$X$ is locally compact, Hausdorff, and has a countable family of compact subsets covering $X$, then $X$ is...
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Suppose $X$ is locally compact, Hausdorff, and has a countable family of compact subsets whose union is all of $X$. I want to show that $X$ is second-countable.
Suppose the family of countable compact subsets are labelled $C_i$, $i in Bbb N$,
Then there are a couple of ideas that come to mind but I am having trouble putting it all together.
1) Taking the complements of the $C_i$ (problem: what if an element is in all of them, also the complements might not satisfy the requirements of a basis)
2) Using local compactness to say that every point has a compact set containing it with an open neighborhood (also containing it), but how will this relate to the $C_i$ ?
Any hints appreciated.
general-topology
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Suppose $X$ is locally compact, Hausdorff, and has a countable family of compact subsets whose union is all of $X$. I want to show that $X$ is second-countable.
Suppose the family of countable compact subsets are labelled $C_i$, $i in Bbb N$,
Then there are a couple of ideas that come to mind but I am having trouble putting it all together.
1) Taking the complements of the $C_i$ (problem: what if an element is in all of them, also the complements might not satisfy the requirements of a basis)
2) Using local compactness to say that every point has a compact set containing it with an open neighborhood (also containing it), but how will this relate to the $C_i$ ?
Any hints appreciated.
general-topology
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Suppose $X$ is locally compact, Hausdorff, and has a countable family of compact subsets whose union is all of $X$. I want to show that $X$ is second-countable.
Suppose the family of countable compact subsets are labelled $C_i$, $i in Bbb N$,
Then there are a couple of ideas that come to mind but I am having trouble putting it all together.
1) Taking the complements of the $C_i$ (problem: what if an element is in all of them, also the complements might not satisfy the requirements of a basis)
2) Using local compactness to say that every point has a compact set containing it with an open neighborhood (also containing it), but how will this relate to the $C_i$ ?
Any hints appreciated.
general-topology
Suppose $X$ is locally compact, Hausdorff, and has a countable family of compact subsets whose union is all of $X$. I want to show that $X$ is second-countable.
Suppose the family of countable compact subsets are labelled $C_i$, $i in Bbb N$,
Then there are a couple of ideas that come to mind but I am having trouble putting it all together.
1) Taking the complements of the $C_i$ (problem: what if an element is in all of them, also the complements might not satisfy the requirements of a basis)
2) Using local compactness to say that every point has a compact set containing it with an open neighborhood (also containing it), but how will this relate to the $C_i$ ?
Any hints appreciated.
general-topology
general-topology
edited Nov 15 at 4:57
asked Nov 15 at 4:07
IntegrateThis
1,6971717
1,6971717
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
It is not even true that compact Hausdorff spaces are second-countable. (Of course, a compact Hausdorff space is locally compact and can be covered by a countable family of compact subsets.)
An example is the ordinal space $[ 0 , omega_1 ]$ (where $omega_1$ denotes the least uncountable ordinal).
- As a linearly-ordered space, $[0 , omega_1 ]$ is Hausdorff.
- Since $[0 , omega_1]$ has a greatest element, it is compact (this is essentially because there are no infinite strictly decreasing sequences of ordinals).
- It is not second-countable because any base must include the singletons ${ alpha }$ where $alpha < omega_1$ is a successor ordinal, and there are uncountably many of these.
More information about this space can be found on the following post on Dan Ma's Topology Blog:
- The First Uncountable Ordinal
(If you want a non-compact example of a locally compact σ-compact Hausdorff space that is not second-countable you can just take a disjoint union of countably-infinite copies of $[0,omega_1]$.)
So my conclusion is false?
– IntegrateThis
Nov 15 at 5:32
1
@IntegrateThis Correct: it is not true that every locally compact, σ-compact Hausdorff space is second-countable.
– stochastic randomness
Nov 15 at 5:55
+1............ $[0,omega_1]$ is not even first-countable.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 15 at 7:52
Why dooes the base have to include singletons and not larger open sets that could encompass them
– IntegrateThis
Nov 18 at 3:51
1
@IntegrateThis Note that given a $alpha < omega_1$ the open interval $( alpha , alpha+2)$ is the singleton ${ alpha+1 }$, so these singletons are open. If $mathcal{B}$ is a base, for every such $alpha+1$ there must be some $U in mathcal{B}$ with $alpha+1 in U subseteq { alpha+1 }$, meaning $U = { alpha + 1 }$. (More generally, call an open subset $U$ of a topological space $X$ minimally open if there is no open set $V$ satisfying $emptyset subsetneq V subsetneq U$. Then a base for a topological space must include all of the minimally open subsets.)
