# On locally 𝐿⁢𝐶-spaces1991 Math. Subject Classification — Primary: 54D20, 54A05, Secondary: 54D45, 54G99. Key words and phrases — 𝐿⁢𝐶-space, locally 𝐿⁢𝐶-space, Lindelöf set.

## 1 Introduction

Classical generalizations of Lindelöf spaces such as hereditarily Lindelöf and maximal Lindelöf spaces have had their major impact in the development of General Topology. A certain class of spaces, relatively new as a concept but extensively studied in recent years, is the class of $`LC`$-spaces. A topological space $`(X,\tau )`$ whose Lindelöf subsets are closed is called an $`LC`$-space by Gauld, Mršević, Reilly and Vamanamurthy  and by Mukherji and Sarkar . This concept emerged from the study of maximal Lindelöf spaces  as being a notion having a close relationship to P-spaces.

$`LC`$-spaces generalize Wilansky’s KC-spaces  and Hausdorff P-spaces . On the other hand every $`LC`$-space is a cid-space, i.e., all countable sets are closed and discrete, and hence $`T_1`$ and anti-compact (= pseudo-finite) . An extensive list of references on $`LC`$-spaces as well as some generalizations of the concept can be found in .

Recently, Ganster, Kanibir and Reilly  introduced the class of locally $`LC`$-spaces. By definition, a topological space $`(X,\tau )`$ is called a locally $`LC`$-space if each point of $`X`$ has a neighborhood which is an $`LC`$-subspace. In , the authors proved that a space $`(X,\tau )`$ is an $`LC`$-space if and only if each point of $`X`$ has a closed neighborhood that is an $`LC`$-subspace. Thus every regular locally $`LC`$-space is an $`LC`$-space, a result first proved by Hdeib and Pareek in . The following example shows that we cannot replace ‘regular’ by ‘Hausdorff’.

###### Example 1.1

 There exists a Hausdorff, locally $`LC`$-space $`(X,\tau )`$, which is not an $`LC`$-space. Let $`Z`$ be a set of cardinality $`\mathrm{}_1`$ with a distinguished point $`z_0`$. The topology on $`Z`$ is defined as follows: each $`zz_0`$ is isolated while the basic neighborhoods of $`z_0`$ are the cocountable subsets of $`Z`$ containing $`z_0`$. Note that $`Z`$ is a Lindelöf $`LC`$-space. The space $`(X,\tau )`$ will be constructed from copies of $`Z`$. For each $`n\omega `$, let $`X_n`$ be a copy of $`Z`$, where $`x_n`$ denotes the non-isolated point of $`X_n`$. Let $`X^{}=_{n\omega }X_n`$ denote the topological sum of the spaces $`X_n`$ and let $`X=X^{}\{p\}`$ with $`pX^{}`$. A topology $`\tau `$ on $`X`$ can be defined if, in addition, we specify the basic open neighborhoods of $`p`$. They are the union of $`\{p\}`$ and a cocountable subset of $`\{X_n\{x_n\}:nk\}`$ for some $`k\omega `$. $`(X,\tau )`$ is a Hausdorff space that fails to be an $`LC`$-space . However, as shown in , $`(X,\tau )`$ is a locally $`LC`$-space.

## 2 Locally $`LC`$-spaces

###### Proposition 2.1

For a topological space $`(X,\tau )`$ the following conditions are equivalent:

(1) $`X`$ is a locally $`LC`$-spaces.

(2) Every point of $`X`$ has an open neighborhood, which is an $`LC`$-subspace of $`X`$.

Proof. Follows from the fact that every subspace of an $`LC`$-space is an $`LC`$-space. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 2.2

Every subspace of a locally $`LC`$-space is a locally $`LC`$-space.

Proof. Let $`(X,\tau )`$ be a locally $`LC`$-space and let $`AX`$. By assumption, for each $`xA`$, there exists $`U\tau `$ such that $`(U,\tau |U)`$ is an $`LC`$-space. Note that $`V=UA`$ is an open neighborhood of $`x`$ in $`(A,\tau |A)`$ and that $`(V,\tau |V)`$ is an $`LC`$-subspace. By Proposition 2.1, $`(A,\tau |A)`$ is a locally $`LC`$-space. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 2.3

If $`(X,\tau )`$ has an open cover by locally LC-subspaces, then $`X`$ is a locally $`LC`$-space.

Proof. Let $`X=_{iI}G_i`$ be on open cover of $`X`$ where each $`G_i`$ is a locally $`LC`$-space, and let $`xX`$. Choose $`jI`$ such that $`xG_j`$. If $`U_j`$ is an open neighborhood of $`x`$ in $`G_j`$ such that $`U_j`$ is an $`LC`$-subspace of $`G_j`$, then $`U_j`$ is also open in $`(X,\tau )`$. By Proposition 2.1, $`(X,\tau )`$ is a locally $`LC`$-space. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 2.4

Let $`(X_\alpha ,\tau _\alpha )_{\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }}`$ be a family of topological spaces. For the topological sum $`X=_{\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }}X_\alpha `$ the following conditions are equivalent:

(1) $`X`$ is a locally $`LC`$-space.

