The product of a paracompact space and a compact space is paracompact. (Why?)
$begingroup$
A paracompact space is a space in which every open cover has a locally finite refinement.
A compact space is a space in which every open cover has a finite subcover.
Why must the product of a compact and a paracompact space be paracompact?
I really have very little intuition about how to go about this question, so any hints or a proof would be greatly appreciated.
general-topology compactness paracompactness
$endgroup$
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
A paracompact space is a space in which every open cover has a locally finite refinement.
A compact space is a space in which every open cover has a finite subcover.
Why must the product of a compact and a paracompact space be paracompact?
I really have very little intuition about how to go about this question, so any hints or a proof would be greatly appreciated.
general-topology compactness paracompactness
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
@Mark: "two such spaces" is unclear; do you mean, as your title suggests, a product of a paracompact and a compact space? Or do you mean, as "two such spaces" suggests, the product of two paracompact, or of two compact spaces? Or all of the above?
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:00
$begingroup$
@Arturo: Sorry, edited for clarity.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 2 '11 at 23:13
1
$begingroup$
@Mark: The result as stated is false, because you are asking the paracompact space to be Hausdorff but not the compact one. Take a product of a paracompact space with an indiscrete finite space; it will be non-Hausdorff, hence not paracompact by your definition. You should either ask for Hausdorff in both, or in neither (both are definitions that are used by some).
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:31
$begingroup$
@Arturo: Why would the product of a paracompact and indiscrete space be non-Hausdorff? (Intuitively it seems that the product of a Hausdorff space and any other space should be Hausdorff)
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 2 '11 at 23:39
3
$begingroup$
@Mark: Take the underlying sets of $X$ and $Y$ to be ${x,y}$, give $X$ the discrete topology, $Y$ the indiscrete topology. The open sets of $Xtimes Y$ are $emptyset$, ${(x,x),(x,y)}$, ${(y,x), (y,y)}$, and $Xtimes Y$. What are the disjoint neighborhoods of $(x,x)$ and $(x,y)$? The error in your intuition is that $(a,b)neq(c,d)$ does not imply $aneq c$.
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:53
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
A paracompact space is a space in which every open cover has a locally finite refinement.
A compact space is a space in which every open cover has a finite subcover.
Why must the product of a compact and a paracompact space be paracompact?
I really have very little intuition about how to go about this question, so any hints or a proof would be greatly appreciated.
general-topology compactness paracompactness
$endgroup$
A paracompact space is a space in which every open cover has a locally finite refinement.
A compact space is a space in which every open cover has a finite subcover.
Why must the product of a compact and a paracompact space be paracompact?
I really have very little intuition about how to go about this question, so any hints or a proof would be greatly appreciated.
general-topology compactness paracompactness
general-topology compactness paracompactness
edited Dec 9 '18 at 21:54
Eric Wofsey
183k13209337
183k13209337
asked Jan 2 '11 at 22:56
MarkMark
2,01222449
2,01222449
$begingroup$
@Mark: "two such spaces" is unclear; do you mean, as your title suggests, a product of a paracompact and a compact space? Or do you mean, as "two such spaces" suggests, the product of two paracompact, or of two compact spaces? Or all of the above?
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:00
$begingroup$
@Arturo: Sorry, edited for clarity.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 2 '11 at 23:13
1
$begingroup$
@Mark: The result as stated is false, because you are asking the paracompact space to be Hausdorff but not the compact one. Take a product of a paracompact space with an indiscrete finite space; it will be non-Hausdorff, hence not paracompact by your definition. You should either ask for Hausdorff in both, or in neither (both are definitions that are used by some).
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:31
$begingroup$
@Arturo: Why would the product of a paracompact and indiscrete space be non-Hausdorff? (Intuitively it seems that the product of a Hausdorff space and any other space should be Hausdorff)
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 2 '11 at 23:39
3
$begingroup$
@Mark: Take the underlying sets of $X$ and $Y$ to be ${x,y}$, give $X$ the discrete topology, $Y$ the indiscrete topology. The open sets of $Xtimes Y$ are $emptyset$, ${(x,x),(x,y)}$, ${(y,x), (y,y)}$, and $Xtimes Y$. What are the disjoint neighborhoods of $(x,x)$ and $(x,y)$? The error in your intuition is that $(a,b)neq(c,d)$ does not imply $aneq c$.
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:53
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
@Mark: "two such spaces" is unclear; do you mean, as your title suggests, a product of a paracompact and a compact space? Or do you mean, as "two such spaces" suggests, the product of two paracompact, or of two compact spaces? Or all of the above?
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:00
$begingroup$
@Arturo: Sorry, edited for clarity.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 2 '11 at 23:13
1
$begingroup$
@Mark: The result as stated is false, because you are asking the paracompact space to be Hausdorff but not the compact one. Take a product of a paracompact space with an indiscrete finite space; it will be non-Hausdorff, hence not paracompact by your definition. You should either ask for Hausdorff in both, or in neither (both are definitions that are used by some).
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:31
$begingroup$
@Arturo: Why would the product of a paracompact and indiscrete space be non-Hausdorff? (Intuitively it seems that the product of a Hausdorff space and any other space should be Hausdorff)
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 2 '11 at 23:39
3
$begingroup$
@Mark: Take the underlying sets of $X$ and $Y$ to be ${x,y}$, give $X$ the discrete topology, $Y$ the indiscrete topology. The open sets of $Xtimes Y$ are $emptyset$, ${(x,x),(x,y)}$, ${(y,x), (y,y)}$, and $Xtimes Y$. What are the disjoint neighborhoods of $(x,x)$ and $(x,y)$? The error in your intuition is that $(a,b)neq(c,d)$ does not imply $aneq c$.
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:53
$begingroup$
@Mark: "two such spaces" is unclear; do you mean, as your title suggests, a product of a paracompact and a compact space? Or do you mean, as "two such spaces" suggests, the product of two paracompact, or of two compact spaces? Or all of the above?
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:00
$begingroup$
@Mark: "two such spaces" is unclear; do you mean, as your title suggests, a product of a paracompact and a compact space? Or do you mean, as "two such spaces" suggests, the product of two paracompact, or of two compact spaces? Or all of the above?
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:00
$begingroup$
@Arturo: Sorry, edited for clarity.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 2 '11 at 23:13
$begingroup$
@Arturo: Sorry, edited for clarity.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 2 '11 at 23:13
1
1
$begingroup$
@Mark: The result as stated is false, because you are asking the paracompact space to be Hausdorff but not the compact one. Take a product of a paracompact space with an indiscrete finite space; it will be non-Hausdorff, hence not paracompact by your definition. You should either ask for Hausdorff in both, or in neither (both are definitions that are used by some).
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:31
$begingroup$
@Mark: The result as stated is false, because you are asking the paracompact space to be Hausdorff but not the compact one. Take a product of a paracompact space with an indiscrete finite space; it will be non-Hausdorff, hence not paracompact by your definition. You should either ask for Hausdorff in both, or in neither (both are definitions that are used by some).
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:31
$begingroup$
@Arturo: Why would the product of a paracompact and indiscrete space be non-Hausdorff? (Intuitively it seems that the product of a Hausdorff space and any other space should be Hausdorff)
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 2 '11 at 23:39
$begingroup$
@Arturo: Why would the product of a paracompact and indiscrete space be non-Hausdorff? (Intuitively it seems that the product of a Hausdorff space and any other space should be Hausdorff)
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 2 '11 at 23:39
3
3
$begingroup$
@Mark: Take the underlying sets of $X$ and $Y$ to be ${x,y}$, give $X$ the discrete topology, $Y$ the indiscrete topology. The open sets of $Xtimes Y$ are $emptyset$, ${(x,x),(x,y)}$, ${(y,x), (y,y)}$, and $Xtimes Y$. What are the disjoint neighborhoods of $(x,x)$ and $(x,y)$? The error in your intuition is that $(a,b)neq(c,d)$ does not imply $aneq c$.
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:53
$begingroup$
@Mark: Take the underlying sets of $X$ and $Y$ to be ${x,y}$, give $X$ the discrete topology, $Y$ the indiscrete topology. The open sets of $Xtimes Y$ are $emptyset$, ${(x,x),(x,y)}$, ${(y,x), (y,y)}$, and $Xtimes Y$. What are the disjoint neighborhoods of $(x,x)$ and $(x,y)$? The error in your intuition is that $(a,b)neq(c,d)$ does not imply $aneq c$.
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:53
|
show 3 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think Trevor is right. Here are the details (this is an adaptation of the classical proof that the product of two compact spaces is a compact space that you can find in Munkres, for instance).
Let $X$ be a paracompact space, $Y$ a compact one and ${cal U}$ an open cover of $X times Y$.
For any $x in X$, the slice $left{ x right} times Y$ is a compact space and ${cal U}$ an open cover of it (as a subspace). So it admits a finite subcover $U_{x,1}, dots , U_{x,n_x} in {cal U}$. Let us call $N_x = U_{x,1} cup dots cup U_{x,n_x}$ their union.
So $N_x$ is an open set that contains the slice $left{ x right} times Y$. Because of the tube lemma, there exists an open set $W_x subset X$ such that
$$
left{ x right} times Y quad subset quad W_x times Y quad subset quad N_x .
$$
Now, those $W_x$ form an open cover ${cal W}$ of $X$. By hypothesis, there is a locally finite refinement ${cal W}' = left{ W_{x_i}right}$, $iin I$ for some index set $I$.
Consider the following subcover of ${cal U}$:
$$
{cal U}' = left{ U_{x_i,j}right} ,
$$
with $iin I$ and $j = 1, dots , n_{x_i}$.