– stochastic randomness
Nov 18 at 6:08
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
I think the following qualifies as a counterexample . . .
Let $k$ be a cardinal number with $k > c$, where $c=|mathbb{R}|$.
Let $I=[0,1]$ with the usual topology, and let $X$ be the product of $k$ copies of $I$.
Then
$X$ is compact and Hausdorff.$\[4pt]$
$X$ is locally compact.$\[4pt]$
$X$ is covered by itself, so $X$ qualifies as being covered by a countable union of compact sets.$\[4pt]$
- The cardinality of the topology on $X$ is greater than $c$ (since $k > c$).$\[4pt]$
But $X$ is not second countable.
Suppose instead that $X$ had a countable base, $B$ say.
Then since every open subset of $X$ is the union of some subset of $B$, it would follow that the cardinality of the topology on $X$ is at most the cardinality of the power set of $B$, hence at most $c$, contradiction.
1
Right. And $kgtmathfrak c$ is more than you need: if $k$ is an uncountable cardinal, then $I^k$ is not even first countable. If $kgtmathfrak c$ then $I^k$ is not separable.
– bof
Nov 15 at 6:04
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
It is not even true that compact Hausdorff spaces are second-countable. (Of course, a compact Hausdorff space is locally compact and can be covered by a countable family of compact subsets.)
An example is the ordinal space $[ 0 , omega_1 ]$ (where $omega_1$ denotes the least uncountable ordinal).
- As a linearly-ordered space, $[0 , omega_1 ]$ is Hausdorff.
- Since $[0 , omega_1]$ has a greatest element, it is compact (this is essentially because there are no infinite strictly decreasing sequences of ordinals).
- It is not second-countable because any base must include the singletons ${ alpha }$ where $alpha < omega_1$ is a successor ordinal, and there are uncountably many of these.
More information about this space can be found on the following post on Dan Ma's Topology Blog:
- The First Uncountable Ordinal
(If you want a non-compact example of a locally compact σ-compact Hausdorff space that is not second-countable you can just take a disjoint union of countably-infinite copies of $[0,omega_1]$.)
So my conclusion is false?
– IntegrateThis
Nov 15 at 5:32
1
@IntegrateThis Correct: it is not true that every locally compact, σ-compact Hausdorff space is second-countable.
– stochastic randomness
Nov 15 at 5:55
+1............ $[0,omega_1]$ is not even first-countable.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 15 at 7:52
Why dooes the base have to include singletons and not larger open sets that could encompass them
– IntegrateThis
Nov 18 at 3:51
1
@IntegrateThis Note that given a $alpha < omega_1$ the open interval $( alpha , alpha+2)$ is the singleton ${ alpha+1 }$, so these singletons are open. If $mathcal{B}$ is a base, for every such $alpha+1$ there must be some $U in mathcal{B}$ with $alpha+1 in U subseteq { alpha+1 }$, meaning $U = { alpha + 1 }$. (More generally, call an open subset $U$ of a topological space $X$ minimally open if there is no open set $V$ satisfying $emptyset subsetneq V subsetneq U$. Then a base for a topological space must include all of the minimally open subsets.)
– stochastic randomness
Nov 18 at 6:08
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
It is not even true that compact Hausdorff spaces are second-countable. (Of course, a compact Hausdorff space is locally compact and can be covered by a countable family of compact subsets.)
An example is the ordinal space $[ 0 , omega_1 ]$ (where $omega_1$ denotes the least uncountable ordinal).
- As a linearly-ordered space, $[0 , omega_1 ]$ is Hausdorff.
- Since $[0 , omega_1]$ has a greatest element, it is compact (this is essentially because there are no infinite strictly decreasing sequences of ordinals).
- It is not second-countable because any base must include the singletons ${ alpha }$ where $alpha < omega_1$ is a successor ordinal, and there are uncountably many of these.
