Not-too-non-compact metric spaces$M$ is compact iff $M$ is homeomorphic to a closed subset of $H^infty$Compact homeomorphic non bilipschitz homeomorphic metric spacesCardinality of all compact metric spacesMetric spaces, Heine-Cantor and boundnessZero-dimensional separable metric spacesIs every compact metric space hereditarily separable?Example of a locally compact metric space which is $sigma$-compact but not properNew proof that compact subsets in metric spaces are closed?Closed subset of perfect complete metric space is homeomorphic to Cantor setAre second-countable metric spaces $sigma$-compact?
My boss asked me to take a one-day class, then signs it up as a day off
Visiting the UK as unmarried couple
For airliners, what prevents wing strikes on landing in bad weather?
What is the opposite of 'gravitas'?
What if somebody invests in my application?
Simple recursive Sudoku solver
Reply ‘no position’ while the job posting is still there (‘HiWi’ position in Germany)
Freedom of speech and where it applies
Why is delta-v is the most useful quantity for planning space travel?
Blender - show edges angles “direction”
In Star Trek IV, why did the Bounty go back to a time when whales were already rare?
Lifted its hind leg on or lifted its hind leg towards?
The One-Electron Universe postulate is true - what simple change can I make to change the whole universe?
Java - What do constructor type arguments mean when placed *before* the type?
What do you call the infoboxes with text and sometimes images on the side of a page we find in textbooks?
Is it okay / does it make sense for another player to join a running game of Munchkin?
Who must act to prevent Brexit on March 29th?
Could solar power be utilized and substitute coal in the 19th century?
I'm in charge of equipment buying but no one's ever happy with what I choose. How to fix this?
Invariance of results when scaling explanatory variables in logistic regression, is there a proof?
Can a malicious addon access internet history and such in chrome/firefox?
Can I use my Chinese passport to enter China after I acquired another citizenship?
Partial sums of primes
Giant Toughroad SLR 2 for 200 miles in two days, will it make it?
Not-too-non-compact metric spaces
$M$ is compact iff $M$ is homeomorphic to a closed subset of $H^infty$Compact homeomorphic non bilipschitz homeomorphic metric spacesCardinality of all compact metric spacesMetric spaces, Heine-Cantor and boundnessZero-dimensional separable metric spacesIs every compact metric space hereditarily separable?Example of a locally compact metric space which is $sigma$-compact but not properNew proof that compact subsets in metric spaces are closed?Closed subset of perfect complete metric space is homeomorphic to Cantor setAre second-countable metric spaces $sigma$-compact?
$begingroup$
Consider the following two separable metric spaces: Cantor space $2^omega$ and Baire space $omega^omega$. These spaces give rise to two classes of metric spaces, namely the "big" ones into which Baire space embeds as a closed subset and the "small" ones which are "easily covered" by Cantor space, that is, which are the continuous image of $2^omegatimesomega$. For example, $mathbbR$ is small in this sense, since $[-n,n]$ is a compact metric space for each $ninmathbbN$ and every compact metric space is the continuous image of Cantor space. In fact, this last fact shows that "small" is just "$sigma$-compact."
Each "natural" separable metric space that I can think of is either big or small in this sense, and this raises the following question:
Suppose $M$ is a separable metric space which doesn't contain a closed set homeomorphic to Baire space and is homeomorphic to a Borel subset of Baire space (I'll also accept more complicated examples as long as they are "reasonably natural," e.g. exist in $L(mathbbR)$ assuming large cardinals). Must $M$ be $sigma$-compact?
