \omega=\left\{0,1,2,3,\cdots \right\}. We use several characterizations of Stone-Cech compactification to find out what \beta \omega is like. These characterizations are proved in the blog posts listed below. Let c denote the cardinality of the real line \mathbb{R}. We prove the following facts.

  1. The cardinality of \beta \omega is 2^c.
  2. The weight of \beta \omega is c.
  3. The space \beta \omega is zero-dimensional.
  4. Every infinite closed subset of \beta \omega contains a topological copy of \beta \omega.
  5. The space \beta \omega contains no non-trivial convergent sequence.
  6. No point of \beta \omega-\omega is an isolated point.
  7. The space \beta \omega fails to have many properties involving the existence of non-trivial convergent sequence. For example:
    \text{ }

    1. The space \beta \omega is not first countable at each point of the remainder \beta \omega-\omega.
    2. The space \beta \omega is not a Frechet space.
    3. The space \beta \omega is not a sequential space.
    4. The space \beta \omega is not sequentially compact.

    \text{ }

  8. No point of the remainder \beta \omega-\omega is a G_\delta-point.
  9. The remainder \beta \omega-\omega does not have the countable chain condition. In fact, it has a disjoint open collection of cardinality c.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Characterization Theorems

For any completely regular space X, let C(X,I) be the set of all continuous functions from X into I=[0,1]. The Stone-Cech compactification \beta X is the subspace of the product space [0,1]^{C(X,I)} which is the closure of the image of X under the evaluation map \beta:X \rightarrow [0,1]^{C(X,I)} (for the details, see Embedding Completely Regular Spaces into a Cube).

The brief sketch of \beta \omega we present here is not based on the definition using the evaluation map. Instead we reply on some characterization theorems that are stated here (especially Theorem U3.1). These theorems uniquely describe the Stone-Cech compactification \beta X of a given completely regular space X. For example, \beta X satisfies the function extension property in Theorem C3 below. Furthermore any compactification \alpha X of X that satisfies the same property must be \beta X (Theorem U3.1). So a “C” theorem tells us a property possessed by \beta X. The corresponding “U” theorem tells us that there is only one compactification (up to equivalence) that has this property.

    _______________________________________________________________________________________
    Theorem C1
    Let X be a completely regular space. Let f:X \rightarrow Y be a continuous function from X into a compact Hausdorff space Y. Then there is a continuous F: \beta X \rightarrow Y such that F \circ \beta=f.

    \text{ }

    Theorem C2
    Let X be a completely regular space. Among all compactifications of the space X, the Stone-Cech compactification \beta X of the space X is maximal with respect to the partial order \le.

    \text{ }

    Theorem U2
    The property in Theorem C2 is unique to \beta X. That is, if, among all compactifications of the space X, \alpha X is maximal with respect to the partial order \le, then \alpha X \approx \beta X.

    See Two Characterizations of Stone-Cech Compactification.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________
    \text{ }

    Theorem C3
    Let X be a completely regular space. The space X is C^*-embedded in its Stone-Cech compactification \beta X.

    \text{ }

    Theorem U3.1
    Let X be a completely regular space. Let I=[0,1]. Let \alpha X be a compactification of X such that each continuous f:X \rightarrow I can be extended to a continuous \hat{f}:\alpha X \rightarrow I. Then \alpha X must be \beta X.

    \text{ }

    Theorem U3.2
    If \alpha X is any compactification of X that satisfies the property in Theorem C3 (i.e., X is C^*-embedded in \alpha X), then \alpha X must be \beta X.

    See C*-Embedding Property and Stone-Cech Compactification.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________
    \text{ }

The following discussion illustrates how we can use some of these characterizations theorem to obtain information about \beta X and \beta \omega in particular.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Result 1 and Result 2

According to the previous post (Stone-Cech Compactification is Maximal), we have for any completely regular space X, \lvert \beta X \lvert \le 2^{2^{d(X)}} where d(X) is the density (the smallest cardinality of a dense set in X). With \omega being a countable space, \lvert \beta \omega \lvert \le 2^{2^{\omega}}=2^c.