More information about this space can be found on the following post on Dan Ma's Topology Blog:
- The First Uncountable Ordinal
(If you want a non-compact example of a locally compact σ-compact Hausdorff space that is not second-countable you can just take a disjoint union of countably-infinite copies of $[0,omega_1]$.)
So my conclusion is false?
– IntegrateThis
Nov 15 at 5:32
1
@IntegrateThis Correct: it is not true that every locally compact, σ-compact Hausdorff space is second-countable.
– stochastic randomness
Nov 15 at 5:55
+1............ $[0,omega_1]$ is not even first-countable.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 15 at 7:52
Why dooes the base have to include singletons and not larger open sets that could encompass them
– IntegrateThis
Nov 18 at 3:51
1
@IntegrateThis Note that given a $alpha < omega_1$ the open interval $( alpha , alpha+2)$ is the singleton ${ alpha+1 }$, so these singletons are open. If $mathcal{B}$ is a base, for every such $alpha+1$ there must be some $U in mathcal{B}$ with $alpha+1 in U subseteq { alpha+1 }$, meaning $U = { alpha + 1 }$. (More generally, call an open subset $U$ of a topological space $X$ minimally open if there is no open set $V$ satisfying $emptyset subsetneq V subsetneq U$. Then a base for a topological space must include all of the minimally open subsets.)
– stochastic randomness
Nov 18 at 6:08
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
It is not even true that compact Hausdorff spaces are second-countable. (Of course, a compact Hausdorff space is locally compact and can be covered by a countable family of compact subsets.)
An example is the ordinal space $[ 0 , omega_1 ]$ (where $omega_1$ denotes the least uncountable ordinal).
- As a linearly-ordered space, $[0 , omega_1 ]$ is Hausdorff.
- Since $[0 , omega_1]$ has a greatest element, it is compact (this is essentially because there are no infinite strictly decreasing sequences of ordinals).
- It is not second-countable because any base must include the singletons ${ alpha }$ where $alpha < omega_1$ is a successor ordinal, and there are uncountably many of these.
More information about this space can be found on the following post on Dan Ma's Topology Blog:
- The First Uncountable Ordinal
(If you want a non-compact example of a locally compact σ-compact Hausdorff space that is not second-countable you can just take a disjoint union of countably-infinite copies of $[0,omega_1]$.)
It is not even true that compact Hausdorff spaces are second-countable. (Of course, a compact Hausdorff space is locally compact and can be covered by a countable family of compact subsets.)
An example is the ordinal space $[ 0 , omega_1 ]$ (where $omega_1$ denotes the least uncountable ordinal).
- As a linearly-ordered space, $[0 , omega_1 ]$ is Hausdorff.
- Since $[0 , omega_1]$ has a greatest element, it is compact (this is essentially because there are no infinite strictly decreasing sequences of ordinals).
- It is not second-countable because any base must include the singletons ${ alpha }$ where $alpha < omega_1$ is a successor ordinal, and there are uncountably many of these.
More information about this space can be found on the following post on Dan Ma's Topology Blog:
- The First Uncountable Ordinal
(If you want a non-compact example of a locally compact σ-compact Hausdorff space that is not second-countable you can just take a disjoint union of countably-infinite copies of $[0,omega_1]$.)
edited Nov 15 at 6:09
answered Nov 15 at 5:20
stochastic randomness
1687
1687
So my conclusion is false?
– IntegrateThis
Nov 15 at 5:32
1
@IntegrateThis Correct: it is not true that every locally compact, σ-compact Hausdorff space is second-countable.
– stochastic randomness
Nov 15 at 5:55
+1............ $[0,omega_1]$ is not even first-countable.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 15 at 7:52
Why dooes the base have to include singletons and not larger open sets that could encompass them
– IntegrateThis
Nov 18 at 3:51
1
@IntegrateThis Note that given a $alpha < omega_1$ the open interval $( alpha , alpha+2)$ is the singleton ${ alpha+1 }$, so these singletons are open. If $mathcal{B}$ is a base, for every such $alpha+1$ there must be some $U in mathcal{B}$ with $alpha+1 in U subseteq { alpha+1 }$, meaning $U = { alpha + 1 }$. (More generally, call an open subset $U$ of a topological space $X$ minimally open if there is no open set $V$ satisfying $emptyset subsetneq V subsetneq U$. Then a base for a topological space must include all of the minimally open subsets.)
