In ZF, when is a disjoint union of metrizable spaces metrizable? - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-19T17:02:18Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/107785http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/107785/in-zf-when-is-a-disjoint-union-of-metrizable-spaces-metrizableIn ZF, when is a disjoint union of metrizable spaces metrizable?David Feldman2012-09-21T17:04:39Z2012-09-22T00:05:20Z
<p>It is easy to see that the disjoint union $\bigsqcup_i X_i$ of a collection of
metric spaces is metrizable, simply by rescaling or chopping off
the individual metrics to have diameter at most one, and then
making points in the various components distance two apart. This
produces a metric on the disjoint union giving the disjoint union
topology.</p>
<p>A subtle point arises, however, if we are given not a collection
of metric spaces, but instead merely a collection of metrizable
topological spaces $X_i$, where a particular metric has not yet been
chosen. In this case, in order to carry out the construction
above, we would need first to choose a particular metric realizing
the metrizability of each space, and this would seem to require
the axiom of choice.</p>
<p><strong>Question.</strong> Without assuming the axiom of choice, when is the
disjoint union of a set of metrizable spaces metrizable?</p>
<p>One can see that some choice is definitely required by the
following argument. Suppose that we are given a collection of
countable sets $S_i$. Let's regard these sets as discrete
topological spaces and let $S_i^+$ be the corresponding one-point
compactification, which is metrizable, since each $S_i$ is
countable. If we had a metric on the disjoint union $\bigcup
S_i^{+}$, however, we could consider the largest ball at the new
point in each $S_i^+$ to omit some elements of $S_i$, and this
would provide us with a canonical choice of non-empty finite sets
$T_i\subset S_i$. But the existence of such a kind of choice
surely requires some form of choice. Thus, in general, we cannot
prove without any AC that the disjoin union of metrizable spaces
is metrizable.</p>
<p>So what I seek is a nice sufficient condition for making this
conclusion. Here is one answer: given a family of metrizable
spaces $X_i$ suppose there exists a finite family of distinct
metrizable spaces $M_j$ such that</p>
<p>(1) each $M_j$ has a metric that makes every topological automorphism of $M_j$ an isometry; and</p>
<p>(2) but for finitely many $i$, each $X_i$ is homeomorphic to some $M_j$.</p>
<p>(Given an $X_i$ and a homeomorphic $M_j$, avoid choice by working
with <em>all</em> the homeomorphisms from $X_i$ to $M_j$.)</p>
<p>This condition seems to me far too restrictive. For example one
could have infinite sets of such $M_j$s as long as they came
pre-equipped with a selection of appropriate metrics.</p>
<p>So what I seek are general conditions on such $M_j$'s (or even for
say just rigid metrizable spaces) that permit the selection of a
canonical metric based solely on knowledge of the topology.</p>
<p>If the general question is still too vague, I don't even know the
answer to this: does a compact, rigid space homeomorphic to some
subset of the unit disk in ${\Bbb R}^2$ admit a distinguished
metric (perhaps optimal for some objective function)?</p>
<p>Contrarywise, I'd be interested in models where a countable
disjoint union of rigid metrizable spaces might have no compatible
metric.</p>