DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendices SPECIAL REFERENCE CHARTS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendices SPECIAL REFERENCE CHARTS PART IV Appendices SPECIAL REFERENCE CHARTS The next few pages contain six basic reference charts which display the properties of the various examples. The properties of a topological space have been grouped into six nearly disjoint categories: separation, com­ pactness, paracompactness, connectedness, disconnectedness, and metriza­ tion. In each category we have listed those spaces whose behavior is par­ ticularly appropriate. We usually chose any space which represented a counterexample in that category or which exhibited either an unusual or an instructive pathology; occasionally we listed a space simply because it was so well behaved. Entries in the charts are either 1, 0, or -, meaning, respectively, that the space has the property, does not have the property, or that the property is inapplicable. Occasional blanks represent properties which were not dis­ cussed in the text and which do not appear to follow simply from anything that was discussed. Examples are listed by number, and in a few cases the tables extend beyond one page in length. 185 Special Reference Charts 187 Table I SEPARATION AXIOM CHART -<~ ;.. ..:l ..:l ~ p IZ1 ~ ~ Z Eo< -< ~ ~ ~ ~ -< ~ IZ1 ..:l ..:l ;j ::;l ::;l ..:l 0 ..:l P -< t; ....~ p en Po. ~ ::;l Po. = re g;; ., ::;l g;; ::;l 0 g;; 0 ., .. IZ1 ~ 0 OZIZ1Z E-f E-7 E-<" ~- E-< E-<- E-< E-<'" 00 &'!" P 8~ Z u p.. 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 28 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 66 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 75 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 79 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 80 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 84 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 86 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 88 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 90 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 91 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 92 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 93 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 94 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 100 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 103 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 105 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 126 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 Appendix Table II COMPACTNESS CHART Eo< Q -< 00 '"f>;1 ""::>l Z Eo< 0 Eo< Q U Q Eo< p; p; Q ~ Eo< ..1 Q f>;1 p; ::>l ::>l ..1 Z 1%1 Eo< -< f>;1 0 -< Q 0 1%1 ::>l U Eo< -< U -< ..1 ~ 0 Eo< ::>l Eo< III ~ Z Q ..1 0"" -< U ~ p -< ::>l Z Eo< U ..1 "" -< U ..1 0 0 Q P Z f>;1 Eo< ~ 0 0 f>;1 ..1 -< U ""::>l U f>;1 p ..1 ..1 Eo< III 0 ....:I ..1 U 0 III III -< :0 E:: ~ ::l Q '" -< ..1 III U -< 0;,-< ""..1 Eo< Z 0'" ..1 c:> t:l Eo< p; f>;1 f>;1 ::l t:l ..1 -< -< ... ""~ Z ~ Z Il:: Z Eo< Z Il:: 0 t:l P -< P -< '" -< 0 Eo< ~ P 0' f>;1 f>;1 g P f>;1 0 U Z 0 0 .3 '"Il:: 0 I f>;1 '" Eo< I ""f>;1 '"f>;1 U b ~ U CD. ~ p....'" ....:I CD. b CD. CD. ~ u ~ 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 6 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 9 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 20 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 21 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 25 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 28 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 31 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 36 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 42 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 43 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 50 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 51 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 52 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 57 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 58 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 60 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 63 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Special Reference Charts 189 Table II (continued) Eo< 0 -< Po< '"IZ1 ::iii Z Eo< Eo< 0 8 0 Eo< 0 ~ I>- ~ Eo< ;:;! ..;! )1 0 Eo< ~ Z ~ 0 0 0 -< IZ1 )1 =-< Po< ..;! Q Eo< Eo< -< Q :c! 0 Po< )1 =~ ~ Z 0 ..;! 0 -< Q I>- p ;:;! Z =Eo< Q ..;! -< Q p ..;! 