– stochastic randomness
Nov 18 at 6:08
|
show 3 more comments
So my conclusion is false?
– IntegrateThis
Nov 15 at 5:32
1
@IntegrateThis Correct: it is not true that every locally compact, σ-compact Hausdorff space is second-countable.
– stochastic randomness
Nov 15 at 5:55
+1............ $[0,omega_1]$ is not even first-countable.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 15 at 7:52
Why dooes the base have to include singletons and not larger open sets that could encompass them
– IntegrateThis
Nov 18 at 3:51
1
@IntegrateThis Note that given a $alpha < omega_1$ the open interval $( alpha , alpha+2)$ is the singleton ${ alpha+1 }$, so these singletons are open. If $mathcal{B}$ is a base, for every such $alpha+1$ there must be some $U in mathcal{B}$ with $alpha+1 in U subseteq { alpha+1 }$, meaning $U = { alpha + 1 }$. (More generally, call an open subset $U$ of a topological space $X$ minimally open if there is no open set $V$ satisfying $emptyset subsetneq V subsetneq U$. Then a base for a topological space must include all of the minimally open subsets.)
– stochastic randomness
Nov 18 at 6:08
So my conclusion is false?
– IntegrateThis
Nov 15 at 5:32
So my conclusion is false?
– IntegrateThis
Nov 15 at 5:32
1
1
@IntegrateThis Correct: it is not true that every locally compact, σ-compact Hausdorff space is second-countable.
– stochastic randomness
Nov 15 at 5:55
@IntegrateThis Correct: it is not true that every locally compact, σ-compact Hausdorff space is second-countable.
– stochastic randomness
Nov 15 at 5:55
+1............ $[0,omega_1]$ is not even first-countable.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 15 at 7:52
+1............ $[0,omega_1]$ is not even first-countable.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 15 at 7:52
Why dooes the base have to include singletons and not larger open sets that could encompass them
– IntegrateThis
Nov 18 at 3:51
Why dooes the base have to include singletons and not larger open sets that could encompass them
– IntegrateThis
Nov 18 at 3:51
1
1
@IntegrateThis Note that given a $alpha < omega_1$ the open interval $( alpha , alpha+2)$ is the singleton ${ alpha+1 }$, so these singletons are open. If $mathcal{B}$ is a base, for every such $alpha+1$ there must be some $U in mathcal{B}$ with $alpha+1 in U subseteq { alpha+1 }$, meaning $U = { alpha + 1 }$. (More generally, call an open subset $U$ of a topological space $X$ minimally open if there is no open set $V$ satisfying $emptyset subsetneq V subsetneq U$. Then a base for a topological space must include all of the minimally open subsets.)
– stochastic randomness
Nov 18 at 6:08
@IntegrateThis Note that given a $alpha < omega_1$ the open interval $( alpha , alpha+2)$ is the singleton ${ alpha+1 }$, so these singletons are open. If $mathcal{B}$ is a base, for every such $alpha+1$ there must be some $U in mathcal{B}$ with $alpha+1 in U subseteq { alpha+1 }$, meaning $U = { alpha + 1 }$. (More generally, call an open subset $U$ of a topological space $X$ minimally open if there is no open set $V$ satisfying $emptyset subsetneq V subsetneq U$. Then a base for a topological space must include all of the minimally open subsets.)
– stochastic randomness
Nov 18 at 6:08
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
I think the following qualifies as a counterexample . . .
Let $k$ be a cardinal number with $k > c$, where $c=|mathbb{R}|$.
Let $I=[0,1]$ with the usual topology, and let $X$ be the product of $k$ copies of $I$.
Then
$X$ is compact and Hausdorff.$\[4pt]$
$X$ is locally compact.$\[4pt]$
$X$ is covered by itself, so $X$ qualifies as being covered by a countable union of compact sets.$\[4pt]$
- The cardinality of the topology on $X$ is greater than $c$ (since $k > c$).$\[4pt]$
But $X$ is not second countable.
Suppose instead that $X$ had a countable base, $B$ say.
Then since every open subset of $X$ is the union of some subset of $B$, it would follow that the cardinality of the topology on $X$ is at most the cardinality of the power set of $B$, hence at most $c$, contradiction.
1
Right. And $kgtmathfrak c$ is more than you need: if $k$ is an uncountable cardinal, then $I^k$ is not even first countable. If $kgtmathfrak c$ then $I^k$ is not separable.
– bof
Nov 15 at 6:04
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
I think the following qualifies as a counterexample . . .
Let $k$ be a cardinal number with $k > c$, where $c=|mathbb{R}|$.
Let $I=[0,1]$ with the usual topology, and let $X$ be the product of $k$ copies of $I$.
Then
$X$ is compact and Hausdorff.$\[4pt]$
$X$ is locally compact.$\[4pt]$
$X$ is covered by itself, so $X$ qualifies as being covered by a countable union of compact sets.$\[4pt]$
- The cardinality of the topology on $X$ is greater than $c$ (since $k > c$).$\[4pt]$
But $X$ is not second countable.
Suppose instead that $X$ had a countable base, $B$ say.
Then since every open subset of $X$ is the union of some subset of $B$, it would follow that the cardinality of the topology on $X$ is at most the cardinality of the power set of $B$, hence at most $c$, contradiction.
1
Right. And $kgtmathfrak c$ is more than you need: if $k$ is an uncountable cardinal, then $I^k$ is not even first countable. If $kgtmathfrak c$ then $I^k$ is not separable.
– bof
Nov 15 at 6:04
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
I think the following qualifies as a counterexample . . .
Let $k$ be a cardinal number with $k > c$, where $c=|mathbb{R}|$.
Let $I=[0,1]$ with the usual topology, and let $X$ be the product of $k$ copies of $I$.
Then
$X$ is compact and Hausdorff.$\[4pt]$
$X$ is locally compact.$\[4pt]$
$X$ is covered by itself, so $X$ qualifies as being covered by a countable union of compact sets.$\[4pt]$
- The cardinality of the topology on $X$ is greater than $c$ (since $k > c$).$\[4pt]$
But $X$ is not second countable.
Suppose instead that $X$ had a countable base, $B$ say.
Then since every open subset of $X$ is the union of some subset of $B$, it would follow that the cardinality of the topology on $X$ is at most the cardinality of the power set of $B$, hence at most $c$, contradiction.
I think the following qualifies as a counterexample . . .
Let $k$ be a cardinal number with $k > c$, where $c=|mathbb{R}|$.
Let $I=[0,1]$ with the usual topology, and let $X$ be the product of $k$ copies of $I$.
Then
$X$ is compact and Hausdorff.$\[4pt]$
$X$ is locally compact.$\[4pt]$
$X$ is covered by itself, so $X$ qualifies as being covered by a countable union of compact sets.$\[4pt]$
- The cardinality of the topology on $X$ is greater than $c$ (since $k > c$).$\[4pt]$
But $X$ is not second countable.
Suppose instead that $X$ had a countable base, $B$ say.
Then since every open subset of $X$ is the union of some subset of $B$, it would follow that the cardinality of the topology on $X$ is at most the cardinality of the power set of $B$, hence at most $c$, contradiction.
answered Nov 15 at 5:38
quasi
35.9k22562
35.9k22562
1
Right. And $kgtmathfrak c$ is more than you need: if $k$ is an uncountable cardinal, then $I^k$ is not even first countable. If $kgtmathfrak c$ then $I^k$ is not separable.
– bof
Nov 15 at 6:04
add a comment |
1
Right. And $kgtmathfrak c$ is more than you need: if $k$ is an uncountable cardinal, then $I^k$ is not even first countable. If $kgtmathfrak c$ then $I^k$ is not separable.
– bof
Nov 15 at 6:04
1
1
Right. And $kgtmathfrak c$ is more than you need: if $k$ is an uncountable cardinal, then $I^k$ is not even first countable. If $kgtmathfrak c$ then $I^k$ is not separable.
– bof
Nov 15 at 6:04
Right. And $kgtmathfrak c$ is more than you need: if $k$ is an uncountable cardinal, then $I^k$ is not even first countable. If $kgtmathfrak c$ then $I^k$ is not separable.
– bof
Nov 15 at 6:04
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2999201%2fx-is-locally-compact-hausdorff-and-has-a-countable-family-of-compact-subsets%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown