2
$\begingroup$

Suppose that $X$ is a Hausorff and compact space. Moreover, suppose that $\Delta:=\{(x,x):x\in X\}$ is a $G_{\delta}$ set. I need to show that $X$ has a countable basis.

As $X$ is Hausdorff, $\Delta$ is closed in $X\times X$, moreover, as $X\times X$ is compact and Hausdorff then it is a normal space. Now, as $\triangle$ is a $G_{\delta}$ closed set, there exists a continuous function $f:X\times X\to \mathbb{R}$ such that $f^{-1}(\{0\})=\Delta$ (It follows by Urysohn's lemma). Let $\mathcal{B}:=\{B_n\mid n\in\omega\}$ be a countable basis for $\mathbb{R}$ and consider the set $\{f^{-1}(B_n)\mid n\in\omega\}$. I claim that this set is a basis for $X\times X$.

As $f$ is continuous with compact domain and Hausdorff image, $f$ is a closed function. Let $G\subseteq X\times X$ be an open set. So $\mathbb{R}\setminus f[(X\times X)\setminus G]$ is a open set in $\mathbb{R}$. Let $n\in\omega$ such that $B_n\subseteq \mathbb{R}\setminus f[(X\times X)\setminus G]$, so we have that $f^{-1}(B_n)\subseteq G$. Then $X\times X$ has a countable basis, so $X$ has a countable basis too.

I think that there is a mistake in my proof because I don't use the fact that $\Delta$ is $G_{\delta}$ in a significant way. Can someone tell me where I am wrong?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In my personal opinion $\Delta$(\Delta) looks better than $\triangle$(\triangle) and is shorter to write. $\endgroup$ Jun 14, 2019 at 2:14

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

The inverse images of the $B_n$ won't necessarily form a countable base for $X \times X$. So you need a better approach:

You can show that if $\Delta$ is a $G_\delta$ in $X^2$ and $X$ is compact Hausdorff then $X$ has a countable $T_2$-separating family of open sets (proof below). (Such a family $\mathcal{O}$ has the property that for all $x \neq y$ in $X$ we have $O_1,O_2 \in \mathcal{O}$ with $x \in O_1, x \in O_2, O_1 \cap O_2=\emptyset$) and this implies that $X$ has countable weight, by compactness: the topology $\tau$ generated by $\mathcal{O}$ is second countable and Hausdorff and a subset of the original topology $\tau_X$ on $X$ so the identity $1_X: (X, \tau_X) \to (X,\tau)$ is a continuous closed (compact to Hausdorff) bijection and so $\tau_X=\tau$ and we're done; a standard argument.

The family $\mathcal{O}$ can be found as follows: write $\Delta = \bigcap_n U_n$ where $U_n \subseteq X^2$ open. Fix $n$ and for each $x \in X$ find $O^n_x$ open in $X$ containing $x$ such that $O^n_x \times O^n_x \subseteq U_n$ by openness of $U_n$. Find an open $V^n_x$ containing $x$ such that $\overline{V^n_x} \subseteq O^n_x$ by regularity of $X$. Finitely many of these cover $X$ by compactness, so we have $F_n \subseteq X$ finite such that $X = \bigcup \{V^n_x: x \in F_n\}$. Now define

$$\mathcal{O} = \{V^n_x, X\setminus \overline{V^n_x}\mid x \in F_n, n \in \Bbb N\}$$

and check that $\mathcal{O}$ is (countable and) $T_2$-separating. (And so these form a countable subbase for $X$ as we saw in the final argument of the first paragraph.)

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Note that $\Delta = \cap_n U_n$ is used in the proof of $T_2$-separating in an essential way: ($x \neq y$ means $(x,y) \notin \Delta$ so $(x,y) \notin U_m$ for some $m$ etc. $\endgroup$ Jun 15, 2019 at 9:09
0
$\begingroup$

Existence of $f$ requires the fact that $\Delta$ is a $G_{\delta}$ set. If we arite $\Delta$ as the intersection of open sets $U_1,U_2,...$ then there exits $f_n$'s which are $0$ on $\Delta$ and $1$ on $U_n^{c}$ with $0\leq f_n \leq 1$ and $f =\sum \frac 1 {2^{n}} f_n$ would serve the purpose.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I know that. But suppose that there exists a closed set $F\subseteq X\times X$ such that $F\cap\triangle=\emptyset$. So, there exists a continuous function $f:X\times X\to\mathbb{R}$ such that $f(\triangle)\subseteq\{0\}$ and $f(F)\subseteq\{1\}$. Then, with this $f$ I can use the same argument above for the proof. In this case, that $\triangle$ was be a $G_{\delta}$ set is not important. $\endgroup$
    – Gödel
    Jun 13, 2019 at 23:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Gödel You have to make sure that $f=0$ only at points of $\Delta$. Your $f$ may vanish at points not in $\Delta$ also. $\endgroup$ Jun 13, 2019 at 23:52
  • $\begingroup$ But why I need $f^{-1}(0)=\triangle$ in my proof? $\endgroup$
    – Gödel
    Jun 13, 2019 at 23:54
  • $\begingroup$ Your third paragraph has mistakes. $f^{-1}(B_n)$ may be empty. You have to show that for any $u \in G$ there exists $n$ such that $u \in f^{-1}(B_n) \subset G$. $\endgroup$ Jun 14, 2019 at 0:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .