This is based on the comments and answers provided in this post. However, I have some questions on the proof and the hint given in Kelleys book p.163. I will highlight the hint of the book. My own thoughts will be preceded by a dot.

If $X$ is not compact choose an open cover $A$ with no finite subcover such that the cardinal number $c$ of $A$ is as small as possible.

  • This is possible since assuming $X$ not to be compact there is at least one open cover $\mathcal{O}$ without finite subcover.
  • If one then considers the non empty set $\mathfrak{M}$ of all coverings without finite subcovers, the well-ordering principle implies the existence of $A$ as above, i.e. an element of $\mathfrak{M}$ with minimal cardinality.

Let $C$ be a well-ordered set of cardinal $c$ such that the set of predecessors of each member has a cardinal less than $c$ (It is shown in the appendix that $c$ is such a set.)

  • If we take the ordinal number corresponding to the cardinality $c$ this should be satisfied.

Let $f$ be a one-to-one map of $C$ onto $A$. Then for each member $b$ of $C$ the union $$\left[U_b :=\right]\quad \bigcup \, \{f(a):a<b\}$$ does not cover $X$

  • because if it did, there would exist an cover with cardinality strictly less than $c$.

and, in fact, the complement of this union must have cardinal number at least as great as $c$.

  • Why?

It is therefore possible to choose $x_b$ from the complement such that $x_a \neq x_b$ for $a < b$.

  • Why?

Consider the set of all $x_b$.

  • Denote this set with $M$. It is infinite because for each Union $U_b$ there exists $x_b \in M$ with $x_a \neq x_b$ for $a < b$. This implies $|M| = c$.
  • To show that $M$ has no limit point, consider $x \in X$. The covering property gives $O_x \in A$ such that $x \in O_x$. Then the following calculation should hold $$ |M \cap O_x | \leq | \{x_b \mid b \leq a \} | \leq | a | < c = |M|.$$
  • Consequently $M$ has no limit point.

Did I make any mistakes so far? Any suggestions on the points of the proof that still remain unclear to me?

  • $\begingroup$ The fact that $c$ exists just follows by the fact that corresponding to the set of the covers (without a finite subcover) we have a set of their cardinal numbers (by the axiom of replacement) which are in particular ordinal numbers, so this non-empty set of cardinals has a minimum. But maybe this is what you meant. $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Jan 17 '16 at 18:54

For $b \in C$ let $A_b := \{ f(a) : a < b \}$ (so that $U_b = \bigcup A_b$).

  • I'll back up a bit, and give a fairly full justification for why $A_b$ cannot cover $X$.

    If $A_b$ covers $X$ (so that $U_b = X$), since $A_b$ is a subfamily of $A$ it must be that $A_b$ does not have a finite subcover (otherwise $A$ would). But the choice of the well-ordered set $C$ implies that $| A_b | < c$, which contradicts the choice of the cardinal $c$! Therefore $A_b$ cannot cover $X$.

  • If $| X \setminus U_b | < c$, then for each $x \in X \setminus U_b$ pick any $V_x \in A$ containing $x$. Then $A_b \cup \{ V_x : x \in X \setminus U_b \}$ covers $X$ and is a subfamily of $A$. Similarly to the above, this cannot have a finite subcover, and it has cardinality $< c$, which then contradicts our choice of $c$. Therefore $| X \setminus U_b | \geq c$.

  • Given any $b \in C$, as $\{ x_a : a < b \}$ has cardinality $< c$ and as $| X \setminus U_b | \geq c$, it follows that $X \setminus ( U_b \cup \{ x_a : a < b \} )$ is nonempty, and so we may choose $x_b$ from this set arbitrarily to be distinct from $x_a$ for $a < b$.

  • Note that the set $M = \{ x_b : b \in C \}$ has cardinality $c$. It has no complete accumulation point because for each $x \in X$ if $b \in C$ is least such that $x \in U_b$, then $U_b$ is an open neighbourhood of $x$ and $U_b \cap M \subseteq \{ x_a : a < b \}$, and so has cardinality $<c$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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