How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Partitions of Unity and Paracompactness
1 · Prerequisites
- Cardinal Arithmetic, Cofinality and the Alephs
- Compactness
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Connectedness
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Countability and Uncountability
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Hereditary and Productive Behaviour of the Separation Axioms
- Metric Spaces
- Monotone Sequences, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy Completeness
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Ordinal Arithmetic and the First Uncountable Ordinal
- Ordinals, Cardinals, and Transfinite Recursion
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Separation Axioms: the Hierarchy
- Sequences and Limits
- Series: Convergence and the Nonnegative Tests
- Set Theory Beyond Choice: Recorded, Not Proved Here
- Subspaces, Products, and Quotients
- Suprema and Infima
- The Cantor Set, Baire Category, and Measure Zero in ℝ
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topological Spaces and Continuity
- Topology of ℝ
- Urysohn's Lemma and the Tietze Extension Theorem
2 · Summary
Open covers, compactness, and the separation axioms provide the setting for refinements and local finiteness. The development uses the compact-cover definition from Open cover, subcover, and compact topological space; a compact subset is a subspace that is compact in its own right, the Hausdorff, regular, and normal conventions from the separation pages, Urysohn's lemma under Dependent Choice, and the lower-limit product obstruction from Assuming choice, normality is not productive: the normal lower-limit line has a nonnormal square. Paracompactness itself is defined without Hausdorffness, so every regularity, normality, shrinking, and partition result names the Hausdorff hypothesis that it uses.
The page defines locally finite refinements, paracompactness, and subordination, then proves the closure and locally finite-sum lemmas needed for regularity, normality, shrinking, and normalization. Under Choice and Dependent Choice, Urysohn functions yield subordinate partitions of unity and their converse characterization. Ornstein's two primary constructions first produce a point-finite refinement and then upgrade that cover to a locally finite one, giving Stone's theorem under Choice. Compactness, ordinal spaces, and the lower-limit line provide the stated positive and negative preservation results.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
Refinements, locally finite families, point-finite families, and star refinements
Definition
Let be a topological space. A family of subsets of is a refinement of a family when every is contained in some . It is an open refinement when, additionally, every is open. A refinement of a cover need not itself cover ; when it does, it is called a refining cover.
A family of subsets of is locally finite when every point has a neighbourhood meeting only finitely many members of . It is point-finite when every belongs to only finitely many members of . Local finiteness implies point-finiteness: a neighbourhood of meeting only finitely many members contains , so every member containing is among those finitely many. The converse is not part of the definition and can fail.
For a family and a subset , its star about is A cover is a star refinement of a cover when for every there is with .
Remarks
The word “neighbourhood” has the library convention from Neighbourhood of a point and neighbourhood base, with this library's convention that a neighbourhood need not be open: it need not itself be open. Replacing it by an open neighbourhood gives the same local-finiteness condition, because every neighbourhood contains an open one about the same point.
Locally finite families remain locally finite after taking closures, closure commutes with their union, and a locally finite union of closed sets is closed
Statement
Let be a locally finite family of subsets of a topological space . Then is locally finite and Consequently, a locally finite union of closed subsets of is closed.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A locally finite family in a topological space .
Local finiteness says that each point has a neighbourhood meeting only finitely many (Refinements, locally finite families, point-finite families, and star refinements).
A point belongs to exactly when every neighbourhood of it meets , and is the smallest closed superset of (A point lies in the closure of iff every basic neighbourhood of it meets ; the closure is the smallest closed superset and equals together with its derived set).
Proof
Fix and a neighbourhood of meeting only . Choose an open neighbourhood of with . If , choose ; the open neighbourhood of then meets , so meets and .
The inclusion holds because each is contained in every closed set containing , in particular in .
Thus meets only , so the closed family is locally finite.
Let and take as in step 1.1; if , then for each an open neighbourhood of misses , and its finite intersection with an open neighbourhood inside misses every , contradicting the closure criterion.
Hence by steps 1.2 and 2.2; if every is closed, the right-hand side is , so that union is closed.
Paracompactness: every open cover has a locally finite open refinement, with no separation axiom built into the word
Definition
A topological space is paracompact when every open cover of has an open refinement which covers and is locally finite. In symbols, for every open cover there is a locally finite open cover such that every lies in some .
