In this paper
AbstractIntroductionNotation and preliminariesProducts and Rudin-type spacesTopological conventionsPcf preliminariesThe pcf characterization of normalitySufficiency:Necessity:Topological characterization of normalityReferencesWorksMathematics
Normality in generalized Rudin spaces
Abstract
In \cite{Kojman2026}, Kojman generalized Mary Ellen Rudin's construction of a ZFC Dowker space to larger cardinals and gave a pcf-theoretic condition ensuring that the resulting spaces are collectionwise normal. A subsequent manuscript by Eisworth, Kojman, Lambie-Hanson, and Marun \cite{EKLM2026} develops the theory further and leaves open whether these generalized Rudin spaces can fail to be normal. We answer this question by proving that, for cardinals with , the generalized Rudin space is normal if and only if for every cardinal with . Given this characterization, known consistency results provide consistent examples of nonnormal generalized Rudin spaces.
Introduction
In her 1971 construction [14] of a ZFC Dowker space1, Mary Ellen Rudin considered two related subspaces of the box product :
and its subspace
She proved that the space is normal (even collectionwise normal) but not countably paracompact. By Dowker’s classical result [2] it follows that is a normal space for which is nonnormal, that is, a Dowker space.
These two spaces are closely connected. For example, it is easy to see that is a dense subspace of and Rudin herself mentions that is the Hewitt realcompactification of . More important for us, possesses strong separation properties that can be exploited to prove things about . This was explicitly noted by Hart [8], who points out that if we take a discrete family of subsets of , then the family of their closures in will be discrete in . The space is paracompact (even ultraparacompact) and hence collectionwise normal, and an expansion of to disjoint open sets in gives us such an expansion of in the space . Thus, inherits its collectionwise normality from .
Rudin’s space remained the only known example in ZFC of a Dowker space for many years, but more examples were discovered in the 1990s: in 1996 Balogh [1] constructed a Dowker space of size , while Kojman and Shelah [13] used the existence of a scale at to show that Rudin’s space contains a closed Dowker subspace of (absolute) cardinality .2
Recently, Kojman [12] generalized Rudin’s construction to larger cardinals. This translation replaces by an arbitrary infinite cardinal and replaces the sequence by a strictly increasing sequence of regular cardinals greater than . The resulting space turns out to be a Dowker space provided the cardinal satisfies a certain pcf-theoretic assumption. This assumption holds automatically when is a singular strong limit cardinal of cofinality , and so this construction answered a question of Rinot by demonstrating that the cardinalities of Dowker spaces form a proper class in ZFC.
The study of these generalized Rudin spaces is continued in [4], where it is shown that the resulting spaces depend only on the choice of and , as different cofinal sequences of regular cardinals above give homeomorphic spaces. Thus, if are infinite cardinals and has countable cofinality, we can unambiguously define the generalized Rudin space to be the homeomorphism type of
with the topology inherited from the box product, where is any -sequence (not necessarily increasing or one-to-one) of regular cardinals from the interval with supremum . With this notation, Rudin’s original Dowker space is the special case , and the main results of [12], together with the pcf reformulation established below, tell us
is never countably paracompact, and
is normal (hence a Dowker space) if
Here “pp” refers to Shelah’s pseudopower function. For a singular cardinal of countable cofinality, is the supremum of the cofinalities , where is countable and cofinal in and is an ultrafilter on disjoint from the ideal of bounded subsets of . If is a strong limit, then for every of countable cofinality, so condition (2) holds.
Condition (2) holds vacuously for every space , since each cardinal strictly between and is a successor. In particular, Rudin’s space satisfies (2) even when . Moreover, assumptions such as GCH or the weaker Shelah Strong Hypothesis3 guarantee that every generalized Rudin space will be normal and hence Dowker.
The smallest possible counterexample to normality is , for which condition (2) reduces to
By contrast, satisfies condition (2) vacuously.
It is therefore natural to ask whether normality must hold in ZFC even when condition (2) fails, and we are led to the following questions left open by [12] and [4]:
Main Question Is every Rudin-type space normal? If not, can the space fail to be normal?