Result 1 is established if we have 2^c \le \lvert \beta \omega \lvert. Consider the cube I^I where I is the unit interval I=[0,1]. Since the product space of c many separable space is separable (see Product of Separable Spaces), I^I is separable. Let S \subset I^I be a countable dense set. Let f:\omega \rightarrow S be a bijection. Clearly f is a continuous function from the discrete space \omega into I^I. By Theorem C1, f is extended by a continuous F:\beta \omega \rightarrow I^I. Note that the image F(\beta \omega) is dense in I^I since F(\beta \omega) contains the dense set S. On the other hand, F(\beta \omega) is compact. So F(\beta \omega)=I^I. Thus F is a surjection. The cardinality of I^I is 2^c. Thus we have 2^c \le \lvert \beta \omega \lvert.

From the same previous post (Stone-Cech Compactification is Maximal), it is shown that w(\beta X) \le 2^{d(X)}. Thus w(\beta \omega) \le 2^{\omega}=c. The same function F:\beta \omega \rightarrow I^I in the above paragraph shows that c \le w(\beta \omega) (see Lemma 2 in Stone-Cech Compactification is Maximal). Thus we have w(\beta \omega)=c \blacksquare

___________________________________________________________________________________

Result 3

A space is said to be zero-dimensional whenever it has a base consisting of open and closed sets. The proof that \beta X is zero-dimensional comes after the following lemmas and theorems.

    Theorem 1
    Let X be a normal space. If H and K are disjoint closed subsets of X, then H and K have disjoint closures in \beta X.

Proof of Theorem 1
Let H and K be disjoint closed subsets of X. By the normality of X and by the Urysohn’s lemma, there is a continuous function g:X \rightarrow [0,1] such that g(H) \subset \left\{0 \right\} and g(K) \subset \left\{1 \right\}. By Theorem C3.1, g can be extended by G:\beta X \rightarrow [0,1]. Note that \overline{H} \subset G^{-1}(0) and \overline{K} \subset G^{-1}(1). Thus \overline{H} \cap \overline{K} = \varnothing. \blacksquare

    Theorem 2
    Let X be a completely regular space. Let H be a closed and open subset of X. Then \overline{H} (the closure of H in \beta X) is also a closed and open set in \beta X.

Proof of Theorem 2
Let H be a closed and open subset of X. Let K=X-H. Define \gamma:X \rightarrow [0,1] by letting \gamma(x)=0 for all x \in H and \gamma(x)=1 for all x \in K. Since both H and K are closed and open, the map \gamma is continuous. By Theorem C3, \gamma is extended by some continuous \Gamma:\beta X \rightarrow [0,1]. Note that \overline{H} \subset \Gamma^{-1}(0) and \overline{K} \subset \Gamma^{-1}(1). Thus H and K have disjoint closures in \beta X, i.e. \overline{H} \cap \overline{K} = \varnothing. Both H and K are closed and open in \beta X since \beta X=\overline{H} \cup \overline{K}. \blacksquare

    Lemma 3
    For every A \subset \omega, \overline{A} (the closure of A in \beta \omega) is both closed and open in \beta \omega.

Note that Lemma 3 is a corollary of Theorem 2.

    Lemma 4
    Let O \subset \beta \omega be a set that is both closed and open in \beta \omega. Then O=\overline{A} where A= O \cap \omega.

