One calls a topological space noetherian if every decreasing chain of closed subsets becomes stationary.

In a lecture it was remarked that this is equivalent to every family $M$ of closed sets having minimal elements. However to me it looks like the direction

$X$ noetherian $\implies$ every family of closed sets $M$ has minimal element

requires use of Zorns Lemma: Every decreasing chain in $M$ must become stationary and thus be bounded, from Zorns Lemma it follows that a minimal element exists.

In the exercises we also showed that noetherian $\iff$ every open set is quasi-compact. Also here my proof of the $\implies$ direction used the Axiom of Choice.

My question: Are these statements actually dependent of axiom of choice or are my proofs just bad?

  • $\begingroup$ I don't know if this is a duplicate, but it is certainly related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1857112/… and there might be a few others. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 2 '16 at 15:07
  • $\begingroup$ Without checking, I'd guess that given a counterexample of a Noetherian ring without choice, you can look at its spectrum to get a counterexample for Noetherian spaces without choice. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 2 '16 at 15:18

Without the axiom of choice we can take $X$ to be a strictly amorphous set and give it the discrete topology. Let $\mathscr{F}$ be the family of cofinite subsets of $X$. $\mathscr{F}$ is certainly a family of closed subsets of $X$, but it has no minimal element: given $F\in\mathscr{F}$, $F\setminus\{x\}\in\mathscr{F}$ for each $x\in F$.

On the other hand, suppose that $\{C_n:n\in\omega\}$ is a strictly decreasing chain of subsets of $X$. For $n\in\omega$ let $D_n=C_n\setminus C_{n+1}$; then


is a partition of $X$ into finite sets, so $N=\{n\in\omega:|D_n|=1\}$ is infinite. Let $N=\{n_k:k\in\omega\}$ be the natural increasing enumeration of $N$; then the function from $\omega$ to $X$ that takes $k$ to the unique element of $D_{n_k}$ is an injection, which is impossible, since $X$ is Dedekind finite. Thus, every decreasing chain of closed subsets of $X$ stabilizes.

  • $\begingroup$ Wow I have never heard of strictly amorphous sets, that is crazy. $\endgroup$ – s.harp Nov 5 '16 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ @s.harp: They are certainly pretty counter-intuitive! $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Nov 5 '16 at 15:30

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.