I suspect the answer is "no," but I haven't been able to whip up a counterexample.
general-topology metric-spaces
$endgroup$
This question had a bounty worth +200
reputation from Noah Schweber that ended ended at 2019-03-25 20:59:13Z">4 hours ago. Grace period ends in 19 hours
This question has not received enough attention.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider the following two separable metric spaces: Cantor space $2^omega$ and Baire space $omega^omega$. These spaces give rise to two classes of metric spaces, namely the "big" ones into which Baire space embeds as a closed subset and the "small" ones which are "easily covered" by Cantor space, that is, which are the continuous image of $2^omegatimesomega$. For example, $mathbbR$ is small in this sense, since $[-n,n]$ is a compact metric space for each $ninmathbbN$ and every compact metric space is the continuous image of Cantor space. In fact, this last fact shows that "small" is just "$sigma$-compact."
Each "natural" separable metric space that I can think of is either big or small in this sense, and this raises the following question:
Suppose $M$ is a separable metric space which doesn't contain a closed set homeomorphic to Baire space and is homeomorphic to a Borel subset of Baire space (I'll also accept more complicated examples as long as they are "reasonably natural," e.g. exist in $L(mathbbR)$ assuming large cardinals). Must $M$ be $sigma$-compact?
I suspect the answer is "no," but I haven't been able to whip up a counterexample.
general-topology metric-spaces
$endgroup$
This question had a bounty worth +200
reputation from Noah Schweber that ended ended at 2019-03-25 20:59:13Z">4 hours ago. Grace period ends in 19 hours
This question has not received enough attention.
$begingroup$
As Eric Wofsey pointed out, if we drop the "tameness" requirement on $M$ it's easy to whip up a counterexample (e.g. a Bernstein set). This was something I was aware of but forgot to include initially.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 16 at 20:55
2
$begingroup$
You probably know this but if $M$ is complete and somewhere nowhere locally compact (i.e. nowhere locally compact in some nonempty open set) it has a closed copy of Baire space.
$endgroup$
– James Hanson
Mar 16 at 22:43
$begingroup$
Yes, but that's worth mentioning (and +1 for "somewhere nowhere").
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 16 at 22:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider the following two separable metric spaces: Cantor space $2^omega$ and Baire space $omega^omega$. These spaces give rise to two classes of metric spaces, namely the "big" ones into which Baire space embeds as a closed subset and the "small" ones which are "easily covered" by Cantor space, that is, which are the continuous image of $2^omegatimesomega$. For example, $mathbbR$ is small in this sense, since $[-n,n]$ is a compact metric space for each $ninmathbbN$ and every compact metric space is the continuous image of Cantor space. In fact, this last fact shows that "small" is just "$sigma$-compact."
Each "natural" separable metric space that I can think of is either big or small in this sense, and this raises the following question:
Suppose $M$ is a separable metric space which doesn't contain a closed set homeomorphic to Baire space and is homeomorphic to a Borel subset of Baire space (I'll also accept more complicated examples as long as they are "reasonably natural," e.g. exist in $L(mathbbR)$ assuming large cardinals). Must $M$ be $sigma$-compact?
I suspect the answer is "no," but I haven't been able to whip up a counterexample.
general-topology metric-spaces
$endgroup$
Consider the following two separable metric spaces: Cantor space $2^omega$ and Baire space $omega^omega$. These spaces give rise to two classes of metric spaces, namely the "big" ones into which Baire space embeds as a closed subset and the "small" ones which are "easily covered" by Cantor space, that is, which are the continuous image of $2^omegatimesomega$. For example, $mathbbR$ is small in this sense, since $[-n,n]$ is a compact metric space for each $ninmathbbN$ and every compact metric space is the continuous image of Cantor space. In fact, this last fact shows that "small" is just "$sigma$-compact."
Each "natural" separable metric space that I can think of is either big or small in this sense, and this raises the following question:
Suppose $M$ is a separable metric space which doesn't contain a closed set homeomorphic to Baire space and is homeomorphic to a Borel subset of Baire space (I'll also accept more complicated examples as long as they are "reasonably natural," e.g. exist in $L(mathbbR)$ assuming large cardinals). Must $M$ be $sigma$-compact?
