I am trying to understand why paracompactness is needed to prove a regular space is normal. It was used in the prove above to find a locally finite open refinment $\{w_\lambda\}$ from an open cover. But I fail to understand why we need that. I mean why don't we just set $V=⋃_{x\in B} V_x , U=X| ⋃_{x\in B} C(V_x)$. Why do we need the locally finite open refinment $\{w_\lambda\}$?
2026-02-23 08:22:50.1771834970
Why is paracompactness needed to prove a regular space is normal?
133 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in GENERAL-TOPOLOGY
- Is every non-locally compact metric space totally disconnected?
- Let X be a topological space and let A be a subset of X
- Continuity, preimage of an open set of $\mathbb R^2$
- Question on minimizing the infimum distance of a point from a non compact set
- Is hedgehog of countable spininess separable space?
- Nonclosed set in $ \mathbb{R}^2 $
- I cannot understand that $\mathfrak{O} := \{\{\}, \{1\}, \{1, 2\}, \{3\}, \{1, 3\}, \{1, 2, 3\}\}$ is a topology on the set $\{1, 2, 3\}$.
- If for every continuous function $\phi$, the function $\phi \circ f$ is continuous, then $f$ is continuous.
- Defining a homotopy on an annulus
- Triangle inequality for metric space where the metric is angles between vectors
Related Questions in PROOF-EXPLANATION
- (From Awodey)$\sf C \cong D$ be equivalent categories then $\sf C$ has binary products if and only if $\sf D$ does.
- Help with Propositional Logic Proof
- Lemma 1.8.2 - Convex Bodies: The Brunn-Minkowski Theory
- Proof of Fourier transform of cos$2\pi ft$
- Total number of nodes in a full k-ary tree. Explanation
- Finding height of a $k$-ary tree
- How to get the missing brick of the proof $A \circ P_\sigma = P_\sigma \circ A$ using permutations?
- Inner Product Same for all Inputs
- Complex Derivatives in Polar Form
- Confused about how to prove a function is surjective/injective?
Related Questions in SEPARATION-AXIOMS
- A finite topological space is T1 if and only the topology is discrete
- normal doesn't imply paracompact
- Find the intersection of all $T_2$ topologies on an infinite set $X$
- Why isn't $T_1$ space also Hausforff?
- Quotient space and quotient set for $\mathrm{End}(\mathbb{R}^2)$
- $\left\{e\right\}$ Closed Implies $T_0$ and Regular Topological Group
- Question about the proof of $T_3+$ countable basis $= T_4$
- Show that a non-trivial connected Tychonoff space is uncountable
- A homeomorphism on a dense set in Hausdorff space
- Unclear definition of open sets in proof of Regular Lindelof space is normal
Related Questions in PARACOMPACTNESS
- normal doesn't imply paracompact
- Space of Sequences with Finitely Many Nonzero Terms is Paracompact
- Theorem 41.7 in Munkres Topology
- Tietze extension theorem for vector bundles on paracompact spaces
- Proof a theorem about Metrizable manifold
- Every $F_\sigma$-set in a paracompact space is paracompact.
- Uncountable product of many copies of $\mathbb{Z}$ is not paracompact
- Construct Compact Exhaustion using Paracompactness
- Locally compact topological group is paracompact
- A cover of Locally connected space with certain compactness property
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?

Local finiteness is used in the step where they say $U=X\setminus\bigcup_\gamma\overline{W_\gamma}$ is open since $\bigcup_\gamma \overline{W_\gamma}=\overline{\bigcup W_\gamma}$. The latter equality is not true for an arbitrary collection of sets $(W_\gamma)$, but it is true for a locally finite collection, since then for any $x\in X$, to test whether $x\in\overline{\bigcup W_\gamma}$ you can restrict to a neighborhood of $x$ which only finitely many $W_\gamma$'s intersect and use the fact that a finite union of closed sets is closed. So without local finiteness, there is no reason to expect $\bigcup_\gamma\overline{W_\gamma}$ to be closed (after all, it is a possibly infinite union of closed sets!), and so there is no reason to expect $U$ to be open.