0 ~ 0 0 Z IZ1 Eo< Q )1 Q 0 0 P ..;! 0 ~ -< 0 I>- Q ~ Eo< JO. E:: ~ ..;! ~ 0 0 :0 0 I>- ..;! =-< ~ ..;! = Z ~ 0 ..;! Q Q = N -< ~ Q ..;! -< = ~ ... Po< )1 IZ1 ~ Z 0 ~ Z Eo< 0 f::l z p p -< 0" 0 Z g: )1 p CJ -< IZ1 0 go: -< go: p 0 Q Z 0 IZ1 .3 0 '" IZ1 I IZ1 0 IZ1 IZ1 0 Q b J Q 00 ~ p....'" ~ J3 b 00'" 00 ~ Q ~ 66 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 70 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 75 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 77 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 79 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 98 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 99 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 100 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 102 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 106 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 112 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 136 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 Appendix Table III PARACOMPACTNESS CHART e- e- 0 o ~ e- ~ ::;t 0 ::;t 0 0 0 ~ 0 -< e--< ~ 1>1 e- o ~ e- 0 O ~ ::is 0 ::;t i>< i>< i>< I>: fj ~ ~ 0-< 0-< 0-< 0 e- ::;t III III III ~.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Topology and Data
    BULLETIN (New Series) OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 46, Number 2, April 2009, Pages 255–308 S 0273-0979(09)01249-X Article electronically published on January 29, 2009 TOPOLOGY AND DATA GUNNAR CARLSSON 1. Introduction An important feature of modern science and engineering is that data of various kinds is being produced at an unprecedented rate. This is so in part because of new experimental methods, and in part because of the increase in the availability of high powered computing technology. It is also clear that the nature of the data we are obtaining is significantly different. For example, it is now often the case that we are given data in the form of very long vectors, where all but a few of the coordinates turn out to be irrelevant to the questions of interest, and further that we don’t necessarily know which coordinates are the interesting ones. A related fact is that the data is often very high-dimensional, which severely restricts our ability to visualize it. The data obtained is also often much noisier than in the past and has more missing information (missing data). This is particularly so in the case of biological data, particularly high throughput data from microarray or other sources. Our ability to analyze this data, both in terms of quantity and the nature of the data, is clearly not keeping pace with the data being produced. In this paper, we will discuss how geometry and topology can be applied to make useful contributions to the analysis of various kinds of data.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Moore Manifolds
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Topology and its Applications 51 (1993) 27-39 27 North-Holland Two Moore manifolds I.J. Tree* Department ofMathematics, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USA W.S. Watson Department of Mathematics, University of York, North York, Ont., Canada M3J IP3 Received 23 August 1991 Revised 27 April 1992 Abstract Tree, I.J. and W.S. Watson, Two Moore manifolds, Topology and its Applications 51 (1993) 27-39. Reed and Zenor have shown that locally connected, locally compact, normal Moore spaces are metrizable. The first of the two examples presented is a locally connected, locally compact, pseudonormal nonmetrizable Moore space. The second is a locally connected, locally compact, pseudocompact nonmetrizable Moore space and can be constructed assuming the Continuum Hypothesis. Therefore normality in the Reed-Zenor theorem cannot be replaced by pseudonor- mality or (consistently) pseudocompactness. Both spaces can be modified in such a way that they are manifolds. Keywords: Pseudocompact, pseudonormal, A-set, Cook set. AMS (MOS) Subj. Class.: Primary 54020; secondary 54830, 57N05. 1. Introduction We know that, on one hand, the truth of the normal Moore space conjecture-the statement that every normal Moore space is metrizable-is intimately tied to the existence of certain large cardinals [6]. On the other hand, in particular extended versions of set theory there exist normal nonmetrizable Moore spaces. Assuming V= L, every locally compact normal Moore space is metrizable [5]; but under MA+CH, there exist locally compact normal nonmetrizable Moore spaces [18].