I suspect the answer is "no," but I haven't been able to whip up a counterexample.
general-topology metric-spaces
general-topology metric-spaces
edited Mar 16 at 22:39
Noah Schweber
asked Mar 16 at 20:28
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
127k10151292
127k10151292
This question had a bounty worth +200
reputation from Noah Schweber that ended ended at 2019-03-25 20:59:13Z">4 hours ago. Grace period ends in 19 hours
This question has not received enough attention.
This question had a bounty worth +200
reputation from Noah Schweber that ended ended at 2019-03-25 20:59:13Z">4 hours ago. Grace period ends in 19 hours
This question has not received enough attention.
$begingroup$
As Eric Wofsey pointed out, if we drop the "tameness" requirement on $M$ it's easy to whip up a counterexample (e.g. a Bernstein set). This was something I was aware of but forgot to include initially.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 16 at 20:55
2
$begingroup$
You probably know this but if $M$ is complete and somewhere nowhere locally compact (i.e. nowhere locally compact in some nonempty open set) it has a closed copy of Baire space.
$endgroup$
– James Hanson
Mar 16 at 22:43
$begingroup$
Yes, but that's worth mentioning (and +1 for "somewhere nowhere").
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 16 at 22:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As Eric Wofsey pointed out, if we drop the "tameness" requirement on $M$ it's easy to whip up a counterexample (e.g. a Bernstein set). This was something I was aware of but forgot to include initially.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 16 at 20:55
2
$begingroup$
You probably know this but if $M$ is complete and somewhere nowhere locally compact (i.e. nowhere locally compact in some nonempty open set) it has a closed copy of Baire space.
$endgroup$
– James Hanson
Mar 16 at 22:43
$begingroup$
Yes, but that's worth mentioning (and +1 for "somewhere nowhere").
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 16 at 22:43
$begingroup$
As Eric Wofsey pointed out, if we drop the "tameness" requirement on $M$ it's easy to whip up a counterexample (e.g. a Bernstein set). This was something I was aware of but forgot to include initially.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 16 at 20:55
$begingroup$
As Eric Wofsey pointed out, if we drop the "tameness" requirement on $M$ it's easy to whip up a counterexample (e.g. a Bernstein set). This was something I was aware of but forgot to include initially.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 16 at 20:55
2
2
$begingroup$
You probably know this but if $M$ is complete and somewhere nowhere locally compact (i.e. nowhere locally compact in some nonempty open set) it has a closed copy of Baire space.
$endgroup$
– James Hanson
Mar 16 at 22:43
$begingroup$
You probably know this but if $M$ is complete and somewhere nowhere locally compact (i.e. nowhere locally compact in some nonempty open set) it has a closed copy of Baire space.
$endgroup$
– James Hanson
Mar 16 at 22:43
$begingroup$
Yes, but that's worth mentioning (and +1 for "somewhere nowhere").
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 16 at 22:43
$begingroup$
Yes, but that's worth mentioning (and +1 for "somewhere nowhere").
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 16 at 22:43
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think the answer is yes for Borel subsets of Polish spaces. I'm not confident enough to say anything about $L(mathbb R).$
Lemma 1. Any second-countable space $M$ can be partitioned into an open $sigma$-compact space $A$ and a closed subspace $B$ such that every non-empty relatively open subset of $B$ is non-$sigma$-compact.
Proof: Define $A$ to be the union of all $sigma$-compact open sets in $M.$ Since $M$ is strongly Lindelöf, $A$ is $sigma$-compact. Set $B=Msetminus A.$
Consider a relatively open $sigma$-compact subset $Usubseteq B.$ This is the restriction of some open $U'subseteq M.$ Since $Acup U'=Acup U$ is open and $sigma$-compact, $U'subseteq A.$ So $U=emptyset.$ $Box$
In fact I'm only going to use a weaker property of $B$ as a metric space: closed balls are non-compact. (If a closed ball $B'(x,r)$ is compact, then $B(x,r)$ is $sigma$-compact.)