Let us show that ${cal U}'$ is a locally finite subcover of ${cal U}$: take any point $(x,y) in X times Y$. By hypothesis, there is a neighborhood $V subset X$ of $x$ such that $V$ interesects only finitely many of the sets of ${cal W}'$. Then $Vtimes Y$ is a neighborhood of $(x,y)$ that intersects only finitely many of the sets of ${cal U}'$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You have the step: Now, those Wx form an open cover W of X. By hypothesis, there is a locally finite refinement W′={Wxi} Here, it seems that you are assuming a finite subcover, not a locally finite refinement. Also, for the last step, what if the set V contains infinitely many points? Then it seems it contains infinitely many slices of the form {x}*Y, and each slice intersects at least one neighborhood in your refinement.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 3 '11 at 16:24
$begingroup$
Actually, I get it now, thanks!
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 4 '11 at 1:16
1
$begingroup$
Are you sure the last sentence is correct? I fail to see how this holds true (might completely be on me, I'd just like to understand, then): From what I understand all we can conclude is that $V times Y$ is contained in finitely many of the sets of $mathcal{U}'$; however, I don't get how we can assume that other elements of $mathcal{U}'$ have empty intersection with $V times Y$. I'm thinking of $W_x subsetneq N_x,,;x in X$...
$endgroup$
– polynomial_donut
Jun 1 '17 at 19:30
1
$begingroup$
Just found a proof at topospaces.subwiki.org/wiki/… ; there an important last step is included, which I would say is missing here. However, they are a bit sloppy in point 5, as they miss to state explicitly that they are only looking at finitely many intersections for each $P$.
$endgroup$
– polynomial_donut
Jun 1 '17 at 21:15
1
$begingroup$
The fix I proposed also misses a step, so I decided I should write up a solution instead
$endgroup$
– suncup224
Sep 30 '17 at 3:36
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
The key idea is indeed to use the "tube lemma", as d.t. did in his solution, but there is a small gap in his solution.
(This proof does not assume prior knowledge of tube lemma)
Let $X$ be paracompact and $Y$ be compact. Let $mathcal{A}$ be an open cover of $Xtimes Y$.
(Tube lemma part) First fix $xin X$, and for each $y in Y$, find $Ainmathcal{A}$ and basis element $Utimes V$ such that $(x,y)in Utimes Vsubseteq A$. As $y$ ranges in $Y$, these various $Utimes V$ cover ${x}times Y$, which is compact. Thus there exists finitely many $U_1times V_1 subseteq A_1,dots,U_ntimes V_nsubseteq A_n$ that cover ${x}times Y$. Let $U_x = U_1cap dots cap U_n$. For later use, let $mathcal{A}_x={A_1,...,A_n}$.
Now, ${U_x}_{xin X}$ is an open cover of $X$. Using paracompactness, there is an locally finite open refinement $mathcal{B}$ that covers $X$. For purpose of notation, suppose $B_i,iin I$ are the elements of $mathcal{B}$. Using the refinement property, for each $iin I$, pick $x_iin X$ such that $B_isubseteq U_{x_i}$.
Consider the open refinement $mathcal{C}$ of $mathcal{A}$ given by
$$mathcal{C_{x_i}}:={Acap (B_itimes Y)}_{Ain mathcal{A}_{x_i}},quad mathcal{C}:=bigcup_{iin I}mathcal{C}_{x_i}$$
To prove that this is a cover, consider any $(x,y)in Xtimes Y$. First $x$ is in some $B_i$. Since $mathcal{C}_{x_i}$ covers $B_i times Y$, $(x,y)$ is covered by $mathcal{C}$.
To prove that it is locally finite, consider any $(x,y)in Xtimes Y$. First there exists an open neighbourhood $Usubseteq X$ of $x$ that intersects only finitely many elements of $mathcal{B}$, say $B_1,...,B_m$. Then $Utimes Y$ is the desired neighbourhood of $(x,y)$ that only intersects finitely many elements of $mathcal{C}$ as it can only intersect elements from $mathcal{C}_{x_1},...,mathcal{C}_{x_m}$, each of which is a finite collection.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You could prove that the product of a paracompact space and a compact space is paracompact by using the tube lemma.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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%2f16172%2fthe-product-of-a-paracompact-space-and-a-compact-space-is-paracompact-why%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think Trevor is right. Here are the details (this is an adaptation of the classical proof that the product of two compact spaces is a compact space that you can find in Munkres, for instance).
Let $X$ be a paracompact space, $Y$ a compact one and ${cal U}$ an open cover of $X times Y$.
For any $x in X$, the slice $left{ x right} times Y$ is a compact space and ${cal U}$ an open cover of it (as a subspace). So it admits a finite subcover $U_{x,1}, dots , U_{x,n_x} in {cal U}$. Let us call $N_x = U_{x,1} cup dots cup U_{x,n_x}$ their union.
So $N_x$ is an open set that contains the slice $left{ x right} times Y$. Because of the tube lemma, there exists an open set $W_x subset X$ such that
$$
left{ x right} times Y quad subset quad W_x times Y quad subset quad N_x .
$$
Now, those $W_x$ form an open cover ${cal W}$ of $X$. By hypothesis, there is a locally finite refinement ${cal W}' = left{ W_{x_i}right}$, $iin I$ for some index set $I$.
Consider the following subcover of ${cal U}$:
$$
{cal U}' = left{ U_{x_i,j}right} ,
$$
with $iin I$ and $j = 1, dots , n_{x_i}$.