    [Show full text]
  • The Long Line
    The Long Line Richard Koch November 24, 2005 1 Introduction Before this class began, I asked several topologists what I should cover in the first term. Everyone told me the same thing: go as far as the classification of compact surfaces. Having done my duty, I feel free to talk about more general results and give details about one of my favorite examples. We classified all compact connected 2-dimensional manifolds. You may wonder about the corresponding classification in other dimensions. It is fairly easy to prove that the only compact connected 1-dimensional manifold is the circle S1; the book sketches a proof of this and I have nothing to add. In dimension greater than or equal to four, it has been proved that a complete classification is impossible (although there are many interesting theorems about such manifolds). The idea of the proof is interesting: for each finite presentation of a group by generators and re- lations, one can construct a compact connected 4-manifold with that group as fundamental group. Logicians have proved that the word problem for finitely presented groups cannot be solved. That is, if I describe a group G by giving a finite number of generators and a finite number of relations, and I describe a second group H similarly, it is not possible to find an algorithm which will determine in all cases whether G and H are isomorphic. A complete classification of 4-manifolds, however, would give such an algorithm. As for the theory of compact connected three dimensional manifolds, this is a very ex- citing time to be alive if you are interested in that theory.
    [Show full text]
  • One Dimensional Locally Connected S-Spaces
    One Dimensional Locally Connected S-spaces ∗ Joan E. Hart† and Kenneth Kunen‡§ October 28, 2018 Abstract We construct, assuming Jensen’s principle ♦, a one-dimensional locally connected hereditarily separable continuum without convergent sequences. 1 Introduction All topologies discussed in this paper are assumed to be Hausdorff. A continuum is any compact connected space. A nontrivial convergent sequence is a convergent ω–sequence of distinct points. As usual, dim(X) is the covering dimension of X; for details, see Engelking [5]. “HS” abbreviates “hereditarily separable”. We shall prove: Theorem 1.1 Assuming ♦, there is a locally connected HS continuum Z such that dim(Z)=1 and Z has no nontrivial convergent sequences. Note that points in Z must have uncountable character, so that Z is not heredi- tarily Lindel¨of; thus, Z is an S-space. arXiv:0710.1085v1 [math.GN] 4 Oct 2007 Spaces with some of these features are well-known from the literature. A compact F-space has no nontrivial convergent sequences. Such a space can be a continuum; for example, the Cechˇ remainder β[0, 1)\[0, 1) is connected, although not locally con- nected; more generally, no infinite compact F-space can be either locally connected or HS. In [13], van Mill constructs, under the Continuum Hypothesis, a locally con- nected continuum with no nontrivial convergent sequences. Van Mill’s example, ∗2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 54D05, 54D65. Key Words and Phrases: one-dimensional, Peano continuum, locally connected, convergent sequence, Menger curve, S-space. †University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, WI 54901, U.S.A., [email protected] ‡University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A., [email protected] §Both authors partially supported by NSF Grant DMS-0456653.
    [Show full text]
  • Topology Proceedings
    Topology Proceedings Web: http://topology.auburn.edu/tp/ Mail: Topology Proceedings Department of Mathematics & Statistics Auburn University, Alabama 36849, USA E-mail: [email protected] ISSN: 0146-4124 COPYRIGHT °c by Topology Proceedings. All rights reserved. TOPOLOGY PROCEEDINGS Volume 30, No.2, 2006 Pages 523-532 THE ROLE OF NORMALITY IN THE METRIZATION OF MOORE SPACES H.H. HUNG Abstract. We take away the property of normality from Bing’s collectionwise normality in his celebrated theorem on the metrization of Moore Spaces, and we weaken the no- tion of normality itself in the equally celebrated theorem of F.B. Jones for the separable case under the assumption of Lusin’s. Normality conjectured to be sufficient, if not indis- pensible, for the metrization of Moore spaces, its role in the theory is hereby questioned. Traylor’s theorem that sepa- rable metacompact Moore spaces are metrizable is also im- proved on. There are also two generalizations of Bing’s gen- eral metrization theorem. It has been conjectured that if a Moore space fails to be metriz- able, it cannot be normal, an opinion no doubt encouraged by the near-conclusive result for the separable case: Normal separa- ble Moore spaces are metrizable, if 2ω < 2ω1 (Theorem 5 of [10]). Strengthening the property of normality to that of collectionwise normality in the conjecture, Bing [1] was able to give an affirmative result, arguably (see e.g. §3 of [13]) the most important theorem on the subject. Taking the property of normality itself out of that of collectionwise normality, I was able in [5] to generalize Bing.