Lemma 2. If $M$ is a non-empty subspace of a complete metric space $P,$ and $M$ has the property of Baire, and all closed balls of $M$ are non-compact, then there is a closed embedding of $omega^omega$ in $M.$
Proof. Write $M=UDelta (bigcup C_i)$ where $U$ is open and each $C_i$ is nowhere dense.
Since $M$ is not sequentially compact, it is either not totally bounded or it has a Cauchy sequence that converges to a point in $Psetminus M.$ In either case we can find
a sequence of disjoint "non-converging" closed balls $B_nsubseteq U$ - by this I mean that no sequence with $x_nin B_n$ has limit points in $M.$ We can pick the balls $B_n$ so that they do not intersect $C_1$ and such that they have radius less than $1$.
Then for each $n_1$ we can pick a sequence of disjoint non-converging closed balls $B_n_1,n_2subseteq B_n_1$ which do not intersect $C_2$ and with radius less than $1/2.$
Continue in this manner, defining closed balls $B_n_1,dots,n_k+1subseteq B_n_1,dots,n_k$ avoiding $C_1cupcdotscup C_k+1$ and with radius less than $1/k.$
Define an embedding $f:omega^omegato M$ by taking $(n_1,n_2,cdots)$ to the unique point in $bigcap_kB_n_1,dots,n_k.$
This map is injective because for each $k,$ the balls $B_n_1,dots,n_k$ are disjoint.
For each sequence $x_1,x_2,dotsinomega^omega,$ the sequence $f(x_n)$ converges if and only if $x_n$ converges in $omega^omega.$ So $f$ is a closed embedding. $Box$
Borel subsets $M$ of a Polish space certainly have the Baire property. So these two lemmas imply that $M$ must be either $sigma$-compact or contain a homeomorphic copy of $omega^omega.$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 - and since (under large cardinals) all subsets of $omega^omega$ have the Baire property, this also goes a way towards answering the more ambitious question. I'm going to hold off on accepting for a bit to see if the more ambitious question gets resolved, but I think this is a very satisfying answer.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 19 at 19:41
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3150809%2fnot-too-non-compact-metric-spaces%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think the answer is yes for Borel subsets of Polish spaces. I'm not confident enough to say anything about $L(mathbb R).$
Lemma 1. Any second-countable space $M$ can be partitioned into an open $sigma$-compact space $A$ and a closed subspace $B$ such that every non-empty relatively open subset of $B$ is non-$sigma$-compact.
Proof: Define $A$ to be the union of all $sigma$-compact open sets in $M.$ Since $M$ is strongly Lindelöf, $A$ is $sigma$-compact. Set $B=Msetminus A.$
Consider a relatively open $sigma$-compact subset $Usubseteq B.$ This is the restriction of some open $U'subseteq M.$ Since $Acup U'=Acup U$ is open and $sigma$-compact, $U'subseteq A.$ So $U=emptyset.$ $Box$
In fact I'm only going to use a weaker property of $B$ as a metric space: closed balls are non-compact. (If a closed ball $B'(x,r)$ is compact, then $B(x,r)$ is $sigma$-compact.)
Lemma 2. If $M$ is a non-empty subspace of a complete metric space $P,$ and $M$ has the property of Baire, and all closed balls of $M$ are non-compact, then there is a closed embedding of $omega^omega$ in $M.$
Proof. Write $M=UDelta (bigcup C_i)$ where $U$ is open and each $C_i$ is nowhere dense.
Since $M$ is not sequentially compact, it is either not totally bounded or it has a Cauchy sequence that converges to a point in $Psetminus M.$ In either case we can find
a sequence of disjoint "non-converging" closed balls $B_nsubseteq U$ - by this I mean that no sequence with $x_nin B_n$ has limit points in $M.$ We can pick the balls $B_n$ so that they do not intersect $C_1$ and such that they have radius less than $1$.
