arXiv:1906.00185v3 [math.GN] 4 Dec 2019 total oefml fcoe ust fatplgclspace topological a of subsets closed of family some oooia pc hc is which space topological a h ucetcniino medblt fa of embeddability of condition sufficient the eto .I eto esalpeetacnnclcntuto o construction canonical a present shall we 3 totally) Section or In 2. Section ec osntebdit Hausdorff a into embed s not regular separable does compact hence sequentially a of example (consistent) κ eto ecntutasaeta stotally is that space a construct we 4 Section asoffsaei n nyi h space the if only and if space Hausdorff ossigsm ekrcmatesproperties. Hausdorff compactness into weaker embed some that possessing spaces topological of characterization cardinality α oeifrainon information More febdaiiyo a of embeddability of spaces? regular) (Urysohn, pcsit opc-iesae eeas netgtdi 1 ,5 6 1.1. 5, 2, Problem [1, in investigated also were spaces compact-like into spaces rglrt n h (strong) the and -regularity =[0 := o oooia space topological a For 1991 n fsc rprisi the is properties such of One space topological a that well-known is It h oko h eodato sspotdb h utinSci Austrian the by supported is author second the of work The nTerm34(n hoe .)w hl rv httenecessar the that prove shall we 3.5) Theorem (and 3.4 Theorem In nti ae edsustefollowing: the discuss we paper this In κ F • F • • nraiyof -normality α , ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics f uhthat such uhthat such strongly oooia pcsit asoff(rsh,regular) (Urysohn, Hausdorff into spaces topological Abstract. n usto cardinality of subset any opc eaal eua pc htcno eebde int embedded be (cons cannot a that construct space we regular Also separable embedding. compact an such of construction fcfiaiycf( cofinality of ) -Tychonoff -regular : X κ ≤ nra pc noaHudr Uyono regular) or (Urysohn Hausdorff a into space -normal κ → ti la htec opc pc is space compact each that clear is It . hc oooia pcsaehmoopi osbpcsof subspaces to homeomorphic are spaces topological Which F [0 ffrayset any for if F F -regular , Let ]sc that such 1] MEDN OOOIA PCSINTO SPACES TOPOLOGICAL EMBEDDING ⊂ ⊂ X AA AAH EHIBRYA N LXRAVSKY ALEX AND BARDYLA, SERHII BANAKH, TARAS ffrayset any for if κ κ T U U buddsae a efudi 9,[0,[3.Ebdigo topologic of Embedding [13]. [10], [9], in found be can spaces -bounded h bv etoe eaainaim r nrdcdadstudie and introduced are axioms separation mentioned above The . 1 ea nnt adnl oooia space topological A cardinal. infinite an be , -space and α HAUSDORFF x ffrayset any for if X ) ∈ κ κ > κ -bounded, x y2 by V ≤ F nraiyof -normality ∈ X 2. f noe ihteodrtplg,is topology, order the with endowed , κ and F ∈ ( κ V F in X noaHudr (Urysohn) Hausdorff a into F sflsprto axioms separation Useful buddes .. h opcns fcoue fsbesof subsets of closures of compactness the i.e., -boundedness, ; ) X U ednt h aiyo l lsdsbesof subsets closed all of family the denote we F ∈ { ⊂ n point and 43,5D5 48,54B30. 54D80, 54D35, 54D30, 1. F ∩ scmat edsustepolmo medblt of embeddability of problem the discuss We compact. is ω X κ 0 V buddsae lo o ahcardinal each for Also, space. -bounded nra,Hcoe,btntUrysohn. not but H-closed, -normal, F ∈ Introduction n point and } sTcoo.I hspprw drs h rbe of problem the address we paper this In Tychonoff. is κ = and X BUDDSPACES -BOUNDED ∅ n point and X T epciey nTerm36w hl rv that prove shall we 3.6 Theorem In respectively. , ; 1 1 x ω f -space shmoopi oasbpc facompact a of subspace a to homeomorphic is nra u o ucinlyHudr n a and Hausdorff functionally not but -normal ( ∈ x X 1; = ) X x κ buddsae,adpeetacanonical a present and spaces, -bounded h oooia space topological The . κ \ ∈ buddfraycardinal any for -bounded X F x X neFn W GatI30 N35). 3709 I (Grant FWF Fund ence ∈ hr xs ijitoe sets open disjoint exist there noaregular a into \ X Hausdorff a o set xml fasequentially a of example istent) F X \ κ hr xs otnosfunction continuous a exist there is F buddsaeaete(strong) the are space -bounded Uyon eua,rs. spaces resp.) regular, (Urysohn, aewihi o yhnffand Tychonoff not is which pace κ ]. hr xs pnsets open exist there κ -bounded buddsae ntelast the In space. -bounded κ nebdiga(strongly a embedding an f buddbtntcompact. not but -bounded n ucetconditions sufficient and y ω κ buddspace. -bounded buddsaei the is space -bounded ftecoueof closure the if κ buddHausdorff -bounded X scalled is κ κ X n ordinal Any . econstruct we Let . ,V U, ,V U, F ⊂ ⊂ in d be X X al 2 TARASBANAKH,SERHIIBARDYLA,ANDA.RAVSKY