Proof of Lemma 4
Let A=O \cap \omega. Either O \subset \omega or O \cap (\beta \omega-\omega) \ne \varnothing. Thus A \ne \varnothing. We claim that O=\overline{A}. Since A \subset O, it follows that \overline{A} \subset \overline{O}=O. To show O \subset \overline{A}, pick x \in O. If x \in \omega, then x \in A. So focus on the case that x \notin \omega. It is clear that x \notin \overline{B} where B=\omega -A. But every open set containing x must contain some points of \omega. These points of \omega must be points of A. Thus we have x \in \overline{A}. \blacksquare

Proof of Result 3
Let \mathcal{A} be the set of all closed and open sets in \beta \omega. Let \mathcal{B}=\left\{\overline{A}: A \subset \omega \right\}. Lemma 3 shows that \mathcal{B} \subset \mathcal{A}. Lemma 4 shows that \mathcal{A} \subset \mathcal{B}. Thus \mathcal{A}= \mathcal{B}. We claim that \mathcal{B} is a base for \beta \omega. To this end, we show that for each open O \subset \beta \omega and for each x \in O, we can find \overline{A} \in \mathcal{B} with x \in \overline{A} \subset O. Let O be open and let x \in O. Since \beta \omega is a regular space, we can find open set V \subset \beta \omega with x \in V \subset \overline{V} \subset O. Let A=V \cap \omega.

We claim that x \in \overline{A}. Suppose x \notin \overline{A}. There exists open U \subset V such that x \in U and U misses \overline{A}. But U must meets some points of \omega, say, y \in U \cap \omega. Then y \in V \cap \omega=A, which is a contradiction. So we have x \in \overline{A}.

It is now clear that x \in \overline{A} \subset \overline{V} \subset O. Thus \beta \omega is zero-dimensional since \mathcal{B} is a base consisting of closed and open sets. \blacksquare

___________________________________________________________________________________

Result 4 and Result 5

Result 5 is a corollary of Result 4. We first prove two lemmas before proving Result 4.

    Lemma 5
    For each infinite A \subset \omega, \overline{A} (the closure of A in \beta \omega) is a homeomorphic copy of \beta \omega and thus has cardinality 2^c.

Proof of Lemma 5
Let A \subset \omega. Let g:A \rightarrow [0,1] be any function (necessarily continuous). Let f:\omega \rightarrow [0,1] be defined by f(x)=g(x) for all x \in A and f(x)=0 for all x \in \omega-A. By Theorem C3, f can be extended by F:\beta \omega \rightarrow [0,1]. Let G=F \upharpoonright \overline{A}.

Note that the function G: \overline{A} \rightarrow [0,1] extends g:A \rightarrow [0,1]. Thus by Theorem U3.1, \overline{A} must be \beta A. Since A is a countably infinite discrete space, \beta A must be equivalent to \beta \omega. \blacksquare

    Lemma 6
    For each countably infinite A \subset \beta \omega-\omega such that A is relatively discrete, \overline{A} (the closure of A in \beta \omega) is a homeomorphic copy of \beta \omega and thus has cardinality 2^c.

Proof of Lemma 6
Let A=\left\{t_1,t_2,t_3,\cdots \right\} \subset \beta \omega -\omega such that A is discrete in the relative topology inherited from \beta \omega. There exist disjoint open sets G_1,G_2,G_3,\cdots (open in \beta \omega) such that for each j, t_j \in G_j. Since \beta \omega is zero-dimensional (Result 3), G_1,G_2,G_3,\cdots can be made closed and open.

Let f:A \rightarrow [0,1] be a continuous function. We show that f can be extended by F:\overline{A} \rightarrow [0,1]. Once this is shown, by Theorem U3.1, \overline{A} must be \beta A. Since A is a countable discrete space, \beta A must be equivalent to \beta \omega.

We first define w:\omega \rightarrow [0,1] by:

    \displaystyle w(n)=\left\{\begin{matrix}f(t_j)& \exists \ j \text{ such that } n \in \omega \cap G_j\\{0}&\text{otherwise} \end{matrix}\right.