Then for each $n_1$ we can pick a sequence of disjoint non-converging closed balls $B_n_1,n_2subseteq B_n_1$ which do not intersect $C_2$ and with radius less than $1/2.$
Continue in this manner, defining closed balls $B_n_1,dots,n_k+1subseteq B_n_1,dots,n_k$ avoiding $C_1cupcdotscup C_k+1$ and with radius less than $1/k.$
Define an embedding $f:omega^omegato M$ by taking $(n_1,n_2,cdots)$ to the unique point in $bigcap_kB_n_1,dots,n_k.$
This map is injective because for each $k,$ the balls $B_n_1,dots,n_k$ are disjoint.
For each sequence $x_1,x_2,dotsinomega^omega,$ the sequence $f(x_n)$ converges if and only if $x_n$ converges in $omega^omega.$ So $f$ is a closed embedding. $Box$
Borel subsets $M$ of a Polish space certainly have the Baire property. So these two lemmas imply that $M$ must be either $sigma$-compact or contain a homeomorphic copy of $omega^omega.$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 - and since (under large cardinals) all subsets of $omega^omega$ have the Baire property, this also goes a way towards answering the more ambitious question. I'm going to hold off on accepting for a bit to see if the more ambitious question gets resolved, but I think this is a very satisfying answer.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 19 at 19:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the answer is yes for Borel subsets of Polish spaces. I'm not confident enough to say anything about $L(mathbb R).$
Lemma 1. Any second-countable space $M$ can be partitioned into an open $sigma$-compact space $A$ and a closed subspace $B$ such that every non-empty relatively open subset of $B$ is non-$sigma$-compact.
Proof: Define $A$ to be the union of all $sigma$-compact open sets in $M.$ Since $M$ is strongly Lindelöf, $A$ is $sigma$-compact. Set $B=Msetminus A.$
Consider a relatively open $sigma$-compact subset $Usubseteq B.$ This is the restriction of some open $U'subseteq M.$ Since $Acup U'=Acup U$ is open and $sigma$-compact, $U'subseteq A.$ So $U=emptyset.$ $Box$
In fact I'm only going to use a weaker property of $B$ as a metric space: closed balls are non-compact. (If a closed ball $B'(x,r)$ is compact, then $B(x,r)$ is $sigma$-compact.)
Lemma 2. If $M$ is a non-empty subspace of a complete metric space $P,$ and $M$ has the property of Baire, and all closed balls of $M$ are non-compact, then there is a closed embedding of $omega^omega$ in $M.$
Proof. Write $M=UDelta (bigcup C_i)$ where $U$ is open and each $C_i$ is nowhere dense.
Since $M$ is not sequentially compact, it is either not totally bounded or it has a Cauchy sequence that converges to a point in $Psetminus M.$ In either case we can find
a sequence of disjoint "non-converging" closed balls $B_nsubseteq U$ - by this I mean that no sequence with $x_nin B_n$ has limit points in $M.$ We can pick the balls $B_n$ so that they do not intersect $C_1$ and such that they have radius less than $1$.
Then for each $n_1$ we can pick a sequence of disjoint non-converging closed balls $B_n_1,n_2subseteq B_n_1$ which do not intersect $C_2$ and with radius less than $1/2.$
Continue in this manner, defining closed balls $B_n_1,dots,n_k+1subseteq B_n_1,dots,n_k$ avoiding $C_1cupcdotscup C_k+1$ and with radius less than $1/k.$
Define an embedding $f:omega^omegato M$ by taking $(n_1,n_2,cdots)$ to the unique point in $bigcap_kB_n_1,dots,n_k.$
This map is injective because for each $k,$ the balls $B_n_1,dots,n_k$ are disjoint.