In this paper, we answer both of these questions by showing that condition (2) is also necessary for to be normal. More precisely, we prove the following characterization of normality in terms of pcf theory:
Theorem 1.1. Let be infinite cardinals with . Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(1) is normal;
(2) for every nonempty countable set with ;
(3) for every cardinal with .
(Note that by [4], normality is equivalent to collectionwise normality and strong collectionwise normality for these spaces.)
Given the above theorem, we can answer both parts of our main question by quoting known consistency results to show that the smallest previously unresolved case can indeed fail to be normal.
Corollary 1.2. It is consistent, relative to suitable large cardinal assumptions, that the space is not normal.
Any model of ZFC in which is strong limit and satisfies , so is not normal by Theorem 1.1. In 1983 Shelah [15, Theorem 2.2(1)] constructed such models from a supercompact cardinal. Gitik and Magidor [7, 6] later gave a different construction using extender-based forcing and also arranging for GCH to hold below , something that Shelah’s construction did not achieve.
The strong limit assumption is not necessary for the failure of normality, however, because adding Cohen reals to such a model will preserve the inequality . This shows that the space can fail to be normal in models in which the continuum is arbitrarily large.
Finally, the pcf criterion yields topological characterizations of normality in terms of cardinal invariants. In § 4, we compute the global pseudocharacter , character , and tightness of these spaces. Together with Theorem 1.1, these calculations give the following corollary.
Corollary 1.3. Let be infinite cardinals with , and put . Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(1) is normal;
(2) ;
(3) ;
(4) .
In fact, and always hold for these spaces. Thus failure of normality is witnessed by the strict inequality .
Notation and preliminaries
Our notation is standard, so in this section we will only sketch the concepts we need and give references to the literature.
Products and Rudin-type spaces
We order ordinal-valued functions pointwise, with meaning at every coordinate, and define
For a set of regular cardinals, write and let denote the least size of a pointwise cofinal subset.
Let be an infinite cardinal and a sequence of regular cardinals above with no largest term. The terms may repeat and may occur in any order. Put . Define by (1) and put
Both spaces inherit the box topology from the order topologies. In either space, intersecting with the space, for , gives a neighborhood base at .
For a countably infinite set of regular cardinals above with no maximum, and denote the corresponding -indexed spaces. By [4], the homeomorphism type of the pair depends only on and , giving the notation .
Topological conventions
For , let denote its character and its pseudocharacter. Thus is the least size of a neighborhood base at , and is the least size of a family of open neighborhoods whose intersection is . The tightness is the least infinite cardinal such that, whenever for , there is with and . We take these invariants to be infinite and put
Pcf preliminaries
Let be a proper ideal on a set of regular cardinals. For , define
For the ideal of finite subsets, we write and . The ideal of subsets of bounded in is denoted by . If has order type , then .
If is regular and has a -increasing, -cofinal sequence , we write
and call the sequence a -scale. The true cofinality need not exist. For an ultrafilter , the notation uses the ideal dual to .
A nonempty set is progressive if . For such a set, put
The pcf theorem [5 Proposition 2.19] gives a largest member of and the identity
Also, implies . Our applications concern nonempty countable sets of uncountable regular cardinals, which are progressive. We refer to [16, 10] for these facts.
We use pseudopowers only at singular cardinals of countable cofinality. For such a cardinal , let consist of the regular cardinals of the form , where is countable and cofinal in , and is a proper ideal on containing . Then
We use the following facts; see [16 Chapter II].
There is a cofinal set of order type such that . In particular, .
If and is regular, then (No Holes).
If and , then inverse monotonicity [3 Proposition 1.4.3] gives and hence .
We finish with the normality criterion from [12].
Theorem 2.1 (Kojman). Let be an infinite cardinal and let be a strictly increasing sequence of regular cardinals above . Suppose that, for every and every nonempty countable ,
Then is collectionwise normal.
By (3), the hypothesis can also be written .
The pcf characterization of normality
This section will establish Theorem 1.1. We start with some easy lemmas that show us that the pcf-theoretic content of the theorem can be formulated in a few equivalent ways.
Lemma 3.1. Let be infinite cardinals. The following are equivalent.
for every countable set with .
for every cardinal of countable cofinality.
