Why does locally finite imply countably locally finite in regular spaces?

  • Thread starter Thread starter radou
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
5 replies · 2K views
Homework Helper
Messages
3,149
Reaction score
8

Homework Statement




OK, just a short question about a lemma I'm going through in Munkres and a part of its proof.

I won't quote the whole lemma (it's a few statements which are equivalent), but only the part I don't get:

Let X be regular. If every open covering of X has a refinement that is an open covering of X and locally finite, then every open covering of X has a refinement that is an open covering of X and countably locally finite.

In the proof it states that this is trivial, so I'm missing something obvious apparently. But I just can't see what.

Thanks in advance...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you're thinking to far here. The proof is really simple: take an covering [tex]\mathcal{B}[/tex] which is open and locally finite. Then the covering is also countable locally finite. Thus we have found an open cover which is countable locally finite...
 
micromass said:
I think you're thinking to far here. The proof is really simple: take an covering [tex]\mathcal{B}[/tex] which is open and locally finite. Then the covering is also countable locally finite. Thus we have found an open cover which is countable locally finite...

Ahhhh this is utterly trivial ! Since this cover (call it A) can be written as a union A = U A (this doesn't make sense, but I think it's clear what I'm trying to say) consisting of a single element, that cover itself, which is locally finite! :rolleyes: :smile:

Sorry, sometimes I get confused on a really stupid base.
 
micromass said:
Haha, looks like somebody partied a little too hard last night :biggrin:

Yes, one could say... :cool:

Btw, the proof of the implication (3) ==> (4) in the same lemma (i.e. if every open covering of X has a refinement that is a closed locally finite covering of X, then every open covering of X has a refinement that is an open locally finite covering of X) is beautiful, at least to me. At a first glance, it seems a bit complicated, but when you actually think about what's going on, it's great!
 
Yeah, it is quite beautiful. It reminds me a bit of measure theory: you do some complicated things for complicated reasons, and it all ends really nice :smile:

When I first learned about it, I found paracompactness quite complicated. But it has it's beauty...