Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was rereading an answer to an old question of mine and it included a reference to the fact that $2^{\omega_1}$ was separable. I'm having a hard time finding a reference for this fact, and the proof is not immediately obvious to me. Can anyone provide me with a cite and/or a proof?

share|improve this question
    
Related question on MSE: math.stackexchange.com/questions/97413/… –  Martin Sleziak Jan 20 at 12:12

2 Answers 2

Should have searched a bit harder before asking this one. This is an immediate consequence of the Hewitt-Marczewski-Pondiczery theorem:

Let $m \geq \aleph_0$. If $\{X_s : s \in S\}$ are topological spaces with $d(X_s) \leq m$ and $|S| \leq 2^m$ then $d(\prod_s X_s) \leq m$.

share|improve this answer
5  
That's overkill, I think. $2^{[0;1]}$ separable is much easier to prove than the Hewitt-Marczewski-Pondiczery Theorem. In fact, the countable system of Walsh functions is dense in $\{-1;1\}^{[0,1)}$ ... mathworld.wolfram.com/WalshFunction.html –  Gerald Edgar Apr 3 '10 at 15:47
    
Interesting. Thanks. –  David R. MacIver Apr 3 '10 at 16:03
2  
Of course one also needs $\aleph_1 \le 2^{\aleph_0}$ for this simple proof to work, which is non-constructive (requires Axiom of Choice). Can one prove without choice that $2^{\omega_1}$ is separable? –  Gerald Edgar Apr 4 '10 at 18:41
    
@Gerald: Good question! The statement appears to imply $\aleph_1 \leq 2^{\aleph_0}$. If $\{d_n\}_{n<\omega}$ enumerates a dense subset then the sets $D_\alpha = \{n<\omega: d_n(\alpha) = 1\}$ must be distinct since $D_\alpha\setminus D_\beta$ cannot be empty when $\alpha \neq \beta$. –  François G. Dorais Apr 4 '10 at 19:37
1  
@GeraldEdgar It would be interesting if one could prove the converse, that separability of $2^{\omega_1}$ implies $\aleph_1\le2^{\aleph_0}$. I don't see how to do that, but it seems to me that separability of $2^{\omega_1}$ does imply the weaker inequality $2^{\aleph_1}\le2^{2^{\aleph_0}}$. Have I got that right? That is weaker, isn't it? –  bof Jan 24 at 23:13

This is indeed the Hewitt-Marczewski-Pondiczery theorem. My proof, following Engelking, is here. It's in fact not that hard, the fact for a product of copies of 2 point discrete spaces already implies the general theorem pretty quickly.

share|improve this answer
    
@MartinSleziak Thanks for the tip, I fixed the link. –  Henno Brandsma Jan 24 at 18:37

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.