No separation axiom is included in this definition. Some sources reserve the word paracompact for the conjunction of this covering property with Hausdorffness. Here the covering property is named by itself, and any use of Hausdorffness is stated explicitly.
Remarks
The finite-subcover condition defining compactness is recalled in Open cover, subcover, and compact topological space; a compact subset is a subspace that is compact in its own right. A finite family is locally finite, but compactness and paracompactness remain distinct definitions because their conclusions quantify over different refinements of a cover.
Every compact space is paracompact
Statement
Every compact topological space is paracompact.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A compact topological space and an open cover of .
Compactness means that has a finite subcover (Open cover, subcover, and compact topological space; a compact subset is a subspace that is compact in its own right).
Paracompactness asks for a locally finite open refinement of each open cover (Paracompactness: every open cover has a locally finite open refinement, with no separation axiom built into the word).
Proof
By compactness, fix a finite subfamily covering .
The family is open, covers , refines , and is locally finite because every point has the neighbourhood , which meets only members of the finite family .
Thus is the refinement required by [F2], and is paracompact.
Every closed subspace of a paracompact space is paracompact
Statement
Every closed subspace of a paracompact topological space is paracompact.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A paracompact space , a closed subset , and an open cover of the subspace .
An open subset of has the form for an open , and is open (Subspace topology: the traces of the open sets, its closed sets and its bases, the continuity of the inclusion, and the characteristic property of a map into a subspace).
Every open cover of has a locally finite open refining cover (Paracompactness: every open cover has a locally finite open refinement, with no separation axiom built into the word).
Proof
For each member of , take all ambient open whose trace is that member; together with , these ambient open sets form an open cover of .
By [F2], fix a locally finite open cover refining .
The nonempty traces for cover , are open in , and refine : a meeting cannot be contained in , so its containing member of is an ambient representative of a member of .
These traces are locally finite in , because the trace on of a neighbourhood in meeting only finitely many meets only the corresponding finitely many traces.
The family in step 2.1 is therefore the locally finite open refinement required for , so is paracompact.
Every paracompact Hausdorff space is regular
Statement
Every paracompact Hausdorff topological space is regular. No choice principle is used.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A paracompact Hausdorff space , a closed set , and a point .
Distinct points in a Hausdorff space have disjoint open neighbourhoods (Hausdorff space: distinct points have disjoint open neighbourhoods; every metrizable space is Hausdorff and the indiscrete topology on two points is not).
A paracompact space gives every open cover a locally finite open refining cover (Paracompactness: every open cover has a locally finite open refinement, with no separation axiom built into the word).
For a locally finite family, closure commutes with union (Locally finite families remain locally finite after taking closures, closure commutes with their union, and a locally finite union of closed sets is closed).
Regularity is separation of a point from a disjoint closed set by disjoint open sets (Regular spaces and spaces, with the source disagreement over whether regularity includes stated explicitly).
Proof
For every , Hausdorffness gives disjoint open sets with and ; hence , since is closed and contains . Thus the family of all open with and , together with , is an open cover of .
Take a locally finite open cover refining , and put .
The set is open and contains : a member of containing a point of cannot refine , so it occurs in the defining union.
Every occurring in lies in an eligible of step 1.1, so ; local finiteness and [L1] give , whence .
The open sets and contain and respectively and are disjoint. By [F3], is regular.
Every paracompact Hausdorff space is normal
Statement
Every paracompact Hausdorff topological space is normal. No choice principle is used.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A paracompact Hausdorff space and disjoint closed subsets .
The space is regular (Every paracompact Hausdorff space is regular).
A locally finite family commutes with closure under union (Locally finite families remain locally finite after taking closures, closure commutes with their union, and a locally finite union of closed sets is closed).
Paracompactness supplies a locally finite open refining cover (Paracompactness: every open cover has a locally finite open refinement, with no separation axiom built into the word).
Normality is separation of disjoint closed sets by disjoint open sets (Normal spaces and spaces, with the source disagreement over whether normality includes stated explicitly).
