Another paracompactness problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter radou
  • Start date Start date
radou
Homework Helper
Messages
3,148
Reaction score
8

Homework Statement



Let X be regular. If X is a countable union of compact subspaces of X, then X is paracompact.

The Attempt at a Solution



Let X = U Ci. Let an open cover for Ci be given. Denote its finite subcover with {Ci1', ... , Cin'}. Clearly, X can now be expressed as the countable union of the elements Cij'. Denote this collection with C. Now, let U be an open cover for X. Then the collection {A\capCij' : A is in U, Cij' is in C} covers X and is an open refinement of U. But nothing more.

The idea is to

a) either conclude that X is Lindeloff, since paracompactness would then follow
b) find a refinement of U which is an open cover for X and locally finite, paracompactness would be satisfied by definition
c) either find a refinement of U which is open, covers X and countably locally fininte, or simply covers X and is locally finite, or is closed, covers X and is locally finite, since then paracompactness would follow again from a lemma

Am I on the right track here? Any discrete hints are welcome...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's not make it harder then it is: go for (a) :smile:
 
micromass said:
Let's not make it harder then it is: go for (a) :smile:

Ha, OK, I'll do that. It turns out to he an elegant set-up. OK, I'll post a bit later...
 
Ahh, this turns out to be very easy, actually.

Let A be an open cover for X. The A is an open cover for every compact subspace of X, Ci. For every Ci, let {Ai} be the finite subcover of A covering Ci. Obviously the collection of all the fininte subsovers Ai is countable and a subcollection of A covering X.
 
That is a perfect solution!
 
micromass said:
That is a perfect solution!

Thanks, btw I don't see any other one. :smile:
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top