1

Def.: For a topological space $S$ with weight $w(S)=\kappa$, I define the grasp $g(S)$ to be the least infinite cardinal $\gamma$ such that $S$ has a base $\mathscr{B}$ with $|\mathscr{B}|=\kappa$ such that every open set is the union of at most $\gamma$ members of $\mathscr{B}$.

When I spoke to Franklin Tall (Prof. Emeritus, U.of Toronto) last fall, he said he hadn't heard of it. (His specialty is point-set topology and set-theory).

I can show the following by elementary means:

  • [R1] $g(S) \le w(S)$ (obviously).

  • [R2] If $E$ is a subspace of $D$ and $w(E)=w(D)$, then $g(E)\le g(D)$.

  • [R3] Let $D[\mu]$ be the discrete space of cardinality $\mu$, where $\mu$ is an infinite cardinal. If $w(S)=\mu$, then $g(S)\le g(D[\mu])$.

  • [R4] If $\mathscr{T}$ is the topology on $S$ then $|\mathscr{T}|\le w(S)^{g(S)}$ (obviously).

  • [R5] Let the infinite cardinal $\kappa$ have either the discrete topology or the order topology. Then $\operatorname{cf}(\kappa)\le g(\kappa)\le \kappa$, and if $\kappa$ is a strong limit cardinal then $g(\kappa)=\operatorname{cf}(\kappa)$. NOTE: This last part of [R5] is useful to distinguish the grasp from other topological cardinal functions.

Questions:

  • [Q1] For a topology $\mathscr{T}$ on $S$, the grasp $g(S)$ is not necessarily the least infinite $\lambda$ such that $|\mathscr{T}|\le w(S)^ \lambda$, for if $\mathscr{T}$ is the discrete topology on $\omega _1$ and if $2^\omega = 2^{\omega _1}$, then $|\mathscr{T}|=\omega _1^ \omega$, but the grasp is $\omega_1$, not $\omega$. Is there an example like this in $\mathsf{ZFC}$?

  • [Q2] What are the possible consistent values for the grasp of the discrete space $D[2^ \omega]$ aside from the value $2^ \omega$?

Examples:

  • [E1] The Sorgenfrey line has weight $2^ \omega$ and grasp $\omega$. So in [R3] we may have, by [R5], that $g(S) < \operatorname{cf}(\chi)\le \chi=g(D[w(S)])$.

  • [E2] By [R1] and [R2],the Nimitzky plane $P$ has $g(P)=g(D[2^ \omega])$.

Any further thoughts about this function will be appreciated.

Cameron Buie
  • 102,994
  • If $S$ has a base $B$ such that $\lvert B\rvert\le k,$ then by definition of weight, we have $\lvert B\rvert=k,$ do we not? – Cameron Buie Aug 17 '15 at 18:55
  • 2
    With 815 reputation points you are no longer a beginner. At this level, you are expected to use LaTeX formatting. – Alex M. Aug 17 '15 at 18:59
  • (1)It has been said that "There are no finite cardinals in point-set topology." The weight is the least infinite cardinal k such that there is a base of cardinal k or less. (2) Thanks for improving the layout.I still haven't learned very much LaTeX. I haven't been here long. – DanielWainfleet Aug 17 '15 at 19:31
  • @Alex: In fact $\LaTeX$ was used everywhere that it was absolutely needed (exponents, $\le$, Greek letters). – Brian M. Scott Aug 17 '15 at 19:33
  • 1
    @user254665: This site has a MathJax tutorial. \ The one obvious comment is that $h(X)\le g(X)$, where $h(X)$ is the height (= hereditary Lindelöf degree). – Brian M. Scott Aug 17 '15 at 19:53
  • @BrianM.Scott: Umm... why would I need a MathJax tutorial? I always use MathJax code. – Alex M. Aug 17 '15 at 19:55
  • @Alex: Sorry: that comment was intended for the OP; fixed now. – Brian M. Scott Aug 17 '15 at 19:56
  • 1
    @user254665: Oops. The inequality in my earlier comment is backwards. – Brian M. Scott Aug 17 '15 at 20:22
  • Yes.For singular strong limit cardinal K, we have g(D(K)) =cf(K) and hl(D(K))=K.The notation I am familiar with uses hf to mean hereditary f, for any f...I was going to call it the reach,not the grasp,but the letter r already has many meanings. – DanielWainfleet Aug 21 '15 at 00:14
  • @user254665: I am aware of the definition of weight. I mean that if $\operatorname{wt}(S)=\kappa$ and (as in your definition of grasp) there is a base $\mathcal B$ for $S$ such that $\lvert\mathcal B\rvert\le\kappa,$ then we should in fact have $\lvert\mathcal B\rvert=\kappa.$ If not, then by definition of weight, we would have $$\operatorname{wt}(S)\le\lvert\mathcal B\rvert\lt\kappa=\operatorname{wt}(S).$$ At least, unless I'm missing something. – Cameron Buie Aug 31 '15 at 03:51
  • The only distinction between the two def'ns of weight occurs for a space with a finite base.Which, in my Q, is a trivial case. There are good Q's about finite topologies. This Q won't answer them. – DanielWainfleet Sep 07 '15 at 22:01
  • Here is MO copy of this question: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/221113/two-questions-about-the-grasp-cardinal-function You might consider adding link to the other copy to your post, see meta. – Martin Sleziak Oct 17 '15 at 08:46

0 Answers0