    [Show full text]
  • Counterexamples in Topology
    Counterexamples in Topology Lynn Arthur Steen Professor of Mathematics, Saint Olaf College and J. Arthur Seebach, Jr. Professor of Mathematics, Saint Olaf College DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC. New York Contents Part I BASIC DEFINITIONS 1. General Introduction 3 Limit Points 5 Closures and Interiors 6 Countability Properties 7 Functions 7 Filters 9 2. Separation Axioms 11 Regular and Normal Spaces 12 Completely Hausdorff Spaces 13 Completely Regular Spaces 13 Functions, Products, and Subspaces 14 Additional Separation Properties 16 3. Compactness 18 Global Compactness Properties 18 Localized Compactness Properties 20 Countability Axioms and Separability 21 Paracompactness 22 Compactness Properties and Ts Axioms 24 Invariance Properties 26 4. Connectedness 28 Functions and Products 31 Disconnectedness 31 Biconnectedness and Continua 33 VII viii Contents 5. Metric Spaces 34 Complete Metric Spaces 36 Metrizability 37 Uniformities 37 Metric Uniformities 38 Part II COUNTEREXAMPLES 1. Finite Discrete Topology 41 2. Countable Discrete Topology 41 3. Uncountable Discrete Topology 41 4. Indiscrete Topology 42 5. Partition Topology 43 6. Odd-Even Topology 43 7. Deleted Integer Topology 43 8. Finite Particular Point Topology 44 9. Countable Particular Point Topology 44 10. Uncountable Particular Point Topology 44 11. Sierpinski Space 44 12. Closed Extension Topology 44 13. Finite Excluded Point Topology 47 14. Countable Excluded Point Topology 47 15. Uncountable Excluded Point Topology 47 16. Open Extension Topology 47 17. Either-Or Topology 48 18. Finite Complement Topology on a Countable Space 49 19. Finite Complement Topology on an Uncountable Space 49 20. Countable Complement Topology 50 21. Double Pointed Countable Complement Topology 50 22. Compact Complement Topology 51 23.
    [Show full text]
  • «Algebraic and Geometric Methods of Analysis»
    International scientific conference «Algebraic and geometric methods of analysis» Book of abstracts May 31 - June 5, 2017 Odessa Ukraine http://imath.kiev.ua/~topology/conf/agma2017/ LIST OF TOPICS • Algebraic methods in geometry • Differential geometry in the large • Geometry and topology of differentiable manifolds • General and algebraic topology • Dynamical systems and their applications • Geometric problems in mathematical analysis • Geometric and topological methods in natural sciences • History and methodology of teaching in mathematics ORGANIZERS • The Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine • Odesa National Academy of Food Technologies • The Institute of Mathematics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine • Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv • The International Geometry Center PROGRAM COMMITTEE Chairman: Prishlyak A. Maksymenko S. Rahula M. (Kyiv, Ukraine) (Kyiv, Ukraine) (Tartu, Estonia) Balan V. Matsumoto K. Sabitov I. (Bucharest, Romania) (Yamagata, Japan) (Moscow, Russia) Banakh T. Mashkov O. Savchenko A. (Lviv, Ukraine) (Kyiv, Ukraine) (Kherson, Ukraine) Fedchenko Yu. Mykytyuk I. Sergeeva А. (Odesa, Ukraine) (Lviv, Ukraine) (Odesa, Ukraine) Fomenko A. Milka A. Strikha M. (Moscow, Russia) (Kharkiv, Ukraine) (Kyiv, Ukraine) Fomenko V. Mikesh J. Shvets V. (Taganrog, Russia) (Olomouc, Czech Republic) (Odesa, Ukraine) Glushkov A. Mormul P. Shelekhov A. (Odesa, Ukraine) (Warsaw, Poland) (Tver, Russia) Haddad М. Moskaliuk S. Shurygin V. (Wadi al-Nasara, Syria) (Wien, Austri) (Kazan, Russia) Herega A. Panzhenskiy V. Vlasenko I. (Odesa, Ukraine) (Penza, Russia) (Kyiv, Ukraine) Khruslov E. Pastur L. Zadorozhnyj V. (Kharkiv, Ukraine) (Kharkiv, Ukraine) (Odesa, Ukraine) Kirichenko V. Plachta L. Zarichnyi M. (Moscow, Russia) (Krakov, Poland) (Lviv, Ukraine) Kirillov V. Pokas S. Zelinskiy Y. (Odesa, Ukraine) (Odesa, Ukraine) (Kyiv, Ukraine) Konovenko N.
