SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2401.01631

Pseudocompact versus countably compact in first countable spaces

Abstract

The primary objective of this work is to construct spaces that are "pseudocompact but not countably compact," abbreviated as PNC, while endowing them with additional properties. First, motivated by an old problem of van Douwen, we construct from CH a locally compact and locally countable first countable PNC space with countable spread. A space is deemed "densely countably compact", denoted as DCC for brevity, if it possesses a dense, countable compact subspace. Moreover, a space qualifies as "densely relatively countably compact", abbreviated as DRC, if it contains a dense subset $D$ such that every infinite subset of $D$ has an accumulation point in $X$. A countably compact space is DCC, a DCC space is DRC, and a DRC space is evidently pseudocompact. The Tychonoff plank is a DCC space but is not countably compact. A $\Psi$-space belongs to the class of DRC spaces but is not DCC. Lastly, if $p\in {\omega}^*$ is not a P-point, then $T(p)$, representing the type of $p$ in ${\omega}^*$, constitutes a pseudocompact subspace of ${\omega}^*$ that is not \DRC. When considering a topological property denoted as $Q$, we define a space $X$ as "hereditarily $Q$" if every regular closed subspace of $X$ also possesses property $Q$. The Tychonoff plank and the $\Psi$-spaces are not hereditary examples. However, the aforementioned space $T(p)$ is a hereditary example, albeit not being first countable. In this paper we want to find (first countable) examples which separates these properties hereditarily. We have obtained the following result. (1) There is a DCC space $X$ such that no $H\in RC(X)^+$ is countably compact. (2) If CH holds, then there is a DRC space $Y$ such that no $H\in RC(Y)^+$ is DCC. (3) If CH holds, then there is a first countable pseudocompact space $Z$ such that no $H\in RC(Z)^+$ is DRC.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

István Juhász, Ljos Soukup, Zoltán Szentmiklóssy. 2024-01-03. Pseudocompact versus countably compact in first countable spaces. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.01631

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Maximal Center of Distances of Finite Ultrametric Spaces and Perfect Binary Trees

We investigate the finite ultrametric spaces $(X,d)$ that have a given cardinality of the center of distances and a minimal cardinality of the set $X$. It is shown that such spaces are isometric if and only if their centers of distances are the same. The representing trees of these spaces are characterized up to isomorphism.

math.GN

A continuous $3$-distributive frame that is not $\omega$-distributive

We give a negative answer to the question, posed by Ern\'e, whether every $3$-distributive lattice is $\omega$-distributive. More precisely, we exhibit a continuous frame that is $\kappa$-distributive for every integer $\kappa\geq 2$, but is not a wide coframe. The frame is the open-set lattice of a compact, locally compact, countably based $T_0$ topological meet-semilattice, obtained from Lawson's construction in the logarithmic form described by Goubault-Larrecq. The failure of $\omega$-distributivity is witnessed by an explicit matrix with countably many nonempty finite rows: all row joins are the same nonzero element, whereas every choice of one entry from each row has meet zero. The same space answers negatively Ern\'e's accompanying question whether every $4$-web space is a wide web space. All properties of the construction needed for these conclusions are proved directly.

math.GN

An overlooked weakening of perfect normality: Perfect regularity in spaces and locales

We introduce the notion of perfect regularity as an appropriate weakening of perfect normality, both for spaces and locales. Various characterizations are given, using Dedekind-MacNeille completions, injective hulls, and sublocales. We place the new class of perfectly regular frames among various well-studied classes of frames. We also introduce the construction of perfect regularization of a completely regular frame, compare it to Isbell's well-known booleanization construction, and argue that it is at least as important as the latter.

math.GN