0
$\begingroup$

The square of X which is $\aleph_1$-calibre is still $\aleph_1$-calibre?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ You've recently posted a few terse but interesting questions in topology. Since this is a general mathematical audience, however, your questions would benefit from some editing to provide additonal explanation and clarification. For example, a link to something like topology.auburn.edu/tp/reprints/v15/tp15010.pdf would explain the calibre terminology in your question, and some related issues. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 18, 2011 at 3:31
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You really need to post some history and motivation here. Similar issues have been adressed in many, many papers on forcing. You should say which ones you;ve looked at so we know where you're standing. There are plenty of resources out there, but we can't help you right now unless you help us. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 18, 2011 at 4:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For example, it is standard mathematical practice to say what variables are; for example X in your question could be anything. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts
    Commented Oct 18, 2011 at 7:02

1 Answer 1

8
$\begingroup$

The answer is yes.

A topological space has calibre $\aleph_1$ if for every uncountable sequence $\langle U_\alpha\mid\alpha\lt\aleph_1\rangle$ of nonempty open sets $U_\alpha\subset X$, there is an uncountable subfamily $\Lambda\subset\aleph_1$ with $\bigcap_{\alpha\in\Lambda}U_\alpha\neq\emptyset$.

Theorem. If a topological space $X$ has calibre $\aleph_1$, then so does $X\times X$.

Proof. Suppose $X$ has calibre $\aleph_1$, and consider a family of nonempty open sets $U_\alpha$ in $X\times X$, for $\alpha\lt\aleph_1$. The idea will be to reduce first on the first coordinate, and then on the second. Since $U_\alpha$ is open in the product, we may choose a nonempty open rectangle $U_\alpha^0\times U_\alpha^1\subset U_\alpha$. Consider the sequence $\langle U_\alpha^0\mid\alpha\lt\aleph_1\rangle$ of open sets arising from the first coordinate. By the calibre $\aleph_1$ property of $X$, it follows that there is $\Lambda_0\subset\aleph_1$ with some $x\in\bigcap_{\alpha\in\Lambda_0}U_\alpha^0$. Consider now the enumeration $\langle U_\alpha^1\mid \alpha\in\Lambda_0\rangle$. By the calibre property again, we may find a smaller uncountable family $\Lambda\subset\Lambda_0$ with some $y\in\bigcap_{\alpha\in\Lambda}U_\alpha^1$. It follows that $(x,y)\in\bigcap_{\alpha\in\Lambda}U_\alpha^0\times U_\alpha^1\subset\bigcap_{\alpha\in\Lambda}U_\alpha$, and so $X\times X$ has calibre $\aleph_1$, as desired. QED

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The argument generalizes to calibre $\kappa$ for any infinite cardinal $\kappa$. It does not generalize to calibre $(\kappa,\lambda)$ (meaning that every $\kappa$ family has a size $\lambda$ subfamily with nonempty intersection), since after the first reduction, you'd have only $\lambda$ many sets left. But the argument does show that if $X$ has calibre $(\kappa,\lambda)$ and $Y$ has calibre $\lambda$, then $X\times Y$ has calibre $(\kappa,\lambda)$. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 18, 2011 at 13:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Of course this doesn't depend on $X=X$; that is, the proof shows that the product of any two spaces of calibre $\aleph_1$ has calibre $\aleph_1$. By the way, does "calibre" have an American spelling "caliber". In the sense of "the bore of a gun barrel", it does, but I don't recall seeing the "er" spelling for the topological sense. (That doesn't mean I haven't seen it or even that I haven't used it, just that I don't recall.) Finally, I can't resist repeating Peter Hinman's suggested definition of "calibre $\aleph_1$": a big bore. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 18, 2011 at 13:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes, Andreas, I agree with everything you say, especially if one imagines the nonempty intersection forming a gun bore through the original family. I also haven't ever seen "caliber". To whom is the concept originally due? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 18, 2011 at 13:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I've run across the spelling "caliber" from time-to-time. Negrepontis's "Banach Spaces and Topology" article from the Handbook of Set-Theoretic Topology uses that spelling. No clue on the origin, though, Joel! $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 18, 2011 at 16:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Joel David Hamkins.Thanks,Joel. The argument is very beautiful. I'm very appreciate it. $\endgroup$
    – Paul
    Commented Oct 21, 2011 at 5:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .