Compactness and Symmetric Well Orders
We introduce and investigate a topological version of Stäckel's characterization of finite sets, with the goal of obtaining an interesting notion that characterizes or is a close variant of compactness. Define a $T_2$ topological space $(X, \tau)$ to be Stäckel-compact if there is some linear ordering $\prec$ on $X$ such that every non-empty $\tau$-closed set contains a $\prec$-least and a $\prec$-greatest element. We find that compact spaces are Stäckel-compact but not conversely, and Stäckel-compact spaces are countably compact. The equivalence of Stäckel-compactness with countable compactness remains open, but our main result is that this equivalence holds in scattered spaces of Cantor-Bendixson rank $< \omega_2$ under ZFC. Under V=L, the equivalence holds in all scattered spaces.
\section{Introduction and Summary of Results.}

A familiar phenomenon in point-set topology is that
a purely combinatorial set-theoretic condition that characterizes
finiteness of sets will often have a corresponding analogue in topological
spaces which characterizes compactness, or at least a variant of compactness
(Tao~\cite{Tao} illustrates this with
example properties;
see also \cite{Engelking,Handbook}).

The purpose of this article to is to introduce and investigate the topological
analogue of a specific property due to St\"ackel~\cite{Stackel}
that characterizes the finiteness of a set,
namely the existence of some ordering on the set in which
every non-empty subset has
a smallest and a greatest element (a ``symmetric well-order'').
Section~\ref{sec:formulation} defines
the corresponding topological property which we call
\emph{St\"ackel-compactness,}
namely the existence of some ordering on the space such that every non-empty
\emph{closed} subset has a smallest and a greatest element.
Our problem
is to study
how close this notion is to ordinary compactness.

In Section~\ref{sec:propstack}, we establish some basic properties of
St\"ackel-compactness and find that it has similarities
with other variants of compactness such as
pseudocompactness and sequential compactness
(although distinct from them).
We observe that 
every compact Hausdorff space is St\"ackel-compact but not conversely,
showing that
the space \(\omega_1\)
is St\"ackel-compact.
Also,
every St\"ackel-compact space is countably compact, and so
in metric spaces,
St\"ackel-compactness coincides with usual compactness.

In Section~\ref{sec:ccompact}, we obtain our main result:
\emph{In scattered Hausdorff spaces of
Cantor-Bendixson-rank less than \(\omega_2\),
St\"ackel-compactness coincides with countable compactness}
(Theorem~\ref{theo:main}).

Finally, in Section~\ref{sec:bzfc} we go beyond ZFC and
combine our results with those from~\cite{mathoverflow}
to remove the restriction on Cantor-Bendixson rank:
Under V=L,
St\"ackel-compactness coincides with countable compactness
in arbitrary scattered Hausdorff spaces.
We also list a few open questions.


\section{Symmetric Well Orders and St\"ackel-compactness.}%
\label{sec:formulation}

\begin{definition}
An order \(\prec\) on a set \(X\) will be called a
\emph{symmetric well-order} if every non-empty subset of \(X\)
contains both a least and a greatest element
(or equivalently, if both \(\prec\) and the reverse order
\(\succ\) well order \(X\)).
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}[St\"ackel~\cite{Stackel}]\label{prop:stackfin}
A set \(X\) is finite if and only if a symmetric well-order can be
defined on \(X\).
\end{proposition}
This is easily proved in ZF without AC (see \cite{Suppes}, p.108 and p.149).

\medskip

We now define a topological version of
symmetric well-ordering, and
formulate
our main notion,
\emph{St\"ackel-compactness.} 
\begin{definition}
Let \(X\) be a Hausdorff topological space.  
\begin{enumerate}
\item
An ordering \(\prec\) on \(X\) will be called a \emph{symmetric topological
well-order} if every non-empty closed subset of \(X\) has both
a least and a greatest element.
\item
\(X\) will be called \emph{St\"ackel-compact} if there exists
some ordering \(\prec\) on \(X\) which is a symmetric topological well order.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\emph{Caveat:
In these definitions, the order \(\prec\) on \(X\) 
is not assumed to be related to the
topology on \(X\) in any other way.  In general, the order topology
given by the order \(\prec\) will be
unrelated to
the original topology of \(X\).}

\medskip

The unit interval \([0,1]\) is St\"ackel-compact, as
the usual ordering is itself a symmetric topological well order.
More examples will appear below.

In the remaining sections, we focus on our main
problem:

\medskip
\noindent
\textbf{Problem.\;}
How close is St\"ackel-compactness to compactness?
\medskip

Throughout, we will restrict our attention to Hausdorff topological
spaces, and will assume the Axiom of Choice, i.e., work in ZFC.

