MHB Is $X$ Lindelöf? Here's this week's problem! Sorry about the delay!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris L T521
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that a space $X$ is Lindelöf if and only if for every collection $\mathcal{A}$ of subsets of $X$ with the countable intersection property, the intersection of their closures is nonempty. The proof begins by assuming $X$ is Lindelöf and shows that if the intersection of closures is empty, it leads to a contradiction regarding open covers. Conversely, if $X$ has the stated property but is not Lindelöf, it demonstrates that the existence of an open cover without a countable subcover contradicts the countable intersection property. The conclusion confirms that the conditions are equivalent, establishing the relationship between Lindelöf spaces and the countable intersection property. This problem highlights key concepts in topology regarding open covers and closed sets.
Chris L T521
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
913
Reaction score
0
Here's this week's problem! Sorry about the delay!

-----

Problem
: A collection $\mathcal{A}$ of subsets of $X$ has the countable intersection property if every countable intersection of elements from $\mathcal{A}$ is nonempty. Show that $X$ is a Lindelöf space if and only if for every collection $\mathcal{A}$ of subsets of $X$ having the countable intersection property, $\displaystyle \bigcap\limits_{A\in\mathcal{A}} \overline{A}$ is nonempty.

-----

Remember to read the http://www.mathhelpboards.com/showthread.php?772-Problem-of-the-Week-%28POTW%29-Procedure-and-Guidelines to find out how to http://www.mathhelpboards.com/forms.php?do=form&fid=2!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No one answered this week's problem. You can find the solution below.

[sp]Proof: Suppose that $X$ is Lindelöf and that there's a collection $\mathcal{A}$ of subsets of $X$ with the countable intersection property such that $\bigcap_{A\in\mathcal{A}} \overline{A} = \emptyset$. Then, the collection $\mathcal{O}=\{X\setminus\overline{A}: A\in\mathcal{A}\}$ is an open cover of $X$. If follows that there's a countable subcover $\mathcal{O}^{\prime}=\{X\setminus \overline{A_1},X\setminus\overline{A_2},\ldots\}$, that is, $X=\bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty} X\setminus\overline{A_n}$. But this implies that\[\emptyset=X\setminus \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty X\setminus\overline{A_n}=\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty \overline{A_n}\]
Since for every positive integer $n$, $A_n\subset\overline{A_n}$, we have that $\bigcap_{n=1}^{\infty} A_n=\emptyset$, which contradits the countable intersection property. Therefore $\bigcap_{A\in\mathcal{A}} \overline{A} \neq \emptyset$.Conversely, suppose that $X$ has the stated property but is not Lindelöf. Thus, there's an open cover $\mathcal{O}$ such that there's no countable subcover. Consider the collection of closed sets $A=\{ X\setminus U:U\in\mathcal{O}$. Note that this collection has the countable intersection property, for if a countable intersection of elements in $\mathcal{A}$ is empty, $\bigcap_{n=1}^{\infty} X\setminus U_n = \emptyset$, then $X=X\setminus \bigcap_{n=1}^{\infty} U_n = \bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty} U_n$ and $\mathcal{O}$ would have a countable subcover. It follows, by assumption, that $\bigcap_{A\in\mathcal{A}} \overline{A}= \bigcap_{A\in\mathcal{A}} \neq \emptyset$. However, this means that the complement of this set is not the whole space, and since $X\setminus _{A\in\mathcal{A}} A = \bigcup_{U\in\mathcal{O}} U$, this implies that $\mathcal{O}$ is not a cover, which contradicts our assumption that $\mathcal{O}$ is a cover. Therefore, $X$ is Lindelöf.$\hspace{.25in}\blacksquare$[/sp]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K