-normal if for any disjoint sets A, B there exist disjoint open sets U, V X such • Fthat A U and B V ; ∈ F ⊂ strongly⊂ -normal if⊂ for any disjoint sets A, B there exist open sets U, V X such • that A FU, B V and U V = ; ∈ F ⊂ totally ⊂-normal⊂if for any disjoint∩ ∅ closed sets A and B X there exist disjoint open • sets U,F V X such that A U and B V . ∈F ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ These properties relate as follows: totally -normal 3+ strongly -normal 3+ -normal F F F
-Tychonoff 3+ strongly -regular 3+ -regular. F F F However, the total -normality does not imply the -Tychonoff property, see Example 4.4 below. F F Proposition 2.1. If a topological space X is -regular for some family of closed Lindel¨of subspaces of X, then X is -normal. F F F Proof. To show that X is -normal, fix any two disjoint closed sets A, B . By the -regularity, F ∈F F for every a A there exists an open neighborhood Va X of a whose closure V a in X does not ∈ ⊂ intersect the set B. By the Lindel¨of property of A the open cover Va : a A of A has a countable { ∈ } subcover Van n∈ω. { } By analogy, for every b B there exists an open neighborhood Ub X of b whose closure U b ∈ ⊂ in X does not intersect the set A. By the Lindel¨of property of B, the open cover Ub : b B of { ∈ } B has a countable subcover Ubn n∈ω. For every n ω let { } ∈
VA = Van U bk and UB = Ubn V ak . [ \ [ [ \ [ n∈ω k≤n n∈ω k≤n
It can be shown that VA,UB are two disjoint open neighborhoods of the sets A, B, witnessing that the space X is -normal. F A subset Y of a topological space X is defined to be (countably) paracompact in X if for each (countable) cover of Y by open subsets of X, there exists a locally finite family of open subsets of X such that Y U and each set V is contained in some set U . V The proof of the⊂ followingS V proposition∈V is stratightforward. ∈U Proposition 2.2. If a subset Y of a topological space X is (countably) paracompact in X, then each closed subset of Y also is (countably) paracompact in X. Proposition 2.3. Let be a family of closed Lindel¨of subsets of X, which are countably para- compact in X. If the spaceF X is strongly -regular, then X is strongly -normal. F F Proof. To show that X is strongly -normal, fix any two disjoint closed sets A, B . By the F ∈ F strong -regularity of X, for every a A and b B there exist open sets Va, Wa, Vb, Wb in X such thatF ∈ ∈ a Va V a Wa W a X B ∈ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ \ and b Vb V b Wb W b X A. ∈ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ \ By the Lindel¨of property of the space A, the open cover Va : a A of A has a countable { ∈ } subcover Van n∈ω. By analogy, the open cover Vb : b B of the Lindel¨of space B has a { } { ∈ } countable subcover Vbn n∈ω. { } It is easy to see that Van W bk n∈ω is cover of A by open subsets of X. By the countable { \Sk≤n } paracompactness of A, there exist a locally finite family A of open sets in X such that A A U ⊂ S U and each set U A is contained in some set Van W bk and hence U V an Wbk ∈U \ Sk≤n ⊂ \ Sk≤n ⊂ Wan Wbk . \ Sk≤n Consider the open neighborhood UA = A of A. The local finiteness of the family A ensures S U U that UA = U Wan Wbk . SU∈UA ⊂ Sn∈ω \ Sk≤n EMBEDDING TOPOLOGICAL SPACES INTO HAUSDORFF κ-BOUNDED SPACES 3
By analogy, we can find an open neighbrhood UB of the countably paracompact subset B in X such that UB Wbn Wak . ⊂ n∈ω \ k≤n It remains toS observe thatS
UA UB Wan Wbk Wbn Wak = . ∩ ⊂ [ \ [ ∩ [ \ [ ∅ n∈ω k≤n n∈ω k≤n
Proposition 2.4. Each regular topological space X is totally -normal for the family of closed subsets of X that are paracompact in X. F F Proof. To show that X is totally -normal, fix any two disjoint closed sets A and B X. F ∈ F ⊂ By the regularity of X, for every a A there exists an open neighborhood Ua X such that ∈ ⊂ Ua X B. Since A is paracompact in X there exists a locally finite family of open subsets ⊂ \ V of X such that A and each set V is contained in some set Ua, a A. The locally ⊂ S V ∈ V ∈ finiteness of implies that = V ∈V V a∈A Ua X B. Then and X are disjoint openV neighborhoodsS ofV the setsS A and⊂BS, respectively.⊂ \ S V \ S V
Let κ be a cardinal. A topological space X is called totally κ-normal (resp. strongly κ-normal, κ-normal, strongly κ-regular, κ-regular, κ-Tychonoff ) if it is totally -normal (resp. strongly - normal, -normal, strongly -regular, -regular, -Tychonoff) for theF family of closed subsetsF of the closuresF of subsets ofF cardinalityF κ in X. F F ≤ Proposition 2.5. Each κ-bounded Hausdorff space X is κ-normal. Proof. Let be the family of closed subspaces of the closures of subsets of cardinality κ in X. Given twoF disjoint closed sets A, B , we observe that the sets A, B are compact.≤ By the Hausdorff property of X, the disjoint compact∈ F sets A, B have disjoint open neighborhoods.