(Notations and 
results used
can be found in standard references in point-set topology and set theory,
such as
\cite{Engelking,Handbook,Jech}.)

\section{Basic Properties of St\"ackel-compact spaces.}%
\label{sec:propstack}
St\"ackel-compactness shares
these properties of ordinary compactness:
\begin{proposition}
A closed subspace of a St\"ackel-compact space is St\"ackel-compact.
If a topology is St\"ackel-compact, then so is any weaker \(T_2\)
topology.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Immediate from the definition.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:compactimpliesSC}
Every compact Hausdorff space \(X\) is St\"ackel-compact.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
\(X\) is homeomorphic to a closed subspace of \([0,1]^\mu\)
for some ordinal \(\mu\).
The lexicographic order on \([0,1]^\mu\)
is readily verified to be a symmetric topological well order.
Hence \([0,1]^\mu\), and so \(X\), is St\"ackel-compact.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
Every St\"ackel-compact
space \(X\) is countably compact.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Fix an ordering on \(X\) in which every non-empty closed set contains
both a least and a greatest element.
Since \(X\) is Hausdorff,
it suffices to show that every infinite subset of \(X\) has a limit point.
Let \(A\) be an infinite subset of \(X\).  Then
(e.g.\ by Proposition~\ref{prop:stackfin})
\(A\) contains a non-empty
subset \(B\) which either has no least element or has no greatest element.
\(B\) cannot be closed,
since \(X\) is St\"ackel-compact.
Hence \(B\) has
a limit point, and so \(A\) has a limit point.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{coro:metricequiv}
Let \(X\) be a Hausdorff space which is either Lindel\"of or
paracompact.
Then \(X\) is St\"ackel-compact if and only if \(X\) is compact.
In particular, in metrizable spaces St\"ackel-compactness coincides with
compactness.
\end{corollary}

At this point, we have the following implications (in Hausdorff spaces):
\[
\text{Compact } \implies \text{ St\"ackel-compact } \implies
\text{Countably compact}
\]

We next ask:  Can the first implication be reversed?
Is every St\"ackel-compact space compact?
It turns out that the answer is negative.

\begin{theorem}\label{theo:omegaone}
The space \(\omega_1\), consisting of all countable ordinals with the
order topology, is St\"ackel-compact.
Thus there are St\"ackel-compact spaces which are not compact.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let \(<\) denote the usual ordering on ordinals.
Partition \(\omega_1\) into two stationary sets \(A\) and \(B\),
and let \(\prec\) be the order on \(\omega_1\) in which
``\(A\) is followed by the reverse of \(B\)'', or more precisely
by defining \(\alpha \prec \beta\)
if and only if either \(\alpha \in A\) and \(\beta \in B\),
or \(\alpha, \beta \in A\) and \(\alpha < \beta\),
or \(\alpha, \beta \in B\) and \(\alpha > \beta\).

Let \(F\) be a non-empty closed subset of \(\omega_1\).
We will show that \(F\) contains both a \(\prec\)-least element and
a \(\prec\)-greatest element.

If \(F\) meets both \(A\) and \(B\) then \(F\) clearly has both
a \(\prec\)-least element and a \(\prec\)-greatest element,
so assume that either \(F \subseteq A\) or \(F \subseteq B\).
Then \(F\) must be countable, since an uncountable closed set
in \(\omega_1\) would meet both \(A\) and \(B\).
Suppose that \(F \subseteq A\).
Now \(F\) is a
non-empty countable closed set in \(\omega_1\), and so
\(F\) contains a \(<\)-least and a \(<\)-greatest ordinal
under the usual ordering \(<\) of the ordinals.  But on \(A\),
the ordering \(\prec\) coincides with the usual ordering \(<\)
of the ordinals, so \(F\) contains both a \(\prec\)-least element and
a \(\prec\)-greatest element.
(A similar argument applies if \(F \subseteq B\).)

Thus \(\omega_1\) is St\"ackel-compact.
\end{proof}

A similar argument shows that the
long line
is St\"ackel-compact.
Also,
(by results below)
a limit ordinal
\(\lambda\) of uncountable cofinality is St\"ackel-compact
if \(\lambda < \omega_2\), and under V=L all limit ordinals
of uncountable cofinality are St\"ackel-compact.

