Jump to content

Michael's theorem on paracompact spaces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

In mathematics, Michael's theorem gives sufficient conditions for a regular topological space (in fact, for a T1-space) to be paracompact.

Statement

A family of subsets of a topological space is said to be closure-preserving if for every subfamily ,

.

For example, a locally finite family of subsets has this property. With this terminology, the theorem states:[1]

TheoremLet be a regular-Hausdorff topological space. Then the following are equivalent.

  1. is paracompact.
  2. Each open cover has a closure-preserving refinement, not necessarily open.
  3. Each open cover has a closure-preserving closed refinement.
  4. Each open cover has a refinement that is a countable union of closure-preserving families of open sets.

Frequently, the theorem is stated in the following form:

Corollary[2] A regular-Hausdorff topological space is paracompact if and only if each open cover has a refinement that is a countable union of locally finite families of open sets.

In particular, a regular-Hausdorff Lindelöf space is paracompact. The proof of the theorem uses the following result which does not need regularity:

Proposition[3] Let X be a T1-space. If X satisfies property 3 in the theorem, then X is paracompact.

Proof sketch

The proof of the proposition uses the following general lemma

Lemma[4] Let X be a topological space. If each open cover of X admits a locally finite closed refinement, then it is paracompact. Also, each open cover that is a countable union of locally finite sets has a locally finite refinement, not necessarily open.

Notes

  1. ^ Michael 1957, Theorem 1 and Theorem 2.
  2. ^ Willard, Stephen (2012), General Topology, Dover Books on Mathematics, Courier Dover Publications, ISBN 9780486131788, OCLC 829161886. Theorem 20.7.
  3. ^ Michael 1957, § 2.
  4. ^ Engelking 1989, Lemma 4.4.12. and Lemma 5.1.10.

References

Further reading