The function w is well defined since each n \in \omega is in at most one G_j. By Theorem C3, the function w is extended by some continuous W:\beta \omega \rightarrow [0,1]. By Lemma 4, for each j, G_j=\overline{\omega \cap G_j}. Thus, for each j, t_j \in \overline{\omega \cap G_j}. Note that W is a constant function on the set \omega \cap G_j (mapping to the constant value of f(t_j)). Thus W(t_j)=f(t_j) for each j. So let F=W \upharpoonright \overline{A}. Thus F is the desired function that extends f. \blacksquare

Proof of Result 4
Let C \subset \beta \omega be an infinite closed set. Either C \cap \omega is infinite or C \cap (\beta \omega-\omega) is infinite. If C \cap \omega is infinite, then by Lemma 5, \overline{C \cap \omega} is a homeomorphic copy of \beta \omega. Now focus on the case that C_0=C \cap (\beta \omega-\omega) is infinite. We can choose inductively a countably infinite set A \subset C_0 such that A is relatively discrete. Then by Lemma 6 \overline{A} is a copy of \beta \omega that is a subset of C. \blacksquare

___________________________________________________________________________________

Result 6

We prove that no point in the remainder \beta \omega-\omega is an isolated point. To see this, pick x \in \beta \omega-\omega and pick an arbitrary closed and open set O \subset \beta \omega with x \in O. Let V=O \cap (\beta \omega-\omega) (thus an arbitrary open set in the remainder containing x). By Lemma 4, O=\overline{A} where A=O \cap \omega. According to Lemma 5, O=\overline{A} is a copy of \beta \omega and thus has cardinality 2^c. The set V is O minus a subset of \omega. Thus V must contains 2^c many points. This means that \left\{ x \right\} can never be open in the remainder \beta \omega-\omega. In fact, we just prove that any open and closed subset of \beta \omega-\omega (thus any open subset) must have cardinality at least 2^c. \blacksquare

___________________________________________________________________________________

Result 7

The results under Result 7 are corollary of Result 5 (there is no non-trivial convergent sequence in \beta \omega). To see Result 7.1, note that every point x in the remainder is not an isolated point and hence cannot have a countable local base (otherwise there would be a non-trivial convergent sequence converging to x).

A space Y is said to be a Frechet space if A \subset Y and for each x \in \overline{A}, there is a sequence \left\{ x_n \right\} of points of A such that x_n \rightarrow x. A set A \subset Y is said to be sequentially closed in Y if for any sequence \left\{ x_n \right\} of points of A, x_n \rightarrow x implies x \in A. A space Y is said to be a sequential space if A \subset Y is a closed set if and only if A is a sequentially closed set. If a space is Frechet, then it is sequential. It is clear that \beta \omega is not a sequential space.

A space is said to be sequentially compact if every sequence of points in this space has a convergent subsequence. Even though \beta \omega is compact, it cannot be sequentially compact.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Result 8

Result 7.1 indicates that no point of remainder \beta \omega-\omega can have a countable local base. In fact, no point of the remainder can be a G_\delta-point (a point that is the intersection of countably many open sets). The remainder \beta \omega-\omega is a compact space (being a closed subset of \beta \omega). In a compact space, if a point is a G_\delta-point, then there is a countable local base at that point (see 3.1.F (a) on page 135 of [1] or 17F.7 on page 125 of [2]). \blacksquare

___________________________________________________________________________________

Result 9

The space \beta \omega is a separable space since \omega is a dense set. Thus \beta \omega has the countable chain condition. However, the remainder \beta \omega-\omega does not have the countable chain condition. We show that there is a disjoint collection of c many open sets in \beta \omega-\omega.

There is a family \mathcal{A} of infinite subsets of \omega such that for every A,B \in \mathcal{A} with A \ne B, A \cap B is finite. Such a collection of sets is said to be an almost disjoint family. There is even an almost disjoint family of cardinality c (see A Space with G-delta Diagonal that is not Submetrizable). Let \mathcal{A} be such a almost disjoint family.