    [Show full text]
  • Math 535 Homework VI
    Math 535 Homework VI Due Fri. Mar. 6 Bertrand Guillou Problem 1. (i) Show that the Cantor set C (HW5, problem 1) is compact. (ii) Show that any compact, locally connected space has finitely many components. Conclude that the Cantor set is not locally connected. (iii) Any x ∈ I has a “ternary” expansion; that is, any x can be written P xi x = i≥1 3i , where xi ∈ {0, 1, 2} for all i. Show that the function {0, 2}∞ → I defined by X xi (x , x , x ,... ) 7→ 1 2 3 3i i≥1 induces a homeomorphism {0, 2}∞ =∼ C. Problem 2. Show the tube lemma fails for noncompact spaces by giving an open set N ⊂ (0, ∞) × R which contains (0, ∞) × {0} but such that there is no neighborhood V of 0 in R for which (0, ∞) × V ⊂ N. Problem 3. (i) Show that the only topology on a finite set which makes the space Hausdorff is the discrete topology. (ii) Show more generally that if τ1 and τ2 are topologies on the same space X such that τ1 is finer than τ2 and such that both (X, τ1) and (X, τ2) are compact Hausdorff, then τ1 = τ2. Problem 4. Generalize the proof given in class of the statement that compact subsets of Hausdorff spaces are closed to show that if X is Hausdorff and A and B are disjoint compact subsets of X, then there exist disjoint open sets U and V containing A and B. Problem 5. (i) Show that if Y is compact, then the projection πX : X × Y → X is closed for any X.
    [Show full text]
  • Paracompactness in Perfectly Normal, Locally Connected, Locally Compact Spaces
    proceedings of the american mathematical society Volume 80, Number 4, December 1980 PARACOMPACTNESS IN PERFECTLY NORMAL, LOCALLY CONNECTED, LOCALLY COMPACT SPACES DIANE J. LANE Abstract. It is shown that, under (MA H—iCH), every perfectly normal, locally compact and locally connected space is paracompact. In [Ru, Z] Rudin and Zenor use the continuum hypothesis (CH) to construct a perfectly normal, separable manifold that is not Lindelöf and is therefore not paracompact. Manifold here means a locally Euclidean Hausdorff space. Rudin has shown recently [Ru] that if Martin's Axiom and the negation of the continuum hypothesis (MA H—i CH) hold, then every perfectly normal manifold is metrizable. In this paper we show that Rudin's technique can be used to obtain a more general result: If (MA H—iCH), then every perfectly normal, locally compact and locally connected space is paracompact. Since locally metrizable paracompact spaces are metrizable, Rudin's theorem follows. The following theorems will be used. Theorem 1 (Z. Szentmiklossy [S]). If (MA H—i CT7), then there is no heredi- tarily separable, nonhereditarily Lindelöf, compact (locally compact) Hausdorff space. Theorem 2 (Juhasz [J]). If (MA + -i C77), then there is no hereditarily Lindelöf, nonhereditarily separable compact (locally compact) Hausdorff space. Theorem 3 (Reed and Zenor [R, Z]). Every perfectly normal, locally compact and locally connected subparacompact space is paracompact. Theorem 4 (Alster and Zenor [A, Z]). Every perfectly normal, locally compact and locally connected space is collectionwise normal with respect to discrete collections of compact sets. The following result was obtained independently by H. Junilla and J.