Let us show that ${cal U}'$ is a locally finite subcover of ${cal U}$: take any point $(x,y) in X times Y$. By hypothesis, there is a neighborhood $V subset X$ of $x$ such that $V$ interesects only finitely many of the sets of ${cal W}'$. Then $Vtimes Y$ is a neighborhood of $(x,y)$ that intersects only finitely many of the sets of ${cal U}'$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You have the step: Now, those Wx form an open cover W of X. By hypothesis, there is a locally finite refinement W′={Wxi} Here, it seems that you are assuming a finite subcover, not a locally finite refinement. Also, for the last step, what if the set V contains infinitely many points? Then it seems it contains infinitely many slices of the form {x}*Y, and each slice intersects at least one neighborhood in your refinement.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 3 '11 at 16:24
$begingroup$
Actually, I get it now, thanks!
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 4 '11 at 1:16
1
$begingroup$
Are you sure the last sentence is correct? I fail to see how this holds true (might completely be on me, I'd just like to understand, then): From what I understand all we can conclude is that $V times Y$ is contained in finitely many of the sets of $mathcal{U}'$; however, I don't get how we can assume that other elements of $mathcal{U}'$ have empty intersection with $V times Y$. I'm thinking of $W_x subsetneq N_x,,;x in X$...
$endgroup$
– polynomial_donut
Jun 1 '17 at 19:30
1
$begingroup$
Just found a proof at topospaces.subwiki.org/wiki/… ; there an important last step is included, which I would say is missing here. However, they are a bit sloppy in point 5, as they miss to state explicitly that they are only looking at finitely many intersections for each $P$.
$endgroup$
– polynomial_donut
Jun 1 '17 at 21:15
1
$begingroup$
The fix I proposed also misses a step, so I decided I should write up a solution instead
$endgroup$
– suncup224
Sep 30 '17 at 3:36
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I think Trevor is right. Here are the details (this is an adaptation of the classical proof that the product of two compact spaces is a compact space that you can find in Munkres, for instance).
Let $X$ be a paracompact space, $Y$ a compact one and ${cal U}$ an open cover of $X times Y$.
For any $x in X$, the slice $left{ x right} times Y$ is a compact space and ${cal U}$ an open cover of it (as a subspace). So it admits a finite subcover $U_{x,1}, dots , U_{x,n_x} in {cal U}$. Let us call $N_x = U_{x,1} cup dots cup U_{x,n_x}$ their union.
So $N_x$ is an open set that contains the slice $left{ x right} times Y$. Because of the tube lemma, there exists an open set $W_x subset X$ such that
$$
left{ x right} times Y quad subset quad W_x times Y quad subset quad N_x .
$$
Now, those $W_x$ form an open cover ${cal W}$ of $X$. By hypothesis, there is a locally finite refinement ${cal W}' = left{ W_{x_i}right}$, $iin I$ for some index set $I$.
Consider the following subcover of ${cal U}$:
$$
{cal U}' = left{ U_{x_i,j}right} ,
$$
with $iin I$ and $j = 1, dots , n_{x_i}$.
Let us show that ${cal U}'$ is a locally finite subcover of ${cal U}$: take any point $(x,y) in X times Y$. By hypothesis, there is a neighborhood $V subset X$ of $x$ such that $V$ interesects only finitely many of the sets of ${cal W}'$. Then $Vtimes Y$ is a neighborhood of $(x,y)$ that intersects only finitely many of the sets of ${cal U}'$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You have the step: Now, those Wx form an open cover W of X. By hypothesis, there is a locally finite refinement W′={Wxi} Here, it seems that you are assuming a finite subcover, not a locally finite refinement. Also, for the last step, what if the set V contains infinitely many points? Then it seems it contains infinitely many slices of the form {x}*Y, and each slice intersects at least one neighborhood in your refinement.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 3 '11 at 16:24
$begingroup$
Actually, I get it now, thanks!
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 4 '11 at 1:16
1
$begingroup$
Are you sure the last sentence is correct? I fail to see how this holds true (might completely be on me, I'd just like to understand, then): From what I understand all we can conclude is that $V times Y$ is contained in finitely many of the sets of $mathcal{U}'$; however, I don't get how we can assume that other elements of $mathcal{U}'$ have empty intersection with $V times Y$. I'm thinking of $W_x subsetneq N_x,,;x in X$...
$endgroup$
– polynomial_donut
Jun 1 '17 at 19:30
1
$begingroup$
Just found a proof at topospaces.subwiki.org/wiki/… ; there an important last step is included, which I would say is missing here. However, they are a bit sloppy in point 5, as they miss to state explicitly that they are only looking at finitely many intersections for each $P$.
$endgroup$
– polynomial_donut
Jun 1 '17 at 21:15
1
$begingroup$
The fix I proposed also misses a step, so I decided I should write up a solution instead
$endgroup$
– suncup224
Sep 30 '17 at 3:36
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I think Trevor is right. Here are the details (this is an adaptation of the classical proof that the product of two compact spaces is a compact space that you can find in Munkres, for instance).
Let $X$ be a paracompact space, $Y$ a compact one and ${cal U}$ an open cover of $X times Y$.
For any $x in X$, the slice $left{ x right} times Y$ is a compact space and ${cal U}$ an open cover of it (as a subspace). So it admits a finite subcover $U_{x,1}, dots , U_{x,n_x} in {cal U}$. Let us call $N_x = U_{x,1} cup dots cup U_{x,n_x}$ their union.
So $N_x$ is an open set that contains the slice $left{ x right} times Y$. Because of the tube lemma, there exists an open set $W_x subset X$ such that
$$
left{ x right} times Y quad subset quad W_x times Y quad subset quad N_x .
$$
Now, those $W_x$ form an open cover ${cal W}$ of $X$. By hypothesis, there is a locally finite refinement ${cal W}' = left{ W_{x_i}right}$, $iin I$ for some index set $I$.
Consider the following subcover of ${cal U}$:
$$
{cal U}' = left{ U_{x_i,j}right} ,
$$
with $iin I$ and $j = 1, dots , n_{x_i}$.
Let us show that ${cal U}'$ is a locally finite subcover of ${cal U}$: take any point $(x,y) in X times Y$. By hypothesis, there is a neighborhood $V subset X$ of $x$ such that $V$ interesects only finitely many of the sets of ${cal W}'$. Then $Vtimes Y$ is a neighborhood of $(x,y)$ that intersects only finitely many of the sets of ${cal U}'$.
$endgroup$
I think Trevor is right. Here are the details (this is an adaptation of the classical proof that the product of two compact spaces is a compact space that you can find in Munkres, for instance).
Let $X$ be a paracompact space, $Y$ a compact one and ${cal U}$ an open cover of $X times Y$.
For any $x in X$, the slice $left{ x right} times Y$ is a compact space and ${cal U}$ an open cover of it (as a subspace). So it admits a finite subcover $U_{x,1}, dots , U_{x,n_x} in {cal U}$. Let us call $N_x = U_{x,1} cup dots cup U_{x,n_x}$ their union.
So $N_x$ is an open set that contains the slice $left{ x right} times Y$. Because of the tube lemma, there exists an open set $W_x subset X$ such that
$$
left{ x right} times Y quad subset quad W_x times Y quad subset quad N_x .
$$
Now, those $W_x$ form an open cover ${cal W}$ of $X$. By hypothesis, there is a locally finite refinement ${cal W}' = left{ W_{x_i}right}$, $iin I$ for some index set $I$.
Consider the following subcover of ${cal U}$:
$$
{cal U}' = left{ U_{x_i,j}right} ,
$$
with $iin I$ and $j = 1, dots , n_{x_i}$.
Let us show that ${cal U}'$ is a locally finite subcover of ${cal U}$: take any point $(x,y) in X times Y$. By hypothesis, there is a neighborhood $V subset X$ of $x$ such that $V$ interesects only finitely many of the sets of ${cal W}'$. Then $Vtimes Y$ is a neighborhood of $(x,y)$ that intersects only finitely many of the sets of ${cal U}'$.
edited Jan 3 '11 at 4:36
answered Jan 3 '11 at 4:31
d.t.d.t.
14k22974
14k22974
$begingroup$
You have the step: Now, those Wx form an open cover W of X. By hypothesis, there is a locally finite refinement W′={Wxi} Here, it seems that you are assuming a finite subcover, not a locally finite refinement. Also, for the last step, what if the set V contains infinitely many points? Then it seems it contains infinitely many slices of the form {x}*Y, and each slice intersects at least one neighborhood in your refinement.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 3 '11 at 16:24
$begingroup$
Actually, I get it now, thanks!
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 4 '11 at 1:16
1
$begingroup$
Are you sure the last sentence is correct? I fail to see how this holds true (might completely be on me, I'd just like to understand, then): From what I understand all we can conclude is that $V times Y$ is contained in finitely many of the sets of $mathcal{U}'$; however, I don't get how we can assume that other elements of $mathcal{U}'$ have empty intersection with $V times Y$. I'm thinking of $W_x subsetneq N_x,,;x in X$...
$endgroup$
– polynomial_donut
Jun 1 '17 at 19:30
1
$begingroup$
Just found a proof at topospaces.subwiki.org/wiki/… ; there an important last step is included, which I would say is missing here. However, they are a bit sloppy in point 5, as they miss to state explicitly that they are only looking at finitely many intersections for each $P$.
$endgroup$
– polynomial_donut
Jun 1 '17 at 21:15
1
$begingroup$
The fix I proposed also misses a step, so I decided I should write up a solution instead
$endgroup$
– suncup224
Sep 30 '17 at 3:36
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
You have the step: Now, those Wx form an open cover W of X. By hypothesis, there is a locally finite refinement W′={Wxi} Here, it seems that you are assuming a finite subcover, not a locally finite refinement. Also, for the last step, what if the set V contains infinitely many points? Then it seems it contains infinitely many slices of the form {x}*Y, and each slice intersects at least one neighborhood in your refinement.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 3 '11 at 16:24
$begingroup$
Actually, I get it now, thanks!