In Example 4.6 we shall construct a Hausdorff ω-bounded space which is not strongly ω-normal. Corollary 2.6. Each subspace X of a κ-bounded Hausdorff space Y is κ-regular. Proof. Let F be a closed subspace of the closure of a set E X of cardinality E κ in X and ⊂ | |≤ let x X F be a point. The κ-boundedness of Y ensures that the closure E of E in Y is compact ∈ \ and so is the closure F of F E in Y . Since x / F = X F , by the Hausdorff property of Y there exist two disjoint open sets⊂ V,U Y such that∈ x V ∩and F U. Then V X and U X are two disjoint open sets in X such that⊂ x V X and∈F U X⊂, which means∩ that the space∩ X is κ-regular. ∈ ∩ ⊂ ∩
Let us recall that a topological space X is called Urysohn if any distinct points of X have disjoint closed neighborhoods in X. Similarly as above one can prove the following facts. Proposition 2.7. Each κ-bounded Urysohn space X is strongly κ-normal. Corollary 2.8. Each subspace X of a κ-bounded Urysohn space Y is strongly κ-regular. Proposition 2.9. Each κ-bounded regular space X is totally κ-normal. We recall that the density d(X) of a topological space X is the smallest cardinality of a dense subset in X. Proposition 2.10. Each subspace X of density d(X) κ in a κ-bounded Hausdorff space Y is Tychonoff. ≤ Proof. Let D be a dense subset of X with D = d(X) κ. By definition of a κ-bounded space, | | ≤ the closure D of D in Y is compact and being Hausdorff is Tychonoff. Then X D is Tychohoff, too. ⊂ 4 TARASBANAKH,SERHIIBARDYLA,ANDA.RAVSKY
3. The Wallman κ-bounded extension of a topological space We recall [8, 3.6] that the Wallman extension WX of a topological space X consists of closed ultrafilters, i.e.,§ families of closed subsets of X satisfying the following conditions: U / ; • ∅A∈UB for any A, B ; • a closed∩ ∈U set F X belongs∈U to if F A = for every A . • ⊂ U ∩ 6 ∅ ∈U The Wallman extension WX of X carries the topology generated by the base consisting of the sets U = WX : F (F U) h i {F ∈ ∃ ∈F ⊂ } where U runs over open subsets of X. By (the proof of) Theorem [8, 3.6.21], the Wallman extension WX is compact. By Theorem [8, 3.6.22] a T1-space X is normal if and only if its Wallman extension WX is Hausdorff. A topological space X is defined to be a T1-space if each finite subset of X is closed in X. If X is a T1-space, then we can consider the map jX : X WX assigning to each point x X the principal closed ultrafilter consisting of all closed sets →F X containing the point x.∈ It is ⊂ easy to see that the image jX (X) is dense in WX. By [8, 3.6.21], the map jX : X WX is a → topological embedding. So, X can be identified with the subspace jX (X) of WX. The following lemma can be easily derived from the definition of a closed ultrafilter and should be known.
Lemma 3.1. For a subset A of a T1-space X, a closed ultrafilter WX belongs to jX (A) WX F ∈ ⊂ if and only if A . ∈F Given an infinite cardinal κ, in the Wallman extension WX of a T1-space X, consider the subspace Wκ¯X = jX (C): C X, C κ S{ ⊂ | |≤ } of WX. The space Wκ¯X will be called the Wallman κ-bounded extension of X. The following proposition justifies the choice of terminology.
Proposition 3.2. For any topological space X, the space Wκ¯ X is κ-bounded.
Proof. We should prove that for any subset Ω Wκ¯X of cardinality Ω κ, the closure Ω is ⊂ | | ≤ compact. By the definition of Wκ¯X, for every ultrafilter u Ω there exists a set Cu X such ∈ ⊂ that Cu κ and u jX (Cu). Consider the set C = Cu and observe that C κ and the | |≤ ∈ Su∈Ω | |≤ closure jX (C) in WX is compact (by the compactness of WX). Then the closure Ω of Ω in Wκ¯X coincides with the closure of Ω in jX (C) and hence is compact. The following proposition characterizes some separation properties of the Wallman κ-bounded extension Wκ¯X of a T1-space.