Proof
For each , regularity supplies an open containing with ; therefore the family of all such , together with , is an open cover of .
Take a locally finite open cover refining , and set .
The open set contains , because a member of containing a point of cannot lie inside .
Every member used in lies in one of the eligible and so has ; hence is disjoint from by [L2].
The open sets and contain and respectively and are disjoint, so [F2] proves normality.
Locally finite partitions of unity and subordination to an open cover
Definition
Let be a topological space and let be an open cover of . A family is a partition of unity when each is continuous, the family of cozero sets is locally finite, and The sum is unambiguous because local finiteness says that only finitely many summands are nonzero near, and hence at, any fixed point.
It is subordinate to when for every some contains the support Here cozero sets and zero sets have the meanings of Zero sets and cozero sets of continuous real-valued functions.
Remarks
The finite case is included: if is finite, the cozero family is locally finite automatically. The definition does not require to be Hausdorff; Hausdorffness enters the existence theorem through shrinking and Urysohn's lemma.
Sums, products, absolute values, finite maxima and minima, and quotients of continuous real-valued maps on a topological space are continuous where defined
Statement
Let be continuous maps from a topological space. Then , , , , and are continuous. On the open cozero set , the quotient is continuous. The same holds for every finite sum, product, maximum, or minimum of continuous real-valued maps.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A topological space and continuous maps .
A map into a product is continuous exactly when its coordinate maps are continuous, compositions of continuous maps are continuous, and a map whose range lies in a subspace is continuous into that subspace exactly when it is continuous into the ambient space (A map into a product is continuous iff each of its components is; the projections are continuous and open; and each projection is surjective when every factor is nonempty, which for an infinite index set uses the Axiom of Choice, For a map of spaces the following agree: continuity at every point, preimages of open sets open, preimages of closed sets closed, preimages of subbasic open sets open, and , Subspace topology: the traces of the open sets, its closed sets and its bases, the continuity of the inclusion, and the characteristic property of a map into a subspace).
is open for continuous (Zero sets and cozero sets of continuous real-valued functions).
Proof
Addition is continuous at because gives . Multiplication is continuous there: after requiring , one has which is less than when both coordinate errors are smaller than . These coordinate conditions describe product neighbourhoods, so both operations are continuous.
The reverse triangle inequality makes absolute value continuous. Consequently are continuous by step 1.1 and composition.
Reciprocal is continuous at : if , then and Thus division is the product of and and is continuous on ; moreover is open by [F1].
The map is continuous by [L1], so composing it with the operations of steps 1.1 and 2.1 gives continuity of , , , and ; composing with absolute value gives continuity of .
Restricting and to and composing their product map with division gives continuity of there.
Iterating the binary operations of step 3.1 proves the finite assertions.
A locally finite family of continuous nonnegative functions has a continuous pointwise sum
Statement
Let be continuous and suppose that is locally finite. Then is a well-defined continuous map .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A locally finite family of cozero sets of continuous nonnegative functions on .
At every point, a locally finite family has a neighbourhood meeting only finitely many members (Locally finite partitions of unity and subordination to an open cover).
A finite sum of continuous real-valued maps is continuous (Sums, products, absolute values, finite maxima and minima, and quotients of continuous real-valued maps on a topological space are continuous where defined).
Proof
Fix and a neighbourhood meeting only ; every with vanishes on .
Thus at every point of the displayed pointwise sum equals the finite sum , so it is well defined and agrees on with a continuous function.
Since every point has such a neighbourhood , the pointwise sum is continuous on and is nonnegative.
A locally finite nonnegative family with positive pointwise sum normalizes to a partition of unity
Statement
Let be continuous with locally finite cozero family, and suppose is positive at every point. Then form a partition of unity; their cozero sets and supports are the same as those of the corresponding .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A locally finite nonnegative continuous family whose pointwise sum is everywhere positive.
The sum is continuous (A locally finite family of continuous nonnegative functions has a continuous pointwise sum).
A quotient of continuous real-valued maps is continuous on the cozero set of its denominator (Sums, products, absolute values, finite maxima and minima, and quotients of continuous real-valued maps on a topological space are continuous where defined).
A family of continuous maps is a partition of unity exactly when its cozero family is locally finite and its pointwise sum is one (Locally finite partitions of unity and subordination to an open cover).
Proof
By [L1] the function is continuous, and the positivity hypothesis makes .
Therefore each is continuous by [L2] and nonnegative. Since , it takes values in , and positivity of gives .
At every , local finiteness makes the sum finite and gives .
The cozero family is unchanged, hence locally finite, and equality of cozero sets also gives equality of supports. Thus [F1] says that is a partition of unity.
Under choice, every open cover of a paracompact Hausdorff space has locally finite open refinements and with
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice. If is paracompact and Hausdorff and is an open cover, there are a set , a map from into , and locally finite open covers and with
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The Axiom of Choice, a paracompact Hausdorff space , and an open cover .
Every family of nonempty sets has a choice function (The Axiom of Choice).
The space is regular (Every paracompact Hausdorff space is regular).
In a regular space, open gives an open with (A space is regular if and only if every point has a neighbourhood base of closed neighbourhoods, if and only if open gives an open with , implication (a)(b)).
Every open cover has a locally finite open refinement (Paracompactness: every open cover has a locally finite open refinement, with no separation axiom built into the word).
Locally finite unions commute with closure (Locally finite families remain locally finite after taking closures, closure commutes with their union, and a locally finite union of closed sets is closed).
Proof
We first prove a one-shrink construction for any open cover . Let be the family of all open for which for some . By [L1] and [L3], covers . Take a locally finite open refining cover of by [F1], discard its empty members, and use [A1] to assign to each sets and with Then .
Apply step 1.1 to . This gives a locally finite open cover and assigned such that .
Apply step 1.1 again, now to the cover . Obtain a locally finite open cover and a map such that . For put The family is an open cover. It is locally finite because any neighbourhood meeting only finitely many meets only the corresponding finitely many grouped unions .
Each subfamily is locally finite, so [L2] gives Together with step 2.1 this yields for every , with both displayed families locally finite open covers.
Remarks
The Axiom of Choice is used to retain the assignments to cover members through the two locally finite refinements. This is a sufficient hypothesis for this construction; no claim is made that it is the exact choice strength.
Under choice and dependent choice, every open cover of a paracompact Hausdorff space admits a locally finite subordinate partition of unity
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice and the Axiom of Dependent Choice. Every open cover of a paracompact Hausdorff space admits a locally finite partition of unity subordinate to it.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Choice, dependent choice, a paracompact Hausdorff space , and an open cover .
There are locally finite covers , and with (Under choice, every open cover of a paracompact Hausdorff space has locally finite open refinements and with ).
Every paracompact Hausdorff space is normal (Every paracompact Hausdorff space is normal).
Under dependent choice, Urysohn's lemma separates disjoint closed sets in a normal space by a continuous map into (Urysohn's lemma, under the axiom of dependent choice: in a normal space two disjoint closed sets are separated by a continuous function into , and conversely such a space is normal, clause 1).
If is a continuous family with locally finite cozero family and everywhere-positive sum , then the functions form a partition of unity, with the same cozero sets and supports as the corresponding (A locally finite nonnegative family with positive pointwise sum normalizes to a partition of unity).
Proof
Apply [L1] to obtain as stated.
By [L2], is normal. For each , the closed sets and are disjoint, so [L3] gives a continuous equal to on and on .
The cozero set of lies in , while its support lies in ; since is locally finite, so is the cozero family.
Because covers and on , the pointwise sum is positive everywhere.
By [L4], the normalized functions form a locally finite partition of unity; their supports equal those of , so step 3.1 makes the partition subordinate to .
For a Hausdorff space, paracompactness is equivalent, under choice and dependent choice, to the existence of a locally finite subordinate partition of unity for every open cover
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice and the Axiom of Dependent Choice. For a Hausdorff space , the following are equivalent: is paracompact; every open cover of admits a locally finite partition of unity subordinate to it.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Hausdorff space , choice and dependent choice, and an open cover .
A paracompact Hausdorff space has a locally finite partition of unity subordinate to each open cover (Under choice and dependent choice, every open cover of a paracompact Hausdorff space admits a locally finite subordinate partition of unity).
In a subordinate partition, cozero sets are open, form a locally finite family, and each support lies in a member of (Locally finite partitions of unity and subordination to an open cover, Zero sets and cozero sets of continuous real-valued functions).
Paracompactness asks for a locally finite open refining cover (Paracompactness: every open cover has a locally finite open refinement, with no separation axiom built into the word).
Proof
If is paracompact, [L1] supplies the asserted partition for .
Conversely, suppose every open cover admits such a partition. For the partition subordinate to , the cozero sets cover because their functions sum to one.
Each cozero set is open, locally finite among the cozero family, and contained in its support and hence in a member of ; it is therefore a locally finite open refinement of .
By [F2], step 1.3 proves that is paracompact, completing the equivalence.
Under choice and dependent choice, every open cover of a compact Hausdorff space admits a finite subordinate partition of unity
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice and the Axiom of Dependent Choice. Every open cover of a compact Hausdorff space admits a finite partition of unity subordinate to that cover.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Choice, dependent choice, a compact Hausdorff space , and an open cover .
A compact space is paracompact (Every compact space is paracompact).
A paracompact Hausdorff space has a locally finite partition subordinate to each of its open covers (Under choice and dependent choice, every open cover of a paracompact Hausdorff space admits a locally finite subordinate partition of unity).
A locally finite sum of continuous nonnegative functions is continuous (A locally finite family of continuous nonnegative functions has a continuous pointwise sum).
Closure commutes with a locally finite union (Locally finite families remain locally finite after taking closures, closure commutes with their union, and a locally finite union of closed sets is closed).
Compactness gives a finite subcover (Open cover, subcover, and compact topological space; a compact subset is a subspace that is compact in its own right).
Proof
Compactness gives a finite subcover of .
By [L1] and [L2], apply the partition theorem to the finite cover and take a locally finite partition subordinate to it.
Assign each to the first containing its support, and set equal to the corresponding sum. By [L3] the are continuous; by [L4] their supports are contained in ; and .
Discarding the zero leaves a finite subordinate partition of unity.
Under choice, every open cover of a metric space has a point-finite open refinement
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice. Every open cover of a metric space has a point-finite open refinement.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Choice, a metric space , and an open cover .
Every set can be well ordered under the Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Choice, The well-ordering theorem).
Metric balls are open and each point of an open set has a ball contained in that set (The metric topology: a set is open when every one of its points has a ball around it inside the set; closed means open complement).
A point-finite open refining cover is as in Refinements, locally finite families, point-finite families, and star refinements.
The dyadic radii tend to (For the sequence is null, and for the sequence diverges to , claim 1 with ratio ).
Proof
Well order by [A1], and write . A ball is chosen for when is the least natural number with and, in addition, for some . Let be the union of all balls chosen for .
Put . Each is open and refines .
The cover. Otherwise let be the first original member containing an omitted point . Then . By [L1], choose with , and put . Some chosen ball meets ; write its radius as . If , then , so its expanded ball contains . If , then , so and minimality gives ; hence , a contradiction. Thus in every case an expanded chosen ball contains . That expanded ball lies in some with , contradicting the choice of .
If and is least with (which exists by [L1]), then is the first cover member containing : otherwise would be chosen for and would contain , contrary to . For each there is at most one such first member, and as increases their ordinal indices are nonincreasing. Infinitely many distinct indices would therefore give an infinite strictly descending sequence of ordinals, impossible because its range has a least member. Thus only finitely many contain .
Thus is the point-finite open refinement required by [F2].
Remarks
This is part (A), pages 341–342, of Ornstein's primary proof. Its chosen dyadic-ball construction supplies the point-finite refinement to which the controlled-radius construction in part (B) is then applied.
Under choice, Ornstein's second construction turns a point-finite metric open cover into a locally finite open refinement
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice. Every point-finite open cover of a metric space has a locally finite open refinement. Consequently every metric open cover has a locally finite open refinement.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Choice, a metric space , and a point-finite open cover .
The Axiom of Choice permits the cover to be well ordered and used to select its first eligible member (The Axiom of Choice, The well-ordering theorem).
Metric balls are open, and every point has a positive-radius ball inside some cover member (The metric topology: a set is open when every one of its points has a ball around it inside the set; closed means open complement).
A locally finite open refinement is the paracompactness refinement of Refinements, locally finite families, point-finite families, and star refinements.
Under choice every metric open cover has a point-finite open refinement (Under choice, every open cover of a metric space has a point-finite open refinement).
Proof
Well order the point-finite cover. For let Put when , and otherwise. Then and lies in some cover member: its radius is strictly below . Assign to the first containing , and let be the union of all assigned to .
The selected smaller balls cover and each lies in its assigned , so is an open refining cover.
Fix . If meets , choose a ball meeting it. We claim . Otherwise , while intersection gives ; hence . Thus the truncation in step 1.1 is inactive at and . But because ; the right-hand ball lies in some cover member by step 1.1. This contradicts the definition of . Thus .
The input cover is point-finite, so belongs to only finitely many . Step 2.2 shows that meets only the corresponding finitely many ; hence the new cover is locally finite.
Hence is a locally finite open refinement of the point-finite cover. For an arbitrary metric open cover, first apply [L1] and then this construction; refinement is transitive, so the result refines the original cover.
Remarks
In the primary paper, part (B) is applied to the point-finite cover obtained in part (A), with that cover renamed . Its local-finiteness test concludes that every new set meeting a fixed small ball has an index for which ; point-finiteness of the input is exactly what turns this conclusion into finiteness. Thus part (B) upgrades part (A) rather than restarting from the original arbitrary cover.
Stone's theorem, under choice: every metric space is paracompact
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice. Every metric space is paracompact.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The Axiom of Choice, a metric space , and an arbitrary open cover of its metric topology.
Under choice, every metric open cover has a point-finite open refinement, and Ornstein's second construction turns that point-finite cover into a locally finite open refinement (Under choice, every open cover of a metric space has a point-finite open refinement, Under choice, Ornstein's second construction turns a point-finite metric open cover into a locally finite open refinement).
Paracompactness means that every open cover has such a refinement (Paracompactness: every open cover has a locally finite open refinement, with no separation axiom built into the word).
Proof
Apply [L1] to the arbitrary cover .
The resulting locally finite open refinement is exactly the condition in [F1], so is paracompact.
Remarks
The theorem is proved here with the Axiom of Choice as a sufficient hypothesis. No assertion is made that this is its exact set-theoretic strength.
Under choice and dependent choice, metric open covers admit locally finite subordinate partitions of unity
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice and the Axiom of Dependent Choice. Every open cover of a metric space admits a locally finite partition of unity subordinate to it.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Choice, dependent choice, a metric space , and an open cover of its metric topology.
The space is paracompact under choice (Stone's theorem, under choice: every metric space is paracompact).
Every metrizable space is Hausdorff (Hausdorff space: distinct points have disjoint open neighbourhoods; every metrizable space is Hausdorff and the indiscrete topology on two points is not).
A paracompact Hausdorff space has a subordinate partition of unity under choice and dependent choice (Under choice and dependent choice, every open cover of a paracompact Hausdorff space admits a locally finite subordinate partition of unity).
Proof
By [L1] and [L2], is paracompact and Hausdorff.
Applying [L3] to the given cover yields the required locally finite subordinate partition of unity.
Assuming countable choice, every countably compact paracompact Hausdorff space is compact
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice. Every countably compact paracompact Hausdorff space is compact.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Countable choice and a countably compact paracompact Hausdorff space .
Countable choice supplies a choice function for every sequence of nonempty sets (The Axiom of Countable Choice ()).
Countable compactness tests at most countable open covers, while compactness tests all open covers (Countably compact, Lindel"of, sequentially compact, limit point compact and -compact spaces, and relatively compact subsets).
Paracompactness supplies a locally finite open refining cover (Paracompactness: every open cover has a locally finite open refinement, with no separation axiom built into the word).
Hausdorff spaces separate distinct points by disjoint open neighbourhoods (Hausdorff space: distinct points have disjoint open neighbourhoods; every metrizable space is Hausdorff and the indiscrete topology on two points is not).
