Eventually Constant and stagnating functions in non-Lindel\"of spaces
Abstract
Inspired by recent work of A. Mardani which elaborates on the elementary fact that for any continuous function f:ω1×R, there is an α∈ω1 such that f(β,x) = f(α,x) for all βα and x∈R, we introduce four properties P(X,Y), P∈\EC,S,L,BR\, which are different formalizations of the idea vaguely stated as "given a continuous f:X Y, there is a small subspace of X outside of which f does not do anything much new". We say that the spaces X,Y satisfy the property EC(X,Y) (resp. S(X,Y)) [resp. L(X,Y)] iff given f:X Y, then there is a Lindel\"of Z⊂ X such that f(X-Z) is a singleton (resp. there is a retraction r:X Z such that f r = f) [resp. f(Z) = f(X)]. (BR(X,Y) is defined similarly.) We investigate the relations between these four and other classical topological properties. Two variants of each property are given depending on whether Z can be chosen to be closed. Here is a sample of our results. An uncountable subspace T of a tree of height ω1 is ω1-compact iff S(T,Y) holds for any metrizable space Y of cardinality >1. If M is a 1-strongly collectionwise Hausforff non-metrizable manifold satisfying either a weakening of S(M,R) or EC(M,R), then M is ω1-compact. The property L(M,R) holds for any manifold while L(M,R2) does not. Under PFA, a locally compact countably tight space Y for which EC(ω1,Y) holds is isocompact, while there are counterexamples under C. Some of our results are restatements of other researchers work put in our context.
Turn this paper into a full lesson
ArcXiv compiles a staged curriculum from this paper: 8-12 lessons across beginner → advanced, synthesised section guides, visuals, flashcards, a quiz, exercises, and on-demand deep dives per section. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.