Proof. Suppose witnesses the failure of (1). Put and choose an ultrafilter on witnessing . Since , is nonprincipal. Let be the least ordinal such that . Then is a limit point of , so it is a cardinal of countable cofinality with . By minimality, the restriction of to contains no bounded subset of . It still witnesses cofinality , so and .
Conversely, suppose witnesses the failure of (2). Choose above and let witness this representation. Since contains the bounded ideal, we may discard the coordinates at or below and assume that . Extending the dual filter of to an ultrafilter gives . Thus and .
Moving on to the statement of Theorem 1.1, we make use now of the countable cofinality of . The first two clauses of the following lemma express the negations of items (2) and (3) of Theorem 1.1, respectively, since is regular and is singular. We will use the two scales at the end of the lemma to prove normality.
Lemma 3.2. Suppose are infinite cardinals and . The following are equivalent.
(1) There is a countable set such that
(2) There is a cardinal of countable cofinality such that .
(3) There is a cardinal of countable cofinality such that .
(4) There are countable sets and of regular cardinals and a proper ideal on extending such that
and
The corresponding scales can be chosen so that each function assumes only values of cofinality .
Proof. By Shelah’s scale theorem [16 Chapter II], fix a cofinal set of order type such that
(1) (2). Choose an ultrafilter on witnessing , and let be the least ordinal with . As in the proof of Lemma 3.1, , , and the restriction of to witnesses . Thus , and witnesses (1) with supremum .
(2) (3). Since and both and have countable cofinality, inverse monotonicity [3 Proposition 1.4.3] gives
The scale on witnesses , so the same witnesses (3).
(3) (4). Choose a countable cofinal set and a proper ideal witnessing . Discarding the bounded initial segment of at or below and restricting accordingly, we may assume . Let . This removes only finitely many terms from , so the restricted scale still has length , and .
For each and , put
where the product is ordinal multiplication. Since , is a strictly increasing map from to with and . Replacing each scale function by the function therefore preserves strict increase modulo the respective ideal and preserves cofinality.
(4) (1). Any ultrafilter on disjoint from preserves the scale on . Thus , and witnesses (1). □
The preceding lemma tells us that the two pcf conditions in Theorem 1.1 are equivalent, so what remains is to prove that these give necessary and sufficient conditions for the associated generalized Rudin space to be normal.
Sufficiency:
Assume (3) of Theorem 1.1, so for every cardinal of countable cofinality. By Lemma 3.1, a regular satisfies Kojman’s bound precisely when for every cardinal of countable cofinality. We show that such are cofinal in .
Fix a regular cardinal . If for every cardinal of countable cofinality, take . Otherwise, let be the least cardinal of countable cofinality in with , and put
By (3), , and hence since is a limit cardinal. For of countable cofinality, minimality gives . For of countable cofinality, inverse monotonicity gives . Thus works in this case as well.
As was arbitrary, we can choose a strictly increasing sequence of such regular cardinals cofinal in . By Theorem 2.1, is normal, and its homeomorphism type is , as required.
Necessity:
We prove (1) (3) of Theorem 1.1 by contraposition. The model for our proof is the classic example (due independently to Dieudonné and Morse) of the product of ordinal spaces . In their setting, the vertical edge and the diagonal are disjoint closed sets. An application of Fodor’s lemma then shows that every open neighborhood of the diagonal contains a final square , and that every open neighborhood of the edge meets this square. In our setting, we will form a diagonal by pairing points with the same index on the two scales from Lemma 3.2, and then interleave two sequences with a common pointwise supremum, as in Kelley’s treatment of the ordinal example [9 Chapter 4, Problem E]. For related pressing-down arguments in products, see [13, 11].
Proposition 3.3. If for some cardinal of countable cofinality, then is not normal.
Proof. Put . By Lemma 3.2(4), choose , , and scales
whose coordinate values all have cofinality . The first scale is increasing and cofinal in modulo , and the second is strictly increasing and cofinal in modulo the finite ideal.
Put and use as our presentation of . Let be the diagonal function for . Then , since the cofinalities of its coordinates are unbounded in .
Our analogue of the vertical edge is the closed set
Indeed, is the intersection, over , of the preimages of the closed singletons under the continuous coordinate projections . Replacing the -coordinates of any by their top values leaves their cofinalities bounded by , so is cofinal in . On the other hand, every satisfies for all but finitely many , since has order type and is cofinal in .