A locally finite union of closed sets is closed (Locally finite families remain locally finite after taking closures, closure commutes with their union, and a locally finite union of closed sets is closed).
Under countable choice, a countable union of at most countable sets is at most countable (Countable unions of at most countable sets, assuming , Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable).
Choice from a finite listed family is a theorem of ZF (Every natural-number-indexed list of nonempty sets has a choice function on its family of values).
Proof
Let be an arbitrary open cover, and take a locally finite open refining cover by [F2].
Suppose were infinite. For every the family of -element subsets of is nonempty; [A1] chooses one . Then is at most countable by [L2] and infinite because it has finite subsets of arbitrarily large size. Hence, by the definition of at-most-countable, is countably infinite; enumerate its distinct members as .
By [A1] choose for every . The range is infinite: if it were finite, local finiteness would make only finitely many distinct meet , but every contains . Moreover the singleton family is locally finite, since a neighbourhood meeting only finitely many can contain only finitely many points .
Hausdorffness makes points closed, so [L1] makes closed. For each , local finiteness gives a neighbourhood meeting only finitely many points of ; pass to an open subneighbourhood and remove those finitely many other closed points. Using [A1] along an enumeration of yields open sets with .
The open set , together with the at most countable family , is an open cover with no finite subcover, contradicting countable compactness in [F1].
Hence is finite. By [L3], select for each member of this finite refining family one containing member of ; the selected members form a finite subcover of .
Since was arbitrary, [F1] proves that is compact.
Remarks
Countable choice is spent twice: first to extract a countably infinite subfamily from a putatively infinite locally finite cover, and then to choose one point from each member of that subfamily. The final selection is only finite choice, which is available in ZF.
Under countable choice, every regular Lindelöf space is paracompact
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice. Every regular Lindelöf topological space is paracompact.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Countable choice, a regular Lindelöf space , and an open cover .
Countable choice selects from a countably indexed family of nonempty sets (The Axiom of Countable Choice ()).
If with open in a regular space, then some open satisfies (A space is regular if and only if every point has a neighbourhood base of closed neighbourhoods, if and only if open gives an open with ).
Lindelöfness gives an at most countable subcover, and paracompactness asks for a locally finite open refinement (Countably compact, Lindel"of, sequentially compact, limit point compact and -compact spaces, and relatively compact subsets, Paracompactness: every open cover has a locally finite open refinement, with no separation axiom built into the word).
Proof
The family of all open for which for some covers by [L1]; by Lindelöfness take a sequence covering .
By [A1], choose with for each .
Put . Each is open and lies in .
The cover : if is the least index with , then for , since , and hence .
The cover is locally finite: for , the neighbourhood is disjoint from for every , while it can meet only .
Thus is a locally finite open refinement of , and [F1] proves paracompactness.
Refuted: every paracompact space is normal
Statement
Every paracompact space is normal.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The three-point set with topology .
A compact space is paracompact (Every compact space is paracompact).
Normality separates every disjoint pair of closed sets by disjoint open sets (Normal spaces and spaces, with the source disagreement over whether normality includes stated explicitly).
Refutation
The displayed family is a topology, and is compact because every open cover of this finite set already has a finite subcover.
Its closed sets include and , while every open set containing contains and every open set containing contains .
Thus the disjoint closed sets and have no disjoint open neighbourhoods, so is not normal by [F2].
By [F1] the compact space is paracompact, and step 3.1 refutes the displayed assertion.
Assuming choice, refuted: paracompactness is hereditary
Statement
Assuming the Axiom of Choice, paracompactness is hereditary.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The Axiom of Choice and the ordinal spaces .
Choice implies the countable choice used by the ordinal compactness theorem (The Axiom of Choice).
Under countable choice, is countably compact and noncompact, while is compact (Every successor ordinal is compact in its order topology and every limit ordinal is not; and, assuming countable choice, is countably compact and sequentially compact while is compact).
Under choice, a countably compact paracompact Hausdorff space is compact (Assuming countable choice, every countably compact paracompact Hausdorff space is compact).
A compact space is paracompact (Every compact space is paracompact).