\medskip

We
do not know if the product of two St\"ackel-compact
spaces is St\"ackel-compact.  However, if one of the two spaces is
additionally assumed to be compact, then the product will be
St\"ackel-compact.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:prodcompsc}
Let \(X\) and \(Y\) be Hausdorff spaces.  If \(X\) is St\"ackel-compact
and \(Y\) is compact, then \(X \times Y\) is St\"ackel-compact.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{prop:compactimpliesSC}, \(Y\) is also St\"ackel-compact.
Therefore we can fix symmetric topological well orders on \(X\) and on \(Y\).
Then the lexicographical order on \(X \times Y\) defined by
\[
(u,v) \prec (x,y)
\iff
u \prec x \text{ in \(X\), or }
u = x \text{ and \(v \prec y\) in \(Y\)}
\]
is a symmetric topological well order on \(X \times Y\).
To see this, let \(C\) be a non-empty closed subset of \(X \times Y\).
Then the projection \(P\) of \(C\) onto \(X\),
\[
P := \{ x \in X \colon (x,y) \in C \text{ for some \(y \in Y\)} \}
\]
is also a non-empty closed subset of \(X\) since \(Y\) is compact.
So \(P\) will have a least element, say \(x_0\), with respect to the
symmetric topological well order on \(X\).  Now the set
\(Q := \{ y \in Y \colon (x_0, y) \in C \}\) is a non-empty closed
subset of \(Y\) and so will have a least element, say \(y_0\),
with respect to the symmetric topological well order on \(Y\).
Then \((x_0, y_0)\) will be the least element of \(C\) under the
lexicographic order.  Similarly \(C\) will also have a largest element.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}%
\label{coro:prodexample}
The product space \(\omega_1 \times (\omega_1 + 1)\) is St\"ackel-compact.
We thus have St\"ackel-compact Tychonov spaces which are not normal.
(This answers a question of Rao~\cite{Rao}.)
\end{corollary}
The basic observations of this section indicate that St\"ackel-compactness
behaves in ways similar (but not identical) to some other
variants of compactness.  Like pseudo\-compactness
and countable compactness, St\"ackel-compact\-ness
is a necessary but not sufficient condition
for compactness in Hausdorff spaces, and in metric spaces
it coincides with compactness.
Unlike pseudocompactness, St\"ackel-compactness implies
countable compactness.  We next look at the question
of reversal of this implication.


\section{The Case of Countably Compact Spaces.}
\label{sec:ccompact}
We now ask if the second implication mentioned after
Corollary~\ref{coro:metricequiv} can be reversed:

\smallskip
\noindent
\textbf{Question.\;}
Are all countably compact \(T_2\) spaces St\"ackel-compact?
\smallskip

We do not know the full answer to this question,
but we will prove a partial result and
show that certain types of countably compact spaces
are St\"ackel compact, under certain restrictions.
This is the main result of this article, Theorem~\ref{theo:main}.

When we try to improve Theorem~\ref{theo:main} by
relaxing its restrictive conditions,
we get into set theoretical considerations involving
additional hypotheses
beyond the standard
ZFC axioms
(Section~\ref{sec:bzfc}).

However, in this section
all results are proved under
ZFC.
First, we set up some standard terminology and notation.

\begin{definition}
Let \(X\) be a topological space and \(E\) be a subset of \(X\).
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\(\Lim E\) denotes the set of limit points of \(E\).
\item
\(E\) is \emph{perfect} if
\(E\) is closed and
dense-in-itself,
that is, if \(\Lim E = E\).
\item
The space \(X\) is \emph{scattered}
if no non-empty subset is perfect.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
We get the \emph{Cantor-Bendixson derivatives} of
\(X\)
by repeatedly applying the \(\Lim\) operation through all ordinals,
taking intersections
at limit stages:
\begin{definition}
Let \(X\) be a topological space.
For each ordinal \(\alpha\) we define a subset \(X^{(\alpha)}\)
of \(X\) by transfinite recursion as follows:
\begin{align*}
X^{(0)} &:= X,\\
X^{(\alpha+1)} &:= \Lim X^{(\alpha)},\\
X^{(\alpha)} &:= \bigcap_{\beta < \alpha} X^{(\beta)}\quad
\text{if \(\alpha\) is a limit ordinal.}
\end{align*}
\(X^{(\alpha)}\) is called
\emph{the \(\alpha\)-th Cantor-Bendixson derivative of \(X\)}
(\(\alpha\) any ordinal).
\end{definition}
The Cantor-Bendixson derivatives \(X^{(\alpha)}\)
are closed sets that decrease with \(\alpha\),
i.e.\@ \(\alpha < \beta \implies X^{(\alpha)} \supseteq X^{(\beta)}\):
\[
X = X^{(0)}
\supseteq X^{(1)} 
\supseteq X^{(2)} 
\supseteq
\;\cdots\;
\supseteq X^{(\alpha)} \supseteq X^{(\alpha + 1)}
\supseteq
\;\cdots\;
\]
Also, there must be an ordinal \(\rho\) with \(X^{(\rho+1)} = X^{(\rho)}\)
(since we can fix an ordinal \(\mu\) such that there is no injective
mapping from \(\mu\) into the power set of \(X\) (Hartogs), and so
the sets \(X^{(\alpha)}, \alpha < \mu\), cannot be all distinct).
\begin{definition}
For a topological space \(X\),
the least ordinal \(\rho = \rho(X)\) such that \(X^{(\rho+1)} = X^{(\rho)}\)
is called the \emph{Cantor-Bendixson rank}
(or \emph{CB-rank}) of \(X\).
\end{definition}
Note that if \(\rho = \rho(X)\) is the Cantor-Bendixson rank of
\(X\), then
\(X\) is perfect if and only if \(\rho = 0\), and
\(X\) is scattered if and only if \(X^{(\rho)} = \emptyset\).