Proposition 3.3. For a T1-space X the following statements hold:
1) Wκ¯X is Hausdorff iff X is κ-normal; 2) Wκ¯X is Urysohn iff X is strongly κ-normal; 3) Wκ¯X is regular iff X is totally κ-normal. Proof. 1. To prove the “if” part of the statement 1), assume that X is κ-normal. Given any distinct closed ultrafilters u, v Wκ¯X, use the maximality of u, v and find two disjoint closed ∈ sets F u and E v. By definition of Wκ¯X, there exists a subset C X such that C κ ∈ ∈ ⊂ | | ≤ and u, v jX (C). By Lemma 3.1, C u v. By the κ-normality of X, the disjoint closed sets ∈ ∈ ∩ F C u and E C v have disjoint open neighborhoods U and V in X, respectively. Then U∩ and∈ V are disjoints∩ ∈ neighborhoods of the ultrafilters u and v in WX, witnessing that the h i h i space Wκ¯X is Hausdorff. To prove the “only if” part, assume that the space Wκ¯X is Hausdorff. By Proposition 3.2, the space Wκ¯X is κ-bounded. To show that the space X is κ-normal, take any subset C X of cardinality C κ and two disjoint closed subsets F, E of C. Lemma 3.1 implies that⊂ | | ≤ jX (F ) jX (E) = . Since jX (F ) jX (E) jX (C) and C κ, the sets jX (F ) and jX (E) are ∩ ∅ ∪ ⊂ | | ≤ EMBEDDING TOPOLOGICAL SPACES INTO HAUSDORFF κ-BOUNDED SPACES 5 compact and by the Hausdorffness of Wκ¯X, these compact sets have disjoint open neighborhoods W −1 −1 U and V in κ¯ X. Then jX (U) and jX (V ) are disjoint neighborhoods of the sets F and E in X, witnessing that the space X is κ-normal. 2. To prove the “if” part of the statement 2), assume that the space X is strongly κ-normal. Given any distinct closed ultrafilters u, v Wκ¯X, use the maximality of u, v and find two disjoint ∈ closed sets F u and E v. By definition of Wκ¯X, there exists a subset C X such that C κ ∈ ∈ ⊂ | |≤ and u, v jX (C). By Lemma 3.1, C u v. By the strong κ-normality of X, the disjoint closed ∈ ∈ ∩ sets F C u and E C v have open neighborhoods U and V in X such that U V = . Then U∩ and∈ V are disjoints∩ ∈ open neighborhoods of the ultrafilters u and v in WX. We∩ claim∅ h i h i that U V = . Indeed, given any closed ultrafilter w WX, we conclude that either U/ w h i ∩ h i ∅ ∈ ∈ or V/ w. If U/ w, then by the maximality of w, the closed set U is disjoint with some set in w and∈ then X∈ U is a neighborhood of w, disjoint with U . If V/ w, then X V is a h \ i h i ∈ h \ i neighborhood of w that is disjoint with V . In both cases we obtain that w / U V , which h i ∈ h i ∩ h i implies U V = and witnesses that the space Wκ¯X is Urysohn. h i ∩ h i ∅ To prove the “only if” part, assume that the space Wκ¯X is Urysohn. By Proposition 3.2, the space Wκ¯X is κ-bounded. To show that the space X is strongly κ-normal, take any subset C X of cardinality C κ and two disjoint closed subsets F, E of C X. Lemma 3.1 implies ⊂ | |≤ ⊂ that jX (F ) jX (E) = . Since jX (F ) jX (E) jX (C) and C κ, the sets jX (F ) and ∩ ∅ ∪ ⊂ | | ≤ jX (E) are compact. Since the space Wκ¯X is Urysohn the compact sets jX (F ) and jX (E) have W −1 −1 open neighborhoods U and V with disjoint closures in κ¯X. Then jX (U) and jX (V ) are open neighborhoods with disjoint closures of the sets F and E in X, respectively. 3. To prove the “if” part of the statement 3), assume that the space X is totally κ-normal. Given any closed ultrafilter u Wκ¯X and a basic open neighborhood U of u in Wκ¯X, find a ∈ h i closed set F u such that F U. Since u Wκ¯X, there exists a subset C X such that C κ ∈ ⊂ ∈ ⊂ | |≤ and u jX (C). By Lemma 3.1, C u. Replacing the set F by F C, we can assume that F C. ∈ ∈ ∩ ⊂ By the total κ-normality of X, there exists an open neighborhood V of F in X such that V U. ⊂ Using Lemma 3.1, we can show that u V V U , witnessing the regularity of the space ∈ h i⊂ h i ⊂ h i Wκ¯X. To prove the “only if” part, assume that the space Wκ¯X is regular. By Proposition 3.2, the space Wκ¯ X is κ-bounded. To show that the space X is totally κ-normal, take any subset C X of cardinality C κ and two disjoint closed subsets F, E of X such that F C. Lemma⊂ 3.1 | | ≤ ⊂ implies that jX (F ) jX (E) = . Since jX (F ) jX (C) and C κ, the set jX (F ) is compact. ∩ ∅ ⊂ | | ≤ By the regularity of Wκ¯X, the sets jX (F ) and jX (E) have disjoint open neighborhoods U and W −1 −1 V in κ¯X. Then jX (U) and jX (V ) are disjoint open neighborhood of the sets F and E in X, respectively. Hence X is totally κ-normal. The following three theorems give a partial answer to Problem 1.1 and are the main results of this paper.
Theorem 3.4. For an infinite cardinal κ and a T1-space X consider the conditions: (1) the space X is κ-normal; (2) the Wallman κ-bounded extension Wκ¯ X of X is Hausdorff; (3) X is homeomorphic to a subspace of a Hausdorff κ-bounded space; (4) the space X is κ-regular. Then (1) (2) (3) (4). If each closed subspace of density κ in X is Lindel¨of, then (4) (1) ⇔and hence⇒ the conditions⇒ (1)–(4) are equivalent. ≤ ⇒ Proof. The equivalence (1) (2) was proved in Proposition 3.3(1) and (2) (3) follows imme- ⇔ ⇒ diately from Proposition 3.2 and the fact that the canonical map jX : X Wκ¯X is a topological embedding. The implication (3) (4) follows from Corollary 2.6. If each→ closed subspace of density κ in X is Lindel¨of, then⇒ (4) (1) by Proposition 2.1. ≤ ⇒ Theorem 3.5. For an infinite cardinal κ and a T1-space X consider the conditions: (1) the space X is strongly κ-normal; 6 TARASBANAKH,SERHIIBARDYLA,ANDA.RAVSKY
(2) the Wallman κ-bounded extension WκX of X is Urysohn; (3) X is homeomorphic to a subspace of a Urysohn κ-bounded space; (4) X is strongly κ-regular. Then (1) (2) (3) (4). If each closed subspace of density κ in X is countably paracompact in X and⇔ Lindel¨of,⇒ then⇒(4) (1) and hence the conditions (1)–(4)≤ are equivalent. ⇒ Proof. The equivalence (1) (2) was proved in Proposition 3.3(2) and (2) (3) follows imme- ⇔ ⇒ diately from Proposition 3.2 and the fact that the canonical map jX : X Wκ¯X is a topological embedding. The implication (3) (4) follows from Corollary 2.8. If each→ closed subspace of density κ in X is countably paracompact⇒ in X and Lindel¨of, then (4) (1) by Propositions 2.2 and 2.3.≤ ⇒
Theorem 3.6. For an infinite cardinal κ and a T1-space X consider the conditions: (1) the space X is totally κ-normal; (2) the Wallman κ-bounded extension WκX of X is regular; (3) X is homeomorphic to a subspace of a regular κ-bounded space; (4) X is regular. Then (1) (2) (3) (4). If each closed subspace of density κ in X is paracompact in X, then (4) ⇔(1) and⇒ hence⇒ the conditions (1)–(4) are equivalent. ≤ ⇒ Proof. The equivalence (1) (2) was proved in Proposition 3.3(3), the implication (2) (3) ⇔ ⇒ follows immediately from Proposition 3.2 and the fact that the canonical map jX : X Wκ¯X is a topological embedding, and (3) (4) is trivial. If each closed subspace of density →κ in X is paracompact in X, then (4) (1)⇒ by Propositions 2.2 and 2.4. ≤ ⇒ Problem 3.7. Does each κ-Tychonoff space embed into a Hausdorff κ-bounded space?
4. Some examples A topological space X is functionally Hausdorff if for any distinct points x, y X there exists a continuous function f : X R such that f(x) = f(y). ∈ First, we present an example→ of a first-countable6 regular space M which is ω-normal but is neither functionally Hausdorff nor strongly ω-normal. The space M is a suitable modification of the famous example of Mysior [11]. Let Q1 = y Q :0
z ,M z : z R Q1 Vx : x R Un : n Z Wn,n Z { } \{ } ∈ × ∪{ ∈ }∪{ ∈ }∪{ ∈ } where Vx = x (z,y) R Q1 : z x, x + y for x R, { }∪{ ∈ × ∈{ }} ∈ Un = x R : x
Observe that the unit interval I = [0, 1] is a closed discrete subspace of the space M. Besides the discrete topology inherited from M, the interval I carries the standard Euclidean topology, inherited from the real line. The interval I endowed with the Euclidean topology will be denoted by IE . To show that the space M is not strongly ω-normal we shall need the following fact.