Every ordinal in its order topology is and Hausdorff, so each singleton is closed (Every ordinal with its order topology has a basis of clopen sets, and is , Hausdorff and regular, clauses 2 and 3).
Refutation
By [A1] and [L1], is compact, hence paracompact by [L3], and its initial segment is countably compact but noncompact.
The initial segment is open in , since its complement is the closed singleton consisting of the top endpoint.
If were paracompact, its Hausdorffness from [L4] would let [L2] make it compact, contradicting step 1.1.
Thus a paracompact space has the nonparacompact subspace , which refutes the displayed hereditary assertion.
Assuming choice, refuted: paracompactness is productive
Statement
Assuming the Axiom of Choice, paracompactness is productive.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The Axiom of Choice and the lower-limit line .
Choice implies countable choice: apply a choice function to any countably indexed family of nonempty sets (The Axiom of Choice, The Axiom of Countable Choice ()).
If in , then and are disjoint open neighbourhoods, so is Hausdorff (The lower-limit topology on , with the half-open intervals as a basis, Hausdorff space: distinct points have disjoint open neighbourhoods; every metrizable space is Hausdorff and the indiscrete topology on two points is not).
The lower-limit line is regular and Lindelöf; under countable choice every regular Lindelöf space is paracompact (The lower-limit line has a clopen basis, is regular, and is Lindelöf under countable choice, Under countable choice, every regular Lindelöf space is paracompact).
Under choice, the product is not normal (Assuming choice, normality is not productive: the normal lower-limit line has a nonnormal square).
The product of Hausdorff spaces is Hausdorff (Arbitrary products preserve , , and Hausdorffness).
A paracompact Hausdorff space is normal (Every paracompact Hausdorff space is normal).
Refutation
By [A1] and [L1], both factors are paracompact.
If paracompactness were productive, would be paracompact.
By [F1] and [L3], is Hausdorff; then [L4] would make it normal, contradicting [L2].
Hence the displayed productive assertion is refuted.
Choice and convention ledger for paracompactness, Stone's theorem, and partitions of unity
Paracompactness here means the open-cover refinement property alone; Hausdorffness is not hidden in the word. It is therefore stated in the regularity, normality, shrinking, and partition-of-unity results that use it. The proofs of Every paracompact Hausdorff space is normal and its regularity predecessor use families of all eligible neighbourhoods, so they make no simultaneous choice. The cover-shrinking construction is recorded under the Axiom of Choice, and the partition theorem records Choice and Dependent Choice separately: Choice handles cover assignments, while the cited Urysohn construction is carried out under Dependent Choice.
The accessible primary text of Ornstein's proof has two distinct parts. Part (A) well orders the cover, removes closures of selected dyadic balls, and obtains a point-finite refinement. Part (B) renames that point-finite cover, assigns controlled-radius balls to their first containing member, and upgrades it to a locally finite refinement. Its local-finiteness test uses point-finiteness of the Part (A) output, so the locally finite lemma depends on the point-finite lemma. Stone's theorem is proved here under Choice as a sufficient assumption only; no exact-strength claim is made.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
None yet.
Sources
Standard references
Recommended treatments; not extraction sources.
- J. Robbin, Partitions of Unity
- Dartmouth Point-Set Topology, Lecture 25
- R. Gardner, Notes on Munkres Section 41: Paracompactness (East Tennessee State University)
- Paracompact space (Wikipedia)
- S. Semmes, Topology notes, Sections 5.13–5.14 (Rice University)
- Topology 262 notes (California State University, Northridge)
- Continuity notes (University of California, Berkeley)
- General Topology notes (University of Göttingen)
- D. Ornstein, A New Proof of the Paracompactness of Metric Spaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 21 (1969), 341–342
- C. Good, I. J. Tree and W. S. Watson, On Stone's theorem and the axiom of choice
- P. Bacon, Pacific Journal of Mathematics 32 (1970), countably compact paracompact spaces
- First uncountable ordinal (Wikipedia)
- G. Gruenhage, General Topology Course Notes
- M. Aitken, Compactness notes (California State University San Marcos)
- G. Gruenhage, General Topology Course Notes, Sorgenfrey plane and Jones's lemma
- Sorgenfrey topology (Encyclopedia of Mathematics)