For each sequence $x_1,x_2,dotsinomega^omega,$ the sequence $f(x_n)$ converges if and only if $x_n$ converges in $omega^omega.$ So $f$ is a closed embedding. $Box$
Borel subsets $M$ of a Polish space certainly have the Baire property. So these two lemmas imply that $M$ must be either $sigma$-compact or contain a homeomorphic copy of $omega^omega.$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 - and since (under large cardinals) all subsets of $omega^omega$ have the Baire property, this also goes a way towards answering the more ambitious question. I'm going to hold off on accepting for a bit to see if the more ambitious question gets resolved, but I think this is a very satisfying answer.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 19 at 19:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the answer is yes for Borel subsets of Polish spaces. I'm not confident enough to say anything about $L(mathbb R).$
Lemma 1. Any second-countable space $M$ can be partitioned into an open $sigma$-compact space $A$ and a closed subspace $B$ such that every non-empty relatively open subset of $B$ is non-$sigma$-compact.
Proof: Define $A$ to be the union of all $sigma$-compact open sets in $M.$ Since $M$ is strongly Lindelöf, $A$ is $sigma$-compact. Set $B=Msetminus A.$
Consider a relatively open $sigma$-compact subset $Usubseteq B.$ This is the restriction of some open $U'subseteq M.$ Since $Acup U'=Acup U$ is open and $sigma$-compact, $U'subseteq A.$ So $U=emptyset.$ $Box$
In fact I'm only going to use a weaker property of $B$ as a metric space: closed balls are non-compact. (If a closed ball $B'(x,r)$ is compact, then $B(x,r)$ is $sigma$-compact.)
Lemma 2. If $M$ is a non-empty subspace of a complete metric space $P,$ and $M$ has the property of Baire, and all closed balls of $M$ are non-compact, then there is a closed embedding of $omega^omega$ in $M.$
Proof. Write $M=UDelta (bigcup C_i)$ where $U$ is open and each $C_i$ is nowhere dense.
Since $M$ is not sequentially compact, it is either not totally bounded or it has a Cauchy sequence that converges to a point in $Psetminus M.$ In either case we can find
a sequence of disjoint "non-converging" closed balls $B_nsubseteq U$ - by this I mean that no sequence with $x_nin B_n$ has limit points in $M.$ We can pick the balls $B_n$ so that they do not intersect $C_1$ and such that they have radius less than $1$.
Then for each $n_1$ we can pick a sequence of disjoint non-converging closed balls $B_n_1,n_2subseteq B_n_1$ which do not intersect $C_2$ and with radius less than $1/2.$
Continue in this manner, defining closed balls $B_n_1,dots,n_k+1subseteq B_n_1,dots,n_k$ avoiding $C_1cupcdotscup C_k+1$ and with radius less than $1/k.$
Define an embedding $f:omega^omegato M$ by taking $(n_1,n_2,cdots)$ to the unique point in $bigcap_kB_n_1,dots,n_k.$
This map is injective because for each $k,$ the balls $B_n_1,dots,n_k$ are disjoint.
For each sequence $x_1,x_2,dotsinomega^omega,$ the sequence $f(x_n)$ converges if and only if $x_n$ converges in $omega^omega.$ So $f$ is a closed embedding. $Box$
Borel subsets $M$ of a Polish space certainly have the Baire property. So these two lemmas imply that $M$ must be either $sigma$-compact or contain a homeomorphic copy of $omega^omega.$
$endgroup$
I think the answer is yes for Borel subsets of Polish spaces. I'm not confident enough to say anything about $L(mathbb R).$
Lemma 1. Any second-countable space $M$ can be partitioned into an open $sigma$-compact space $A$ and a closed subspace $B$ such that every non-empty relatively open subset of $B$ is non-$sigma$-compact.
Proof: Define $A$ to be the union of all $sigma$-compact open sets in $M.$ Since $M$ is strongly Lindelöf, $A$ is $sigma$-compact. Set $B=Msetminus A.$
Consider a relatively open $sigma$-compact subset $Usubseteq B.$ This is the restriction of some open $U'subseteq M.$ Since $Acup U'=Acup U$ is open and $sigma$-compact, $U'subseteq A.$ So $U=emptyset.$ $Box$
In fact I'm only going to use a weaker property of $B$ as a metric space: closed balls are non-compact. (If a closed ball $B'(x,r)$ is compact, then $B(x,r)$ is $sigma$-compact.)