(2) Each $`X_\alpha `$ is a locally $`LC`$-space.

Proof. Follows from Proposition 2.2 and Proposition 2.3. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 2.5

Let $`(X_i,\tau _i)_{iF}`$ be a finite family of Hausdorff spaces. If each $`X_i`$ is a locally $`LC`$-space, then the product space $`X=_{iF}X_i`$ is also a locally $`LC`$-space.

Proof. Let $`(X,\tau )`$ and $`(Y,\sigma )`$ be Hausdorff locally $`LC`$-spaces. Let $`(x,y)X\times Y`$. By assumption, there exists $`U\tau `$ and $`V\sigma `$ such that $`xU`$, $`yV`$ and both $`U`$ and $`V`$ are $`LC`$-subspaces of $`X`$ and $`Y`$, respectively. By \[3, Theorem 2\], $`U\times V`$ is an $`LC`$-subspace of the product space $`X\times Y`$. By Proposition 2.1, $`X\times Y`$ is a locally $`LC`$-space. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.6

We note that the Hausdorff condition can be reduced to the weaker separation property $`R_1`$. Recall that a space $`(X,\tau )`$ is called an $`R_1`$-space if $`x`$ and $`y`$ have disjoint neighborhoods whenever $`\mathrm{cl}\{x\}\mathrm{cl}\{y\}`$. Clearly, a space is Hausdorff if and only if it is $`T_1`$ and $`R_1`$.

Question. Does Proposition 2.5 remain true if we drop the requirement that the spaces in question have to be Hausdorff (or $`R_1`$)?

###### Proposition 2.7

Every locally hereditarily Lindelöf, locally $`LC`$-space is discrete.

Proof. Let $`(X,\tau )`$ be a locally hereditarily Lindelöf and a locally $`LC`$-space. We may assume that every point $`xX`$ has an open neighbourhood $`W`$ that is both hereditarily Lindelöf and an $`LC`$-space. But this means that $`W`$ is an open discrete subspace of $`(X,\tau )`$. Thus $`(X,\tau )`$ is discrete as well. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 2.8

A locally $`LC`$-space is discrete if and only if it is locally finite. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 2.9

Every locally $`LC`$-space is a $`T_1`$-space.

Proof. Assume that $`(X,\tau )`$ is a locally $`LC`$-space and let $`xX`$. For every $`yx`$, there exists $`U\tau `$ such that $`yU`$ and $`(U,\tau |U)`$ is an $`LC`$-space and hence a $`T_1`$-space. Clearly, $`yU\{x\}\tau `$ and $`xU`$. This shows that $`X`$ is $`T_1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 2.10

If every $`LC`$-subspace of every Lindelöf subset of a topological space $`(X,\tau )`$ is Lindelöf, then $`X`$ is a locally $`LC`$-space if and only if $`X`$ is an $`LC`$-space.

Proof. Assume that $`X`$ is a locally $`LC`$-space. Let $`AX`$ be Lindelöf and let $`xA`$. Since $`X`$ is an locally $`LC`$-space, there exists $`U\tau `$ such that $`xU`$ and $`(U,\tau |U)`$ is an $`LC`$-space. Since every subspace of an $`LC`$-space is an $`LC`$-space, $`UA`$ is an $`LC`$-space. By assumption, $`UA`$ is Lindelöf and hence closed in $`(U,\tau |U)`$. Thus, $`UA`$ is open in $`(X,\tau )`$, contains $`x`$ and is disjoint from $`A`$. This shows that $`A`$ is closed and consequently $`X`$ is an $`LC`$-space. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 2.11

Open (and hence also closed) bijective images of locally $`LC`$-spaces are locally $`LC`$-spaces.

Proof. Let $`f:(X,\tau )(Y,\sigma )`$ be open and bijective and let $`(X,\tau )`$ be a locally $`LC`$-space. Let $`yY`$. Choose $`xX`$ such that $`f(x)=y`$. Since $`(X,\tau )`$ is a locally $`LC`$-space, then there exists $`U\tau `$ such that $`xU`$ and $`(U,\tau |U)`$ is an $`LC`$-space. Since $`f`$ is open, then $`f(U)`$ is an open neighborhood of $`y`$ in $`(Y,\sigma )`$. Since open, bijective images of $`LC`$-spaces are also $`LC`$-spaces, then $`(f(U),\sigma |f(U))`$ is an $`LC`$-subspace of $`(Y,\sigma )`$. By Proposition 2.1, $`(Y,\sigma )`$ is a locally $`LC`$-space. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 2.12

The property ‘locally $`LC`$-space’ is a topological property. $`\mathrm{}`$

Department of Mathematics

PL 4, Yliopistonkatu 5

University of Helsinki

00014 Helsinki

Finland

e-mail: dontchev@cc.helsinki.fi

Department of Mathematics

Graz University of Technology

Steyrergasse 30

A-8010 Graz

Austria

e-mail: ganster@weyl.math.tu-graz.ac.at

Department of Mathematics

Faculty of Science

Haceteppe University

06532 Beytepe/Ankara

Turkey

e-mail: kanibir@eti.cc.hun.edu.tr