For each A \in \mathcal{A}, let U_A=\overline{A} and V_A=\overline{A} \cap (\beta \omega -\omega). By Lemma 3, each U_A is a closed and open set in \beta \omega. Thus each V_A is a closed and open set in the remainder \beta \omega-\omega. Note that \left\{V_A: A \in \mathcal{A} \right\} is a disjoint collection of open sets in \beta \omega-\omega. \blacksquare

___________________________________________________________________________________

Blog Posts on Stone-Cech Compactification

___________________________________________________________________________________

Reference

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

___________________________________________________________________________________

\copyright \ \ 2012

Advertisements

Stone-Cech Compactification is Maximal

Let X be a completely regular space. Let \beta X be the Stone-Cech compactification of X. In a previous post, we show that among all compactifcations of X, the Stone-Cech compactification \beta X is maximal with respect to a partial order \le (see Theorem C2 in Two Characterizations of Stone-Cech Compactification). As a result of the maximality, \beta X is the largest among all compactifications of X both in terms of cardinality and weight. We also establish an upper bound for the cardinality of \beta X and an upper bound for the weight of \beta X. As a result, we have upper bounds for cardinalities and weights for all compactifications of X. We prove the following points.

    Upper Bounds for Stone-Cech Compactification

  1. \lvert \beta X \lvert \le 2^{2^{d(X)}}.
  2. w(\beta X) \le 2^{d(X)}.
  3. Stone-Cech Compactification is Maximal

  4. For every compactification \alpha X of the space X, \lvert \alpha X \lvert \le \lvert \beta X \lvert.
  5. For every compactification \alpha X of the space X, w(\alpha X) \le w(\beta X).
  6. Upper Bounds for all Compactifications

  7. For every compactification \alpha X of the space X, w(\alpha X) \le 2^{d(X)}.
  8. For every compactification \alpha X of the space X, \lvert \alpha X \lvert \le 2^{2^{d(X)}}.

It is clear that Results 5 and 6 follow from the preceding results. The links for other posts on Stone-Cech compactification can be found toward the end of this post

___________________________________________________________________________________

Some Cardinal Functions

Let X be a space. The density of X is denoted by d(X) and is defined to be the smallest cardinality of a dense set in X. For example, if X is separable, then d(X)=\omega. The weight of the space X is denoted by w(X) and is defined to be the smallest cardinality of a base of the space X. For example, if X is second countable (i.e. having a countable space), then w(X)=\omega. Both d(X) and w(X) are cardinal functions that are commonly used in topological discussion. Most authors require that cardinal functions only take on infinite cardinals. We also adopt this convention here. We use c to denote the cardinality of the continuum (the cardinality of the real line \mathbb{R}).

If \mathcal{K} is a cardinal number, then 2^{\mathcal{K}} refers to the cardinal number that is the cardinallity of the set of all functions from \mathcal{K} to 2=\left\{0,1 \right\}. Equivalently, 2^{\mathcal{K}} is also the cardinality of the power set of \mathcal{K} (i.e. the set of all subsets of \mathcal{K}). If \mathcal{K}=\omega (the first infinite ordinal), then 2^\omega=c is the cardinality of the continuum.

If X is separable, then d(X)=\omega (as noted above) and we have 2^{d(X)}=c and 2^{2^{d(X)}}=2^c. Result 5 and Result 6 imply that 2^c is an upper bound for the cardinality of all compactifications of any separable space X and c is an upper bound of the weight of all compactifications of any separable space X.

In general, Result 5 and Result 6 indicate that the density of X bounds the cardinality of any compactification of X by two exponents and the density of X bounds the weight of any compactification of X by one exponent.