Lemma 2. If $M$ is a non-empty subspace of a complete metric space $P,$ and $M$ has the property of Baire, and all closed balls of $M$ are non-compact, then there is a closed embedding of $omega^omega$ in $M.$
Proof. Write $M=UDelta (bigcup C_i)$ where $U$ is open and each $C_i$ is nowhere dense.
Since $M$ is not sequentially compact, it is either not totally bounded or it has a Cauchy sequence that converges to a point in $Psetminus M.$ In either case we can find
a sequence of disjoint "non-converging" closed balls $B_nsubseteq U$ - by this I mean that no sequence with $x_nin B_n$ has limit points in $M.$ We can pick the balls $B_n$ so that they do not intersect $C_1$ and such that they have radius less than $1$.
Then for each $n_1$ we can pick a sequence of disjoint non-converging closed balls $B_n_1,n_2subseteq B_n_1$ which do not intersect $C_2$ and with radius less than $1/2.$
Continue in this manner, defining closed balls $B_n_1,dots,n_k+1subseteq B_n_1,dots,n_k$ avoiding $C_1cupcdotscup C_k+1$ and with radius less than $1/k.$
Define an embedding $f:omega^omegato M$ by taking $(n_1,n_2,cdots)$ to the unique point in $bigcap_kB_n_1,dots,n_k.$
This map is injective because for each $k,$ the balls $B_n_1,dots,n_k$ are disjoint.
For each sequence $x_1,x_2,dotsinomega^omega,$ the sequence $f(x_n)$ converges if and only if $x_n$ converges in $omega^omega.$ So $f$ is a closed embedding. $Box$
Borel subsets $M$ of a Polish space certainly have the Baire property. So these two lemmas imply that $M$ must be either $sigma$-compact or contain a homeomorphic copy of $omega^omega.$
edited Mar 19 at 13:01
answered Mar 19 at 11:29
DapDap
19.2k842
19.2k842
$begingroup$
+1 - and since (under large cardinals) all subsets of $omega^omega$ have the Baire property, this also goes a way towards answering the more ambitious question. I'm going to hold off on accepting for a bit to see if the more ambitious question gets resolved, but I think this is a very satisfying answer.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 19 at 19:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
+1 - and since (under large cardinals) all subsets of $omega^omega$ have the Baire property, this also goes a way towards answering the more ambitious question. I'm going to hold off on accepting for a bit to see if the more ambitious question gets resolved, but I think this is a very satisfying answer.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 19 at 19:41
$begingroup$
+1 - and since (under large cardinals) all subsets of $omega^omega$ have the Baire property, this also goes a way towards answering the more ambitious question. I'm going to hold off on accepting for a bit to see if the more ambitious question gets resolved, but I think this is a very satisfying answer.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 19 at 19:41
$begingroup$
+1 - and since (under large cardinals) all subsets of $omega^omega$ have the Baire property, this also goes a way towards answering the more ambitious question. I'm going to hold off on accepting for a bit to see if the more ambitious question gets resolved, but I think this is a very satisfying answer.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 19 at 19:41
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3150809%2fnot-too-non-compact-metric-spaces%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
As Eric Wofsey pointed out, if we drop the "tameness" requirement on $M$ it's easy to whip up a counterexample (e.g. a Bernstein set). This was something I was aware of but forgot to include initially.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 16 at 20:55
2
$begingroup$
You probably know this but if $M$ is complete and somewhere nowhere locally compact (i.e. nowhere locally compact in some nonempty open set) it has a closed copy of Baire space.
$endgroup$
– James Hanson
Mar 16 at 22:43
$begingroup$
Yes, but that's worth mentioning (and +1 for "somewhere nowhere").
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Mar 16 at 22:43