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 4 '11 at 1:16
1
$begingroup$
Are you sure the last sentence is correct? I fail to see how this holds true (might completely be on me, I'd just like to understand, then): From what I understand all we can conclude is that $V times Y$ is contained in finitely many of the sets of $mathcal{U}'$; however, I don't get how we can assume that other elements of $mathcal{U}'$ have empty intersection with $V times Y$. I'm thinking of $W_x subsetneq N_x,,;x in X$...
$endgroup$
– polynomial_donut
Jun 1 '17 at 19:30
1
$begingroup$
Just found a proof at topospaces.subwiki.org/wiki/… ; there an important last step is included, which I would say is missing here. However, they are a bit sloppy in point 5, as they miss to state explicitly that they are only looking at finitely many intersections for each $P$.
$endgroup$
– polynomial_donut
Jun 1 '17 at 21:15
1
$begingroup$
The fix I proposed also misses a step, so I decided I should write up a solution instead
$endgroup$
– suncup224
Sep 30 '17 at 3:36
$begingroup$
You have the step: Now, those Wx form an open cover W of X. By hypothesis, there is a locally finite refinement W′={Wxi} Here, it seems that you are assuming a finite subcover, not a locally finite refinement. Also, for the last step, what if the set V contains infinitely many points? Then it seems it contains infinitely many slices of the form {x}*Y, and each slice intersects at least one neighborhood in your refinement.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 3 '11 at 16:24
$begingroup$
You have the step: Now, those Wx form an open cover W of X. By hypothesis, there is a locally finite refinement W′={Wxi} Here, it seems that you are assuming a finite subcover, not a locally finite refinement. Also, for the last step, what if the set V contains infinitely many points? Then it seems it contains infinitely many slices of the form {x}*Y, and each slice intersects at least one neighborhood in your refinement.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 3 '11 at 16:24
$begingroup$
Actually, I get it now, thanks!
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 4 '11 at 1:16
$begingroup$
Actually, I get it now, thanks!
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 4 '11 at 1:16
1
1
$begingroup$
Are you sure the last sentence is correct? I fail to see how this holds true (might completely be on me, I'd just like to understand, then): From what I understand all we can conclude is that $V times Y$ is contained in finitely many of the sets of $mathcal{U}'$; however, I don't get how we can assume that other elements of $mathcal{U}'$ have empty intersection with $V times Y$. I'm thinking of $W_x subsetneq N_x,,;x in X$...
$endgroup$
– polynomial_donut
Jun 1 '17 at 19:30
$begingroup$
Are you sure the last sentence is correct? I fail to see how this holds true (might completely be on me, I'd just like to understand, then): From what I understand all we can conclude is that $V times Y$ is contained in finitely many of the sets of $mathcal{U}'$; however, I don't get how we can assume that other elements of $mathcal{U}'$ have empty intersection with $V times Y$. I'm thinking of $W_x subsetneq N_x,,;x in X$...
$endgroup$
– polynomial_donut
Jun 1 '17 at 19:30
1
1
$begingroup$
Just found a proof at topospaces.subwiki.org/wiki/… ; there an important last step is included, which I would say is missing here. However, they are a bit sloppy in point 5, as they miss to state explicitly that they are only looking at finitely many intersections for each $P$.
$endgroup$
– polynomial_donut
Jun 1 '17 at 21:15
$begingroup$
Just found a proof at topospaces.subwiki.org/wiki/… ; there an important last step is included, which I would say is missing here. However, they are a bit sloppy in point 5, as they miss to state explicitly that they are only looking at finitely many intersections for each $P$.
$endgroup$
– polynomial_donut
Jun 1 '17 at 21:15
1
1
$begingroup$
The fix I proposed also misses a step, so I decided I should write up a solution instead
$endgroup$
– suncup224
Sep 30 '17 at 3:36
$begingroup$
The fix I proposed also misses a step, so I decided I should write up a solution instead
$endgroup$
– suncup224
Sep 30 '17 at 3:36
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
The key idea is indeed to use the "tube lemma", as d.t. did in his solution, but there is a small gap in his solution.
(This proof does not assume prior knowledge of tube lemma)
Let $X$ be paracompact and $Y$ be compact. Let $mathcal{A}$ be an open cover of $Xtimes Y$.
(Tube lemma part) First fix $xin X$, and for each $y in Y$, find $Ainmathcal{A}$ and basis element $Utimes V$ such that $(x,y)in Utimes Vsubseteq A$. As $y$ ranges in $Y$, these various $Utimes V$ cover ${x}times Y$, which is compact. Thus there exists finitely many $U_1times V_1 subseteq A_1,dots,U_ntimes V_nsubseteq A_n$ that cover ${x}times Y$. Let $U_x = U_1cap dots cap U_n$. For later use, let $mathcal{A}_x={A_1,...,A_n}$.
