Let $\omega+1$ be endowed with the interval topology, that is $U\subseteq (\omega+1)$ is open if $U\subseteq\omega$ or $(\omega+1)\setminus U$ is finite. We call $U\subseteq (\omega+1)$ basic if either $U = \{n\}$ for some $n\in \omega$ or if $U = (\omega+1)\setminus m$ for some $m\in \omega$. (Don't confuse this with $(\omega+1)\setminus\{m\}$: I use the fact that $m=\emptyset$ or $m=\{0,\ldots, m-1\}$ for $m\in\omega\setminus\{\emptyset\}$.)

Endow $(\omega+1)^\omega$ with the box topology. We call a subset $B\subseteq (\omega+1)^\omega$ basic if $B = \prod_{n\in\omega} U_n$ with $U_n\subseteq (\omega+1)$ is basic for every $n\in \omega$.

Suppose $\mathcal{C}$ is a covering of $(\omega+1)^\omega$ by basic sets. Can $\mathcal{C}$ be refined to a covering by basic sets that are mutually disjoint?

  • $\begingroup$ It seems bad to me to write this like an ordinal power. But what do I know. $\endgroup$ – Gerald Edgar Jan 19 '15 at 22:08
  • $\begingroup$ Please feel free to edit the question and write it in a more understandable way $\endgroup$ – Dominic van der Zypen Jan 20 '15 at 6:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You probably know that whether $\Box (\omega + 1)^\omega$ is paracompact (in ZFC), is a long-standing open problem. $\endgroup$ – Ramiro de la Vega Jan 20 '15 at 14:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That's right, Ramiro, and thanks for your remark. My question should have been: is there any reason why this sharper version (ultraparacompactness as opposed to paracompactness) doesn't work? Maybe ultraparacompactness is also open... $\endgroup$ – Dominic van der Zypen Jan 21 '15 at 7:57

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.