The product of a paracompact space and a compact space is paracompact. (Why?)












5












$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    @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
















5












$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    @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














5












5








5


4



$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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


















  • $begingroup$
    @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










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

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 ${cal U}'$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    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



















3












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    2












    $begingroup$

    You could prove that the product of a paracompact space and a compact space is paracompact by using the tube lemma.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      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
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      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









      3












      $begingroup$

      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 ${cal U}'$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        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
















      3












      $begingroup$

      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 ${cal U}'$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        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














      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$

      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 ${cal U}'$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      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 ${cal U}'$.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      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


















      • $begingroup$
        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











      3












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        3












        $begingroup$

        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          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.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Sep 30 '17 at 4:45

























          answered Sep 30 '17 at 4:34









          suncup224suncup224

          1,188716




          1,188716























              2












              $begingroup$

              You could prove that the product of a paracompact space and a compact space is paracompact by using the tube lemma.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                2












                $begingroup$

                You could prove that the product of a paracompact space and a compact space is paracompact by using the tube lemma.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  You could prove that the product of a paracompact space and a compact space is paracompact by using the tube lemma.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  You could prove that the product of a paracompact space and a compact space is paracompact by using the tube lemma.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Jan 2 '11 at 23:23









                  PrimeNumberPrimeNumber

                  9,27353968




                  9,27353968






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Berounka

                      Sphinx de Gizeh

                      Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...