Now, ${U_x}_{xin X}$ is an open cover of $X$. Using paracompactness, there is an locally finite open refinement $mathcal{B}$ that covers $X$. For purpose of notation, suppose $B_i,iin I$ are the elements of $mathcal{B}$. Using the refinement property, for each $iin I$, pick $x_iin X$ such that $B_isubseteq U_{x_i}$.
Consider the open refinement $mathcal{C}$ of $mathcal{A}$ given by
$$mathcal{C_{x_i}}:={Acap (B_itimes Y)}_{Ain mathcal{A}_{x_i}},quad mathcal{C}:=bigcup_{iin I}mathcal{C}_{x_i}$$
To prove that this is a cover, consider any $(x,y)in Xtimes Y$. First $x$ is in some $B_i$. Since $mathcal{C}_{x_i}$ covers $B_i times Y$, $(x,y)$ is covered by $mathcal{C}$.
To prove that it is locally finite, consider any $(x,y)in Xtimes Y$. First there exists an open neighbourhood $Usubseteq X$ of $x$ that intersects only finitely many elements of $mathcal{B}$, say $B_1,...,B_m$. Then $Utimes Y$ is the desired neighbourhood of $(x,y)$ that only intersects finitely many elements of $mathcal{C}$ as it can only intersect elements from $mathcal{C}_{x_1},...,mathcal{C}_{x_m}$, each of which is a finite collection.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The key idea is indeed to use the "tube lemma", as d.t. did in his solution, but there is a small gap in his solution.
(This proof does not assume prior knowledge of tube lemma)
Let $X$ be paracompact and $Y$ be compact. Let $mathcal{A}$ be an open cover of $Xtimes Y$.
(Tube lemma part) First fix $xin X$, and for each $y in Y$, find $Ainmathcal{A}$ and basis element $Utimes V$ such that $(x,y)in Utimes Vsubseteq A$. As $y$ ranges in $Y$, these various $Utimes V$ cover ${x}times Y$, which is compact. Thus there exists finitely many $U_1times V_1 subseteq A_1,dots,U_ntimes V_nsubseteq A_n$ that cover ${x}times Y$. Let $U_x = U_1cap dots cap U_n$. For later use, let $mathcal{A}_x={A_1,...,A_n}$.
Now, ${U_x}_{xin X}$ is an open cover of $X$. Using paracompactness, there is an locally finite open refinement $mathcal{B}$ that covers $X$. For purpose of notation, suppose $B_i,iin I$ are the elements of $mathcal{B}$. Using the refinement property, for each $iin I$, pick $x_iin X$ such that $B_isubseteq U_{x_i}$.
Consider the open refinement $mathcal{C}$ of $mathcal{A}$ given by
$$mathcal{C_{x_i}}:={Acap (B_itimes Y)}_{Ain mathcal{A}_{x_i}},quad mathcal{C}:=bigcup_{iin I}mathcal{C}_{x_i}$$
To prove that this is a cover, consider any $(x,y)in Xtimes Y$. First $x$ is in some $B_i$. Since $mathcal{C}_{x_i}$ covers $B_i times Y$, $(x,y)$ is covered by $mathcal{C}$.
To prove that it is locally finite, consider any $(x,y)in Xtimes Y$. First there exists an open neighbourhood $Usubseteq X$ of $x$ that intersects only finitely many elements of $mathcal{B}$, say $B_1,...,B_m$. Then $Utimes Y$ is the desired neighbourhood of $(x,y)$ that only intersects finitely many elements of $mathcal{C}$ as it can only intersect elements from $mathcal{C}_{x_1},...,mathcal{C}_{x_m}$, each of which is a finite collection.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The key idea is indeed to use the "tube lemma", as d.t. did in his solution, but there is a small gap in his solution.
(This proof does not assume prior knowledge of tube lemma)
Let $X$ be paracompact and $Y$ be compact. Let $mathcal{A}$ be an open cover of $Xtimes Y$.
(Tube lemma part) First fix $xin X$, and for each $y in Y$, find $Ainmathcal{A}$ and basis element $Utimes V$ such that $(x,y)in Utimes Vsubseteq A$. As $y$ ranges in $Y$, these various $Utimes V$ cover ${x}times Y$, which is compact. Thus there exists finitely many $U_1times V_1 subseteq A_1,dots,U_ntimes V_nsubseteq A_n$ that cover ${x}times Y$. Let $U_x = U_1cap dots cap U_n$. For later use, let $mathcal{A}_x={A_1,...,A_n}$.
Now, ${U_x}_{xin X}$ is an open cover of $X$. Using paracompactness, there is an locally finite open refinement $mathcal{B}$ that covers $X$. For purpose of notation, suppose $B_i,iin I$ are the elements of $mathcal{B}$. Using the refinement property, for each $iin I$, pick $x_iin X$ such that $B_isubseteq U_{x_i}$.
Consider the open refinement $mathcal{C}$ of $mathcal{A}$ given by
$$mathcal{C_{x_i}}:={Acap (B_itimes Y)}_{Ain mathcal{A}_{x_i}},quad mathcal{C}:=bigcup_{iin I}mathcal{C}_{x_i}$$
To prove that this is a cover, consider any $(x,y)in Xtimes Y$. First $x$ is in some $B_i$. Since $mathcal{C}_{x_i}$ covers $B_i times Y$, $(x,y)$ is covered by $mathcal{C}$.
To prove that it is locally finite, consider any $(x,y)in Xtimes Y$. First there exists an open neighbourhood $Usubseteq X$ of $x$ that intersects only finitely many elements of $mathcal{B}$, say $B_1,...,B_m$. Then $Utimes Y$ is the desired neighbourhood of $(x,y)$ that only intersects finitely many elements of $mathcal{C}$ as it can only intersect elements from $mathcal{C}_{x_1},...,mathcal{C}_{x_m}$, each of which is a finite collection.
$endgroup$
The key idea is indeed to use the "tube lemma", as d.t. did in his solution, but there is a small gap in his solution.
(This proof does not assume prior knowledge of tube lemma)
Let $X$ be paracompact and $Y$ be compact. Let $mathcal{A}$ be an open cover of $Xtimes Y$.
(Tube lemma part) First fix $xin X$, and for each $y in Y$, find $Ainmathcal{A}$ and basis element $Utimes V$ such that $(x,y)in Utimes Vsubseteq A$. As $y$ ranges in $Y$, these various $Utimes V$ cover ${x}times Y$, which is compact. Thus there exists finitely many $U_1times V_1 subseteq A_1,dots,U_ntimes V_nsubseteq A_n$ that cover ${x}times Y$. Let $U_x = U_1cap dots cap U_n$. For later use, let $mathcal{A}_x={A_1,...,A_n}$.
Now, ${U_x}_{xin X}$ is an open cover of $X$. Using paracompactness, there is an locally finite open refinement $mathcal{B}$ that covers $X$. For purpose of notation, suppose $B_i,iin I$ are the elements of $mathcal{B}$. Using the refinement property, for each $iin I$, pick $x_iin X$ such that $B_isubseteq U_{x_i}$.
Consider the open refinement $mathcal{C}$ of $mathcal{A}$ given by
$$mathcal{C_{x_i}}:={Acap (B_itimes Y)}_{Ain mathcal{A}_{x_i}},quad mathcal{C}:=bigcup_{iin I}mathcal{C}_{x_i}$$
To prove that this is a cover, consider any $(x,y)in Xtimes Y$. First $x$ is in some $B_i$. Since $mathcal{C}_{x_i}$ covers $B_i times Y$, $(x,y)$ is covered by $mathcal{C}$.
To prove that it is locally finite, consider any $(x,y)in Xtimes Y$. First there exists an open neighbourhood $Usubseteq X$ of $x$ that intersects only finitely many elements of $mathcal{B}$, say $B_1,...,B_m$. Then $Utimes Y$ is the desired neighbourhood of $(x,y)$ that only intersects finitely many elements of $mathcal{C}$ as it can only intersect elements from $mathcal{C}_{x_1},...,mathcal{C}_{x_m}$, each of which is a finite collection.
edited Sep 30 '17 at 4:45
answered Sep 30 '17 at 4:34
suncup224suncup224
1,188716
1,188716
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You could prove that the product of a paracompact space and a compact space is paracompact by using the tube lemma.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You could prove that the product of a paracompact space and a compact space is paracompact by using the tube lemma.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You could prove that the product of a paracompact space and a compact space is paracompact by using the tube lemma.
$endgroup$
You could prove that the product of a paracompact space and a compact space is paracompact by using the tube lemma.
answered Jan 2 '11 at 23:23
PrimeNumberPrimeNumber
9,27353968
9,27353968
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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%2f16172%2fthe-product-of-a-paracompact-space-and-a-compact-space-is-paracompact-why%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
$begingroup$
@Mark: "two such spaces" is unclear; do you mean, as your title suggests, a product of a paracompact and a compact space? Or do you mean, as "two such spaces" suggests, the product of two paracompact, or of two compact spaces? Or all of the above?
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:00
$begingroup$
@Arturo: Sorry, edited for clarity.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 2 '11 at 23:13
1
$begingroup$
@Mark: The result as stated is false, because you are asking the paracompact space to be Hausdorff but not the compact one. Take a product of a paracompact space with an indiscrete finite space; it will be non-Hausdorff, hence not paracompact by your definition. You should either ask for Hausdorff in both, or in neither (both are definitions that are used by some).
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:31
$begingroup$
@Arturo: Why would the product of a paracompact and indiscrete space be non-Hausdorff? (Intuitively it seems that the product of a Hausdorff space and any other space should be Hausdorff)
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 2 '11 at 23:39
3
$begingroup$
@Mark: Take the underlying sets of $X$ and $Y$ to be ${x,y}$, give $X$ the discrete topology, $Y$ the indiscrete topology. The open sets of $Xtimes Y$ are $emptyset$, ${(x,x),(x,y)}$, ${(y,x), (y,y)}$, and $Xtimes Y$. What are the disjoint neighborhoods of $(x,x)$ and $(x,y)$? The error in your intuition is that $(a,b)neq(c,d)$ does not imply $aneq c$.
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 2 '11 at 23:53