Another cardinal function related to weight is that of the network weight. A collection \mathcal{N} of subsets of the space X is said to be a network for X if for each point x \in X and for each open subset U of X with x \in U, there is some set A \in \mathcal{N} with x \in A \subset U. Note that sets in a network do not have to be open. However, any base for a topology is a network. The network weight of the space X is denoted by nw(X) and is defined to be the least cardinality of a network for X. Since any base is a network, we have nw(X) \le w(X). It is also clear that nw(X) \le \lvert X \lvert for any space X. Our interest in network and network weight is to facilitate the discussion of Lemma 2 below. It is a well known fact that in a compact space, the weight and the network weight are the same (see Result 5 in Spaces With Countable Network).
___________________________________________________________________________________

Some Basic Facts

We need the following two basic results.

    Lemma 1
    Let X be a space. Let C(X) be the set of all continuous functions f:X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}. Then \lvert C(X) \lvert \le 2^{d(X)}.

    Lemma 2
    Let S be a space and let T be a compact space. Suppose that T is the continuous image of S. Then w(T) \le w(S).

Proof of Lemma 1
Let A \subset X be a dense set with \lvert A \lvert=2^{d(X)}. Let \mathbb{R}^A be the set of all functions from A to \mathbb{R}. Consider the map W:C(X) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^A by W(f)= f \upharpoonright A. This is a one-to-one map since f=g whenever f and g agree on a dense set. Thus we have \lvert C(X) \lvert \le \lvert \mathbb{R}^A \lvert. Upon doing some cardinal arithmetic, we have \lvert \mathbb{R}^A \lvert=2^{d(X)}. Thus Lemma 1 is established. \blacksquare

Proof of Lemma 2
Let g:S \rightarrow T be a continuous function from S onto T. Let \mathcal{B} be a base for S such that \lvert \mathcal{B} \lvert=w(S). Let \mathcal{N} be the set of all g(B) where B \in \mathcal{B}. Note that \mathcal{N} is a network for T (since g is a continuous function). So we have nw(T) \le \lvert \mathcal{N} \lvert \le \lvert \mathcal{B} \lvert = w(S). Since T is compact, w(T)=nw(T) (see Result 5 in Spaces With Countable Network). Thus we have nw(T)=w(T) \lvert \le w(S). \blacksquare

___________________________________________________________________________________

Results 1 and 2

Let X be a completely regular space. Let I be the unit interval [0,1]. We show that the Stone-Cech compactification \beta X can be regarded as a subspace of the product space I^{\mathcal{K}} where \mathcal{K}= 2^{d(X)} (the product of 2^{d(X)} many copies of I). The cardinality of I^{\mathcal{K}} is 2^{2^{d(X)}}, thus leading to Result 1.

Let C(X,I) be the set of all continuous functions f:X \rightarrow I. The Stone-Cech compactification \beta X is constructed by embedding X into the product space \prod \limits_{f \in C(X,I)} I_f where each I_f=I (see Embedding Completely Regular Spaces into a Cube or A Beginning Look at Stone-Cech Compactification). Thus \beta X is a subspace of I^{\mathcal{K}_1} where \mathcal{K}_1=\lvert C(X,I) \lvert.

Note that C(X,I) \subset C(X). Thus \beta X can be regarded as a subspace of I^{\mathcal{K}_2} where \mathcal{K}_2=\lvert C(X) \lvert. By Lemma 1, \beta X can be regarded as a subspace of the product space I^{\mathcal{K}} where \mathcal{K}= 2^{d(X)}.

To see Result 2, note that the weight of I^{\mathcal{K}} where \mathcal{K}= 2^{d(X)} is 2^{d(X)}. Then \beta X, as a subspace of the product space, must have weight \le 2^{d(X)}. \blacksquare

___________________________________________________________________________________

Results 3 and 4

What drives Result 3 and Result 4 is the following theorem (established in Two Characterizations of Stone-Cech Compactification).

    Theorem C2
    Let X be a completely regular space. Among all compactifications of the space X, the Stone-Cech compactification \beta X of the space X is maximal with respect to the partial order \le.

