If every basic open cover has a countable subcover

  • Thread starter Rasalhague
  • Start date
In summary, Dan Ma's proof that the Sorgenfrey line is Lindelöf (part A) relies on the assumption that if every basic open cover has a countable subcover, then every open cover has a countable subcover. However, the revised proof presented here shows that the assumption is incorrect, as it is possible for the same basic open set to be chosen for different elements of the open cover. The revised proof provides a stronger result, showing that if there exists a basis such that every basic open cover has a countable subcover, then every open cover has a countable subcover. This is achieved by selecting a countable subcover from the union of basic open sets, and then choosing a corresponding element from the
  • #1
Rasalhague
1,387
2
Dan Ma's proof that the Sorgenfrey line is Lindelöf (part A) seems to rely on the assumption that if every basic open cover has a countable subcover, then every open cover has a countable subcover. In trying to prove this, I got a stronger result, namely that if every basic open cover has a countable subcover, then every open cover is countable. If this correct? Here is my proof:

Every element [itex]C_{\lambda}[/itex] of an arbitrary open cover [itex]\cal{C}=\left \{ C_\lambda | \lambda\in \Lambda \right \}[/itex] is a union of basic open sets, so we can choose a countable cover [itex]\cal{B}[/itex], each of whose elements is a subset of some [itex]C_{\lambda}\in\cal{C}[/itex]. By the axiom of choice, for each [itex]C_\lambda\in\cal{C}[/itex] we can choose one [itex]B_{C_\lambda} \in \cal{B}[/itex]. The set [itex]\beta = \left \{ B_{C_\lambda} | C_\lambda\in\cal{C} \right \}[/itex] of these so-chosen [itex]B_{C_\lambda}[/itex] is a subset of [itex]\cal{B}[/itex], and [itex]\cal{B}[/itex] is countable, therefore [itex]\beta[/itex] is countable. There is a natural bijection [itex]f:\beta\rightarrow\cal{C}[/itex], specified by [itex]f(B_{C_\lambda})=C_\lambda[/itex]. Therefore the arbitrary open cover [itex]\cal{C}[/itex] is countable. [itex]\blacksquare[/itex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
No, this is not correct. The mistake lies in the fact that for two different [itex]C_\lambda[/itex], I might choose the same [itex]B_{C_\lambda}[/itex]. So your map f is not necessarily well-defined.
 
  • #3
Ah, I see. Thanks, micromass. Here's my revised proof of "If there exists a basis such that every basic open cover has a countable subcover, then every open cover has a countable subcover."

Suppose every basic open cover has a countable subcover and that we have an open cover [itex]\frak{C}[/itex]. Each [itex]C\in\frak{C}[/itex] is a union of basic open sets,

[tex]\bigcup_{\lambda\in S_C}B_\lambda,[/tex]

so we have a cover

[tex]\bigcup_{C\in\frak{C}}\bigcup_{\lambda\in S_C}B_\lambda,[/tex]

whence we can select a countable subcover [itex]\frak{B}=\left \{ B_n | n\in\mathbb{N} \right \}[/itex]. That is to say,

[tex](\forall x\in X)(\exists C\in\frak{C})(\exists B_n\in\frak{B})[ x \in B_n\subseteq C].[/tex]

So we can choose a [itex]C_n[/itex], not necessarily unique, from [itex]\frak{C}[/itex] for each [itex]B_n\in\frak{B}[/itex] such that [itex]B_n\subseteq C_n[/itex]. Then [itex]\left \{ C_n | n\in\mathbb{N} \right \}[/itex] is a countable subcover of [itex]\frak{C}. \blacksquare[/itex]
 
  • #5


Yes, your proof is correct. By using the axiom of choice, you have shown that every open cover can be reduced to a countable subcover. This is a stronger result than the assumption made in Dan Ma's proof, which only states that every basic open cover has a countable subcover. Your proof shows that this assumption can be extended to all open covers. This is a useful result and can be applied to other topological spaces as well. Great job!
 

1. What does it mean for a basic open cover to have a countable subcover?

Having a countable subcover means that there exists a subset of the basic open cover that is also an open cover and has a countable number of elements.

2. Why is it important for every basic open cover to have a countable subcover?

Having a countable subcover ensures that the basic open cover is not too "large" or "unwieldy", making it easier to work with and analyze.

3. Can a basic open cover have more than one countable subcover?

Yes, a basic open cover can have multiple countable subcovers.

4. Is every basic open cover guaranteed to have a countable subcover?

No, not every basic open cover has a countable subcover. This property is specific to certain types of spaces, such as compact spaces.

5. How is the existence of a countable subcover related to the compactness of a space?

A space is compact if and only if every open cover has a finite subcover. The existence of a countable subcover in a basic open cover is a weaker condition, but it is still a necessary property for compactness in certain spaces.

Similar threads

  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
154
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
142
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
512
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top