Claim 4.2. For any dense subset A in IE and any open neighborhood U of A in M the intersection U I is a comeager subset of IE. ∩ Proof. To derive a contradiction, assume that the set B = I U is not comeager in IE and hence \ B is of the second Baire category in IE. Since B U = , for every b B there exists a finite ∩ ∅ ∈ subset Fb of Q1 and a basic open neighborhood
VFb = b (z,y) R (Q1 Fb): z b,b + y { }∪{ ∈ × \ ∈{ }} of b such that VFb U = . For each finite subset F Q1 put BF = b B : Fb = F . Since ∩ ∅ ⊂ { ∈ } the set of all finite subsets of Q1 is countable and B is of the second category, there exists a finite subset F Q1 such that the set BF is not meager in IE. Hence there exists an interval (c, d) IE ⊂ ⊂ such that BF is dense in (c, d). Recall that A is dense in IE. At this point it is easy to check that = U VF U VFb = , which is a desired contradiction. ∅ 6 ∩ Tb∈BF ⊂ ∩ Sb∈BF ∅ Recall that the subspace I M is discrete. Let A := Q I and B := (Q + √2) I be two closed countable disjoint subsets of ⊂M. Assuming that the space∩ M is strongly ω-normal,∩ we can find open sets UA and UB in M such that A UA, B UB and UA UB = . By Claim 4.2, the sets ⊂ ⊂ ∩ ∅ UA I and UB I are comeager in IE and hence have nonempty intersection and this is a desired contradiction∩ showing∩ that the space M is not strongly ω-normal. Remark 4.3. The space M , + is Tychonoff, zero-dimensional, locally compact, locally countable, ω-normal but not\{−∞ strongly ω∞}-normal. Now we present an example of a regular, ω-bounded, totally ω-normal space which is not functionally Hausdorff. Let [0, α] be the ordinal α + 1 endowed with the order topology. Let T = [0,ω1] [0,ω2] (ω1,ω2) be the subspace of the Tychonoff product [0,ω1] [0,ω2]. Observe that T is ω×-bounded.\{ Let Z }be the discrete space of integer numbers and ×, + be distinct points which do not belong to T Z. By Y we denote the set (T Z) −∞, + ∞endowed with the topology τ which satisfies the× following conditions: × ∪ {−∞ ∞} the Tychonoff product T Z is an open subspace in Y ; • if U τ, then there× exists n ω such that (t, k) T Z : k< n U; • if +−∞ ∈ U ∈ τ, then there exists n ∈ ω such that {(t, k) ∈ T × Z : k>n− }⊂U. • ∞ ∈ ∈ ∈ { ∈ × }⊂ One can check that the space Y is regular and ω-bounded. On the space Y consider the smallest equivalence relation such that (x, ω2, 2n) (x, ω2, 2n+1) ∼ ∼ and (ω1, y, 2n) (ω1, y, 2n 1) for any n Z, x ω1 and y ω2. Let X be the quotient space ∼ − ∈ ∈ ∈ Y/∼ of Y by the equivalence relation . ∼ Example 4.4. The space X is regular, ω-bounded and totally ω-normal, but not functionally Hausdorff and hence is not ω-Tychonoff. Proof. Since the ω-boundedness is preserved by continuous images, the space X is ω-bounded. Using the classical argument due to Tychonoff (see [12, p.109]), it can be shown that the space X is regular, but for each real-valued continuous function f on X, f( )= f( ). Hence X is not functionally Hausdorff. By Proposition 2.9, X is totally ω-normal.−∞ ∞ Remark 4.5. For each infinite cardinal κ the punctured Tychonoff plank [0,κ] [0,κ+] (κ,κ+) is an example of strongly κ-normal space which is not totally κ-normal. × \{ } A topological space X is called H-compact if for any open cover of X there exists a finite subfamily such that • U V ⊂U X = V ∈V V ; H-closedS if X is Hausdorff and H-compact. • 8 TARASBANAKH,SERHIIBARDYLA,ANDA.RAVSKY
It is clear that each compact space is H-compact. By [8, 3.12.5], a Hausdorff topological space X is H-closed if and only if it is closed in each Hausdorff space containing X as a subspace. For each infinite cardinal κ we shall construct a κ-normal, κ-bounded, H-compact Hausdorff space which is not Urysohn. Given an infinite cardinal κ, denote by C the set of all isolated points of the cardinal κ+ = [0,κ+) endowed with the order topology. Write C as the union C = A B of two disjoint unbounded subsets of κ+. Choose any points a,b / κ+ and consider the space∪ + ∈ Xκ = κ a,b endowed with the topology τ satisfying the following conditions: +∪{ } κ with the order topology is an open subspace of Xκ; • if a U τ, then there exists α κ+ such that β A β > α U; • if b ∈ U ∈ τ, then there exists α ∈ κ+ such that {β ∈ B | β > α}⊂ U. • ∈ ∈ ∈ { ∈ | }⊂ Example 4.6. For each cardinal κ the space Xκ is κ-normal, κ-bounded, H-compact and Haus- dorff, but not Urysohn.