    \text{ }

To define the partial order, for \alpha_1 X and \alpha_2 X, both compactifications of X, we say that \alpha_2 X \le \alpha_1 X if there is a continuous function f:\alpha_1 X \rightarrow \alpha_2 X such that f \circ \alpha_1=\alpha_2. See the following figure.

Figure 1

In this post, we use \le to denote this partial order as well as the order for cardinal numbers. Thus we need to rely on context to distinguish this partial order from the order for cardinal numbers.

Let \alpha X be a compactification of X. Theorem C2 indicates that \alpha X \le \beta X (partial order), which means that there is a continuous f:\beta X \rightarrow \alpha X such that f \circ \beta=\alpha (the same point in X is mapped to itself by f). Note that \alpha X is the image of \beta X under the function f:\beta X \rightarrow \alpha X. Thus we have \lvert \alpha X \lvert \le \lvert \beta X \lvert (cardinal number order). Thus Result 3 is established.

By Lemma 2, the existence of the continuous function f:\beta X \rightarrow \alpha X implies that w(\alpha X) \le w(\beta X) (cardinal number order). Thus Result 4 is established.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Blog Posts on Stone-Cech Compactification

___________________________________________________________________________________

Reference

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

___________________________________________________________________________________

\copyright \ \ 2012

Network Weight of Topological Spaces – II

This is a continuation of the discussion on network. In the previous post, I showed that the network weight (the minimum cardinality of a network) coincides with the weight for both metrizable spaces and locally compact spaces. In another post, I showed that this is true for compact spaces. I now show that this is also true for the class of Moore spaces. First, some definitions. A sequence \lbrace{\mathcal{D}_n}\rbrace_{n<\omega} of open covers of a space X is a development for X if for each x \in X and each open set U \subset X with x \in U, there is some n such that any open set in \mathcal{D}_n containing the point x is contained in U. A developable space is one that has a development. A Moore space is a regular developable space.

For a collection of \mathcal{G} of subsets of a space X and for x \in X, define st(x,\mathcal{G})=\bigcup\lbrace{U \in \mathcal{G}:x \in U}\rbrace. An equivalent way of defining a development: A sequence \lbrace{\mathcal{D}_n}\rbrace_{n<\omega} of open covers of a space X is a development for X if for each x \in X, \lbrace{st(x,\mathcal{G}_n):n \in \omega}\rbrace is a local base at x. For a basic introduction to Moore space and the Moore space conjecture, there are numerous places to look in the literature ([1] being one of them).

Theorem. If X is a Moore space, then nw(X)=w(X).

Proof. Since nw(X) \leq w(X) always holds, we only need to show w(X) \leq nw(X). To this end, we exhibit a base \mathcal{B} with \vert \mathcal{B} \lvert \leq nw(X). Let \lbrace{\mathcal{D}_n}\rbrace_{n<\omega} be a development for X. Let \mathcal{N} be a network with cardinality nw(X).

For each N \in \mathcal{N}, choose open set O(n,N) \in \mathcal{D}_n such that N \subset O(n,N). Let \mathcal{B}_n=\lbrace{O(n,N):N \in \mathcal{N}}\rbrace and \mathcal{B}=\bigcup_{n<\omega}\mathcal{B}_n. Note that \lvert \mathcal{B} \lvert \leq nw(X). Because \mathcal{N} is a network, each \mathcal{B}_n is a cover of X. To see this, let x \in X. Choose some V \in \mathcal{D}_n such that x \in V. There is some N \in \mathcal{N} such that x \in N \subset V. Then x \in O(n,N). For each n, \mathcal{B}_n \subset \mathcal{D}_n. The sequence \lbrace{\mathcal{B}_n}\rbrace works like a development. We have just shown that \mathcal{B} is a base for X.

Corollary. The example of Butterfly space is not a Moore space.

The example of the Butterfly (or Bow-tie) space is defined in this previous post. This space has a countable network and the weight of this space is continuum. Thus this space cannot be a Moore space.

Reference
[1] Steen, L. A. & Seebach, J. A. [1995] Counterexamples in Topology, Dover Books.