    [Show full text]
  • Normal Nonmetrizable Moore Space from Continuum Hypothesis Or
    Proc. Natt Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 79, pp. 1371-1372, February 1982 Mathematics Normal nonmetrizable Moore space from continuum hypothesis or nonexistence of inner models with measurable cardinals (general topology/large cardinals/relative consistency results) WILLIAM G. FLEISSNER Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260 Communicated by R. H. Bing, October 5, 1981 ABSTRACT Assuming the continuum hypothesis, a normal than co that satisfy [1]; for example K = sup{w, 2w, 22 , . }. nonmetrizable Moore space is constructed. This answers a ques- If[2] or [3] fails for such a cardinal, then there is an inner model tion raised by F. B. Jones in 1931, using an axiom well known at with a measurable cardinal, because the covering lemma would that time. For the construction, a consequence of the continuum fail with respect to the core model; see ref. 6. hypothesis that also follows from the nonexistence of an inner We now construct the space. Let F be the set of functions model with a measurable cardinal is used. Hence, it is shown that from w to E. For n E w, set n = {fln:f E F} and set I = to prove the consistency of the statement that all normal Moore U on. For o-E E, set [C] = {fE F: aoCf. spaces are metrizable one must assume the consistency of the net statement that measurable cardinals exist. Let Z be the family of subsets, Z of z satisfying card Z ' K and for some n E w, Z C In- By [2], we can list Z as {Za: a In 1931, Jones (1) asked whether all normal Moore spaces were < K+}.
    [Show full text]
  • A Product of Compact Normal Spaces Is Normal
    Poorly Separated Infinite Normal Products N. Noble* Abstract From the literature: a product of compact normal spaces is normal; the product of a countably infinite collection of non-trivial spaces is normal if and only if it is countably paracompact and each of its finite sub-products is normal; if all powers of a space X are normal then X is compact – provided in each case that the spaces involved are T1. Here I examine the situation for infinite products not required to be T1 (or regular), extending or generalizing each of these facts. In addition, I prove some related results, give a number of examples, explore some alternative proofs, and close with some speculation regarding potential applications of these findings to category theory and lattice theory. I plan to consider the normality of poorly separated finite products in a companion paper currently in preparation. Summary of principal results Calling a space vacuously normal if it does not contain a pair of nonempty disjoint closed subsets, and using the notation Πα SXα = XS, I show: • A product of vacuously normal spaces is vacuously normal. • A product of compact normal spaces is compact normal. • All powers of X are normal if and only if X is vacuously normal or compact normal. • If X is vacuously normal, Y normal, and the projection from X x Y to Y is closed, then X x Y is normal; the converse holds for Y a T1 space, but not in general. • A countable product with no factor vacuously normal is normal if and only if it is countably paracompact and each of its finite sub-products is normal.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1906.00185V3
    EMBEDDING TOPOLOGICAL SPACES INTO HAUSDORFF κ-BOUNDED SPACES TARAS BANAKH, SERHII BARDYLA, AND ALEX RAVSKY Abstract. Let κ be an infinite cardinal. A topological space X is κ-bounded if the closure of any subset of cardinality ≤ κ in X is compact. We discuss the problem of embeddability of topological spaces into Hausdorff (Urysohn, regular) κ-bounded spaces, and present a canonical construction of such an embedding. Also we construct a (consistent) example of a sequentially compact separable regular space that cannot be embedded into a Hausdorff ω-bounded space. 1. Introduction It is well-known that a topological space X is homeomorphic to a subspace of a compact Hausdorff space if and only if the space X is Tychonoff. In this paper we address the problem of characterization of topological spaces that embed into Hausdorff (Urysohn, regular, resp.) spaces possessing some weaker compactness properties. One of such properties is the κ-boundedness, i.e., the compactness of closures of subsets of cardinality κ. It is clear that each compact space is κ-bounded for any cardinal κ. Any ordinal α := [0, α) of≤ cofinality cf(α) >κ, endowed with the order topology, is κ-bounded but not compact. More information on κ-bounded spaces can be found in [9], [10], [13]. Embedding of topological spaces into compact-like spaces were also investigated in [1, 2, 5, 6]. In this paper we discuss the following: Problem 1.1. Which topological spaces are homeomorphic to subspaces of κ-bounded Hausdorff (Urysohn, regular) spaces? In Theorem 3.4 (and Theorem 3.5) we shall prove that the necessary and sufficient conditions of embeddability of a T1-space X into a Hausdorff (Urysohn) κ-bounded space are the (strong) κ-regularity and the (strong) κ-normality of X, respectively.
    [Show full text]