Proof. It is straightforward to check that Xκ is κ-normal, κ-bounded, and Hausdorff. The H- compactness of Xκ follows from the observation that for any open neighborhood U Xκ of the doubleton a,b the closure U contains the interval [α, κ+) for some ordinal α κ+.⊂ { } ∈ To see that Xκ is not Urysohn observe that for any open neighborhoods Ua and Ub of a and b, + + + respectively, the sets Ua κ and Ub κ are closed and unbounded in κ . Hence Ua Ub = . ∩ ∩ ∩ 6 ∅ Next, we are going to present a (consistent) example of a separable sequentially compact scat- tered space X which is regular but not ω-Tychonoff and hence cannot be embedded into an ω-bounded Hausdorff space. This example is a combination of van Douwen’s example [7, 7.1] of a locally compact sequentially compact space, based on a regular tower, and the famous example of Tychonoff corkscrew due to Tychonoff, see [12, p.10]. First we recall the necessary definitions related to (regular) towers. By [ω]ω we denote the family of all infinite subsets of ω. For two subsets A, B [ω]ω we write A ∗ B if A B is finite. Also we write A ∗ B if A ∗ B but B ∗ A. A family∈ [ω]ω is ⊆ \ ⊂ ⊆ 6⊆ T ⊂ called a regular tower if for some regular cardinal κ the family can be written as = Tα α∈κ so that T T { } ∗ (1) Tβ Tα for any ordinals α<β in κ, and ⊂ ω ∗ (2) for any I [ω] there exists α κ such that I Tα. ∈ ∈ 6⊆ The first condition implies that the sets Tα, α κ, are distinct and hence κ = . Also this condition implies that the relation ∗ is a well-order∈ on . |T | Consider the uncountable cardinals⊃ T t = min : [ω]ω is a regular tower {|T | T ⊂ } ˆt = sup : [ω]ω is a regular tower {|T | T ⊂ } and observe that t ˆt c. It is well-known that Martin’s Axiom implies the equality t = ˆt = c. ≤ ≤ Proposition 4.7. The strict inequality t < ˆt is consistent. Also t = ˆt = ω1 <ω2 = c is consistent.
Proof. The consistency of t = ˆt = ω1 <ω2 = c was proved in [3, Theorem 4.1]. To prove the consistency of t < ˆt, assume that MA+ CH holds in the ground model V and ′ ¬ let V be the forcing extension of V obtained by adding ω1 many Cohen reals. Then t = b = ω1 in ′ ′ V , which yields a regular tower of length ω1 in V . On the other hand, any maximal tower from ω V ω ′ V of length (2 ) > ω1 (which exists, because in V , t = 2 > ω1) remains regular in V since it is well-known (and easy to check) that Cohen forcing cannot add infinite pseudointersections to maximal towers. Hence t < ˆt in V ′. Let us recall that a topological space X is scattered if every non-empty subspace of X has an isolated point. A topological space X is called ~ω-regular if for any open set U X and point x U there ⊂ ∈ exists a sequence (Un)n∈ω of open neighborhoods of x such that n∈ω Un U and U n Un+1 for all n ω. It is easy to see that each completely regular space isS~ω-regular.⊂ ⊂ ∈ EMBEDDING TOPOLOGICAL SPACES INTO HAUSDORFF κ-BOUNDED SPACES 9
Example 4.8. If t < ˆt, then there exists a topological space X such that (1) X is separable, scattered, and sequentially compact; (2) X is regular but not ~ω-regular and hence not completely regular and not ω-Tychonoff; (3) X does not embed into an ω-bounded Hausdorff space.