Network Weight of Topological Spaces – I

In the previous post, I discussed the notion of network of a topological space. It was noted that for any space X, the network weight (the least cardinality of a network for X) is always \leq the weight (the least cardinality of a base for X). When X is compact, the network weight and weight would coincide. Are there other classes of spaces for which network weight = weight? I would like to discuss two other classes of spaces where network weight and weight coincide, namely metrizable spaces and locally compact spaces. The following two theorems are proved. For a basic discussion on network, see the previous post.

Theorem 1. If X is metrizable, then nw(X)=w(X).

Proof. For the case of w(X)=\omega, we have nw(X)=\omega. Now consider the case that w(X) is an uncountable cardinal. Based on the Bing-Nagata-Smirnov metrization theorem, any metrizable space has a \sigma-discrete base. Let \mathcal{B}=\bigcup_{n<\omega} \mathcal{B}_n be a \sigma-discrete base for the metrizable space X. Now let \mathcal{K}=\lvert \mathcal{B} \lvert. Because each \mathcal{B}_n is a discrete collection of open sets, any network woulld have cardinality at least as big as \lvert \mathcal{B}_n \lvert for each n. If \mathcal{K}=\lvert \mathcal{B}_n \lvert for some n, then \mathcal{K} \leq nw(X). If \mathcal{K} is the least upper bound of \lvert \mathcal{B}_n \lvert, then \mathcal{K} \leq nw(X). Both cases imply w(X) \leq nw(X). Since nw(X) \leq w(X) always hold,  we have w(X)=nw(X).

Theorem 2. If X is a locally compact space, then nw(X)=w(X).

Proof. Let X be locally compact where nw(X)=\mathcal{K}. The idea is that we can obtain a base for X of cardinality \leq \mathcal{K} (i.e. w(X) \leq nw(X)). Let \mathcal{N} be a network whose cardinality is \mathcal{K}. Here’s a sketch of the proof. Each point in X has an open neighborhood whose closure is compact. For the compact closure of such open neighborhood, the weight would coincide with the network weight. Thus we can find a base of size \leq \mathcal{K} within such open neighborhood. Because \lvert \mathcal{N} \lvert=\mathcal{K}, we only need to consider \mathcal{K} many such open neighborhoods with compact closure. Thus we can obtain a base for X of cardinality \leq \mathcal{K}. To make this sketch more precise, consider the following three claims.

Claim 1
The collection of all N \in \mathcal{N}, where \overline{N} is compact, is a cover of the space X.

Claim 2
For every compact set A \subset X, there is an open set U such that A \subset U and \overline{U} is compact.

Claim 3
If U \subset X is open with \overline{U} compact, then we can obtain a base \mathcal{B}_U for the open subspace U with \vert \mathcal{B}_U \vert \leq \mathcal{K}.

For each N \in \mathcal{N} in Claim 1, we can select an open U (as in Claim 2)such that \overline{N} \subset U and \overline{U} is compact. Let \mathcal{B} be the union of all the \mathcal{B}_U in Claim 3 over all such U. There are \leq \mathcal{K} many N in Claim 1. Thus \vert \mathcal{B} \lvert \leq \mathcal{K}. Note that \mathcal{B} would form a base for the whole space X.

Both Claim 1 and Claim 2 are direct consequence of locally compactness. To see Claim 3, let U be open such that \overline{U} is compact. We have nw(\overline{U}) \leq nw(X)=\mathcal{K} (the network weight of a subspace cannot exceed the original network weight). By the result in the previous post, we have w(\overline{U})=nw(\overline{U}). We now have w(U) \leq w(\overline{U}) (the weight of a subspace cannot exceed the weight of the space containing it). So the weight of any open subspace with compact closure cannot exceed \mathcal{K}.

Corollary. For both metrizable spaces and locally compact spaces X, w(X) \leq \lvert X \lvert.