For our analogue of the diagonal, we put , and define
Thus, membership in the set is unchanged if we make a small modification to an element, provided we keep control of the cofinalities: on the coordinates in we are allowed to modify on a -small set, while we are allowed to make finite changes on the coordinates from . The common cofinality bound gives , and we define
The closed subsets and of are intended to refute the normality of the space. The next claim tells us that these are indeed disjoint closed subsets of :
Claim 3.3.1. .
Proof. Fix . Since for all but finitely many , choose such that . Put and let be identically zero. Then , and we claim that misses . Given , choose witnessing its membership. If , then outside a member of , hence at some . If , then
so for some . In either case . Thus . □
Our next step is to show that every open neighborhood of the closed diagonal contains an end segment of .
Claim 3.3.2. If is an open neighborhood of , then there is a function such that , that is, such that
Proof. First note that is pointwise cofinal in . Indeed, given some , we can choose so that and . Wherever , replace by . This ordinal is below and has cofinality . The resulting function belongs to and is everywhere above .
Now suppose the claim fails for some open neighborhood of $G. Then
is also pointwise cofinal in . Since each is regular and greater than , we can recursively choose and for so that
Their common pointwise supremum satisfies and for every , so . For each , the countability of and regularity of give some with . Thus , while , a contradiction. □
Finally, we show that every open neighborhood of our set meets every end segment of .
Claim 3.3.3. Every open neighborhood of meets for every .
Proof. Let be an open neighborhood of and fix . Define by for and for . Choose with and set
Every coordinate of has cofinality , so . Since and , this belongs to and to the required tail. □
The conjunction of Claims 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 tells us that every open neighborhood of must meet every open neighborhood of , and therefore the disjoint closed sets and witness that is not normal. □
This proves (1) (3) and completes the proof of Theorem 1.1. In the construction above, both and have in their closure in , as witnessed by the points in the last claim and by the cofinality of , respectively. The open neighborhood of misses , so it contains no end segment of . For comparison with the end-segment property in Rudin’s original space, see [11 Lemma 2.25].
Topological characterization of normality
In the preceding section we showed that is normal precisely when for every nonempty bounded countable set of regular cardinals in . We now show how this condition has a direct translation in terms of cardinal functions defined from the topology of . For each such , there is a point whose pseudocharacter is and whose character and tightness are both . Passing to the whole space, we find that its pseudocharacter is always , while its character and tightness exceed precisely when the pcf condition fails.
Throughout this section, are infinite cardinals, , and we assume that has the presentation where is strictly increasing. In this context, we define
where we set . Our next goal is the following computation of the character, pseudocharacter, and tightness of .
Theorem 4.1. The space satisfies
, and
.
The term in the second clause is necessary in general. For example, if , then , while all three global invariants equal . The next lemma computes all three invariants at a nonisolated point.
Lemma 4.2. For , define . If is not an isolated point, we define
and
Then is a nonempty countable set of regular cardinals that is bounded below , and
while
Proof. Since is nonisolated, we know , and by (1). For each choose a cofinal of order type consisting of ordinals of cofinality . Indeed, for the first ordinal of cofinality greater than above is , and nonisolation puts it below .
Put , viewing each member as a point of by setting for every . For , let consist of those that agree with off and satisfy for every . Since is isolated in off and each is cofinal in on , the boxes form a neighborhood base at . A family of these boxes isolates exactly when its lower bounds are cofinal in each for . If they are bounded in one coordinate, replacing by a member of above the bound gives a second point in the intersection. Since is countable, .
For , the same boxes give exactly when is pointwise cofinal in . Hence
Identify each with its order type. The functions constant on coordinates of equal cofinality form a cofinal copy of in , since every countable subset of is bounded in . Thus by (3). □
Proof of Theorem 4.1. Given a nonempty countable with , we first find a point with . Fix an -sequence with range , allowing repetitions. In our fixed increasing presentation , let
Set for and
where the product is ordinal multiplication. The ordinal has cardinality and cofinality , so it lies below , and is in because the cofinalities of its values are at most , hence bounded below .
For each , the ordinals for have cofinality and form a sequence in increasing to , so is nonisolated in and hence . Since is isolated in for , we have . Hence
By Lemma 4.2, every nonisolated point of has pseudocharacter below . Taking gives a point of pseudocharacter for every regular . Since these cardinals are cofinal in , we have . Taking suprema of the pointwise character and tightness gives
In particular, this supremum is at least .
We can now compute (10) in terms of pseudopowers. Let occur in that supremum and let . Choose an ultrafilter on such that . If is principal, then , so . Otherwise, let be the least ordinal for which , and put . If , then nonprincipality gives , contrary to the choice of . Thus is a limit ordinal, and minimality gives . Since is a countable set of cardinals, is a singular cardinal of countable cofinality, and . The restriction of to contains every cobounded subset of . Its dual ideal therefore extends the bounded ideal, and
Thus every term in (10) is at most .
For the reverse inequality, let , and let a regular be represented at by . Since extends the bounded ideal, we can assume , and therefore is a countable subset of bounded by , and . Thus,
Taking the supremum over the representations of each , and then over , gives the lower bound . Together with the lower bound already obtained, this gives . If is cofinal in , the inequalities give , so the term may be omitted. □
Proof of Corollary 1.3. By Theorem 1.1, is nonnormal precisely when some nonempty countable with satisfies . Since is regular and is singular, this inequality is strict. It follows from (10) that
Theorem 4.1 gives and , so the four conditions are equivalent. □
Remark 4.3. If is nonnormal, choose as in the preceding proof. The construction in the proof of Theorem 4.1 gives a point with , so by Lemma 4.2,
Conversely, any such point forces , so is nonnormal.
Department of Mathematics, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701 USA
Department of Mathematics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B. 653, Be’er Sheva, 84105 Israel
URL: https://www.math.bgu.ac.il/~kojman/
References
- [1]Z. T. Balogh, A small Dowker space in ZFC, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 124 (1996), no. 8, 2555–2560.DOI
- [2]C. H. Dowker, On countably paracompact spaces, Canad. J. Math. 3 (1951), 219–224.DOI
- [3]T. Eisworth, The pseudopower dichotomy, J. Symbolic Logic 88 (2023), no. 4, 1655–1681.arxiv.org/abs/2101.12687
- [4]T. Eisworth, M. Kojman, C. Lambie-Hanson, and P. Marun, Powers and products of Rudin-type Dowker spaces, manuscript in preparation, 2026.
- [5]T. Gilton, PCF theory and the Tukey spectrum, Fund. Math. 265 (2024), no. 1, 15–33; arXiv:2211.13361.arxiv.org/abs/2211.13361
- [6]M. Gitik and M. Magidor, Extender based forcings, J. Symbolic Logic 59 (1994), no. 2, 445–460.
- [7]M. Gitik and M. Magidor, The singular cardinal hypothesis revisited, in Set Theory of the Continuum (Berkeley, CA, 1989), H. Judah, W. Just, and H. Woodin, eds., Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., vol. 26, Springer, New York, 1992, pp. 243–279.
- [8]K. P. Hart, Set-theoretic methods in topology, lecture notes, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, fall 2001, https://fa.e wi.tudelft.nl/~hart/onderwijs/old-courses/settop/.
- [9]J. L. Kelley, General Topology, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 27, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1975.
- [10]M. Kojman, PCF theory, Topology Atlas Invited Contributions 6 (2001), no. 4, 4 pp.; arXiv:math/0501308.
- [11]M. Kojman and H. Michalewski, Borel extensions of Baire measures in ZFC, Fund. Math. 211 (2011), no. 3, 197–223.DOI
- [12]M. Kojman, Rudin-type Dowker spaces, Topology Proc. 67 (2026), 13–20.DOI
- [13]M. Kojman and S. Shelah, A ZFC Dowker space in ℵω+1: an application of PCF theory to topology, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 126 (1998), no. 8, 2459–2465.
- [14]M. E. Rudin, A normal space X for which X × I is not normal, Fund. Math. 73 (1971/72), no. 2, 179–186.DOI
- [16]S. Shelah, Cardinal Arithmetic, Oxford Logic Guides, vol. 29, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994.DOI