Proof. Since t < ˆt, there are two regular towers 1 = Aα α∈κ and 2 = Bβ β∈λ such that κ < λ. T { } T { } For every α κ and β λ consider the sets Cα = ω Aα and Dβ = ω Bβ. Let T1 = Cα α∈κ ∈ ∈ ∗ \ \ { } and T2 = Dα α∈λ. Obviously, is a well order on T1 and T2. Also, observe that the families { } ⊂ T1 and T2 satisfy the following condition: for any infinite subset I of ω there exist Cα T1 and ∈ Dβ T2 such that the sets I Cα and I Dβ are infinite. ∈ ∩ ∩ For every i 1, 2 , consider the space Yi = Ti ω which is topologized as follows. Points of ω ∈{ } ∪ are isolated and a basic neighborhood of T Ti has the form ∈ ∗ ∗ B(S,T,F )= P Ti S P T ((T S) F ), { ∈ | ⊂ ⊆ } ∪ \ \ ∗ where S Ti satisfies S T and F is a finite subset of ω. ∈ ∪ {∅} ⊂ Repeating arguments of Example 7.1 [7] one can check that the space Yi is sequentially compact, separable, scattered and locally compact for every i 1, 2 . ∈{ } For every i 1, 2 choose any point i / Yi and let Xi = i Yi be the one-point ∈ { } ∞ ∈ {∞ } ∪ compactification of the locally compact space Yi. It is easy to see that the compact space Xi is scattered, i 1, 2 . ∈{ } Consider the space Π = (X1 X2) ( 1, 2) . It is easy to check that the space Π is separable, scattered and sequentially× compact.\{ ∞ ∞ } Choose any point / Π ω and consider the space Σ = (Π ω ) endowed with the topology consisting of∞ the∈ sets× U Σ satisfying two conditions:{∞} ∪ ×{ } ⊂ for any n ω the set z Π : (z,n) U is open in Π; • if U,∈ then there exists{ ∈ n ω such∈ that} Π m U. • ∞ ∈ ∈ Sm≥n ×{ }⊂ Taking into account that the space Π is separable, scattered and sequentially compact, we conclude that so is the space Σ. On the space Σ consider the smallest equivalence relation such that ∼ (x1, 2, 2n) (x1, 2, 2n +1) and ( 1, x2, 2n + 1) ( 1, x2, 2n + 2) ∞ ∼ ∞ ∞ ∼ ∞ for any n ω and xi Xi i , i 1, 2 . Let X be the quotient space Σ/∼ of Σ by the ∈ ∈ \ {∞ } ∈ { } equivalence relation . Observe that the character of the space X1 at 1 is equal to the regular ∼ ∞ cardinal T1 = κ and is strictly smaller than the pseudocharacter of the space X2 at 2, which is | | ∞ equal to the regular cardinal T2 = λ. Using this observation and repeating the classical argument due to Tychonoff (see [12, p.109]),| | it can be shown that the space X is regular but not ~ω-regular (at the point ), and hence not Tychonoff and not ω-Tychonoff (since for separable spaces the Tychonoff property∞ is equivalent to the ω-Tychonoff property). By Proposition 2.10, the separable space X does not embed into an ω-bounded Hausdorff space. Question 4.9. Does there exists in ZFC an example of a separable regular sequentially compact space which is not Tychonoff?
Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to Lyubomyr Zdomskyy for valuable comments and especially for the idea of the proof of Proposition 4.7. 10 TARASBANAKH,SERHIIBARDYLA,ANDA.RAVSKY
References [1] T. Banakh, On κ-bounded and M-compact reflections of topological spaces, preprint (arXiv:1910.09186). [2] T. Banakh, S. Bardyla, A. Ravsky, Embeddings into countably compact Hausdorff spaces, preprint, (arXiv:1906.04541). [3] J. Baumgartner, P. Dordal, Adjoining dominating functions, J. Symbolic Logic 50:1 (1985) 94–101. [4] H. Brandenburg, A. Mysior, For every Hausdorff space Y there exists a nontrivial Moore space on which all continuous functions into Y are constant, Pacific J. Math. 111:1 (1984) 1–8. [5] D. Dikranjan, E. Giuli, S(n)-θ-closed spaces, Topology Appl. 28 (1988) 59–74. [6] D. Dikranjan, J. Pelant, Categories of topological spaces with sufficiently many sequentially closed spaces, Cahiers de Topologie et Geometrie Differentielle Categoriques, 38:4, (1997) 277–300. [7] E.K. van Douwen, The integers and topology, in: K. Kunen, J.E. Vaughan (Eds.), Handbook of set-theoretic topology, North-Holland, Amsterdam, (1984) 111–167. [8] R. Engelking, General topology, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1989. [9] I. Juh´asz, J. van Mill, W. Weiss, Variations on ω-boundedness, Israel J. Math. 194:2, (2013) 745-766. [10] I. Juh´asz, L. Soukup, Z. Szentmikl´ossy, Between countably compact and ω-bounded, Topology Appl. 195 (2015) 196–208. [11] A. Mysior, A regular space which is not completely regular, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 81:4 (1981) 652–653. [12] L.A. Steen, J.A. Seebach, Counterexamples in topology, Springer, New York–Heidelberg, (1978), 244 pp. [13] J. Vaughan, Countably compact and sequentially compact spaces, in: K. Kunen, J.E. Vaughan (Eds.), Handbook of Set-Theoretic Topology, Elsevier, (1984) 569–602.
T.Banakh: Ivan Franko National University of Lviv (Ukraine) and Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce (Poland) E-mail address: [email protected]
S. Bardyla: Institute of Mathematics, Kurt Godel¨ Research Center, University of Vienna, Austria E-mail address: [email protected]
A. Ravsky: Pidstryhach Institute for Applied Problems of Mechanics and Mathematics, Lviv, Ukraine E-mail address: [email protected]