Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This question is from a paper I'm reading. I cannot understand this sentence in the poof of Theorem 1. It says:

Suppose $X$ is not Lindelöf. Then there exists a compactum $C\subset \beta X \setminus X$ such that any $G_\delta$-set in $\beta X$ containing $C$ meets $X$. ($X$ is Tychonoff.)

Could anybody help me understand this sentence? Thanks ahead:)

See the paper by Raushan Z. Buzyakova, On absolutely submetrizable spaces, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. 47, 3 (2006) 483–490. Also available at DML-CZ.

share|improve this question
    
What paper is this from? –  Arthur Fischer Aug 7 '12 at 9:31
1  
What do you mean by "understanding this sentence"? Is there a problem with understanding the statement itself or only its proof? –  t.b. Aug 7 '12 at 9:32
    
@ArthurFischer See the link in the question:) –  Paul Aug 7 '12 at 9:40
    
@t.b. Thanks for your link and your kindful reminding. The problem is the statement itself. –  Paul Aug 7 '12 at 9:42
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 3 down vote accepted

I think that there should be a comma after Lindelöf. Other than that, all I can do is paraphrase the statement, hoping that this helps.

Suppose $X$ is not Lindelöf. In particular, $X$ is not compact. Since $X$ is Tychonoff, $X$ has a Stone-Cech compactification $\beta X$. As usual, we consider $X$ to be a subset of $\beta X$ and can now form the Stone-Cech remainder $\beta X\setminus X$. The remainder is nonempty since $X$ is not compact.

Now the claim is the following: There is a compact set $C\subseteq\beta X\setminus X$ with the following property:

For all $G_\delta$-sets $A\subseteq\beta X$ with $C\subseteq A$, $A\cap X\not=\emptyset$.

A $G_\delta$-set is an intersection of countably many open sets.
I hope this clarifies something.

You can get this compact set as follows: Let $\mathcal U$ be an open cover of $X$ without a countable subcover. This is possible since $X$ is not Lindelöf. We can assume that the $U\in\mathcal U$ are actually open subsets of $\beta X$ so that no countable subcollection of $\mathcal U$ covers $X$. $\mathcal U$ is not a cover of $\beta X$ since in this case, by compactness of $\beta X$, finitely many elements of $\mathcal U$ would already cover $\beta X$ and in particular $X$.

It follows that the compact set $C=\beta X\setminus\bigcup\mathcal U$ is nonempty. Let $A$ be a $G_\delta$ subset of $\beta X$ with $C\subseteq A$.
Since $A$ is $G_\delta$, $\beta X\setminus A$ is the union of a countable family $\mathcal B$ of closed sets. Each $B\in\mathcal B$ is compact and disjoint from $C$. Since $C=\beta X\setminus\bigcup\mathcal U$, each $B\in\mathcal B$ is covered by $\mathcal U$ and hence by finitely many elements of $\mathcal U$.

It follows that $\bigcup\mathcal B$ is covered by countably many elements of $\mathcal U$. But $X$ is not covered by countably many elements of $U$. It follows that there is $x\in X\setminus\bigcup\mathcal B=A\cap X$. So $A$ meets $X$. This finishes the proof.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks stefan for your answer. I will take some time to take it up. –  Paul Aug 7 '12 at 10:27
    
Your answer is very clear for me and very helpful. One thing I don't understand what is why we can assume that the $U\in \mathcal{U}$ are actually open subsets of $\beta X$? Because $X$ is open in $\beta X$? –  Paul Aug 8 '12 at 11:26
    
Sorry that this was not clear. Start with an open cover $\mathcal U$ of $X$. Here $\mathcal U$ is a family of open subsets of $X$. Now embed $X$ into $\beta X$. Since $X$ is a subspace of $\beta X$, for every open subset set $U$ of $X$ there is an open subset $V$ of $\beta X$ such that $V\cap X=U$. It follows that we can "blow up" each $U\in\mathcal U$ to an open subset of $\beta X$ whose intersection with $X$ is just $U$. Now I have a family of open subsets of $\beta X$ whose union contains $X$. I call this family also an open cover of $X$. –  Stefan Geschke Aug 8 '12 at 14:41
    
Now I see. It is abtained by "blow up". Thanks again. –  Paul Aug 9 '12 at 11:50
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.