Also,
if \(X\) is countably compact and scattered, then its
CB-rank \(\rho = \rho(X)\) is either a successor ordinal
or must have uncountable cofinality (\(\cf \rho > \omega\)).

The simplest example of a countably compact scattered Hausdorff space
with uncountable CB-rank is \(\omega_1\) (under the usual order topology),
which we saw in Theorem~\ref{theo:omegaone} to be St\"ackel-compact.
We may therefore try to somehow ``lift the proof'' of
Theorem~\ref{theo:omegaone} to general
countably compact scattered Hausdorff spaces.  This is done in
Theorem~\ref{theo:scattered} below under a ``reflection
assumption''.

\medskip

We now state our main result.

\begin{theorem}[ZFC]\label{theo:main}
Let \(X\) be a scattered Hausdorff space with
CB-rank less than \(\omega_2\).
Then
\(X\) is St\"ackel-compact if and only if \(X\) is
countably compact.
\end{theorem}

Using Theorem~\ref{theo:main}, we get more examples
of St\"ackel-compact spaces:
\(X := \omega_1 \times \omega_1\),
\(Y := (\omega_1 + 1) \times (\omega_1 + 1) \setminus
\{ (\omega_1, \omega_1) \} \), and
\(Z := \omega_1 \times (\omega_1 + 1)\).
(In Corollary~\ref{coro:prodexample},
\(Z\) was shown to be St\"ackel-compact 
using Proposition~\ref{prop:prodcompsc}, but
Proposition~\ref{prop:prodcompsc} does not help
for \(X\) or \(Y\).)

\medskip

The rest of the section is for the proof Theorem~\ref{theo:main}.

\begin{definition}
Let \(A\) be a set and \(\alpha\) be an ordinal with \(\cf \alpha > \omega\).
We say that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\emph{\(A\) reflects at \(\alpha\)} if \(A \cap \alpha\) is stationary in \(\alpha\).
\item
\emph{\(A\) reflects everywhere on \(\rho\)} (where \(\rho\) is an
arbitrary ordinal) if
\(A\) reflects at \(\beta\)
for every \(\beta \leq \rho\) with
\(\cf \beta > \omega\).
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}


\begin{theorem}[ZFC]\label{theo:scattered}
Let \(X\) be a countably compact scattered Hausdorff space with
CB-rank \(\rho = \rho(X)\), and suppose that
there exist disjoint sets \(A\) and \(B\) each of which reflects
everywhere on \(\rho\).  Then \(X\) is St\"ackel-compact.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof
improves upon
the proof that \(\omega_1\) is
St\"ackel-compact.

By the given condition, we can partition \(\rho\) into two disjoint sets
\(A, B\) such that each of \(A\) and \(B\) reflects everywhere on \(\rho\). 

Define, for each ordinal \(\alpha\):
\[
Y_\alpha := X^{(\alpha)} \setminus X^{(\alpha + 1)}.
\]
Then \(\{ Y_\alpha \,\colon\; \alpha < \rho \}\) forms a partition of \(X\).

Fix a well order of \(X\) such that \(Y_\alpha\) precedes \(Y_\beta\)
in this order if \(\alpha < \beta < \rho\).

Now define:
\[
X_A := \bigcup_{\alpha \in A} Y_\alpha
\qquad
\text{ and }
\qquad
X_B := \bigcup_{\beta \in B} Y_\beta.
\]
Then \(X_A\) and \(X_B\) form a partition of \(X\).

Now take the order on \(X\) in which \(X_A\) precedes \(X_B\),
\(X_A\) is ordered by the above well-order,
and \(X_B\) is ordered by the reverse of that well-order.

We now show that under this order, every non-empty closed
subset \(F\) of \(X\) has a least and a greatest element.


Given a non-empty closed set \(F\) in \(X\), consider the two sets
\(F \cap X_A\) and  \(F \cap X_B\).  If both of these sets are
non-empty, then \(F\) will contain least and greatest elements
(since \(X_A\) is well-ordered and \(X_B\) is reverse well-ordered
by our new chosen order on \(X\)).  So we may assume that one of
the sets \(F \cap X_A\) and \(F \cap X_B\) is empty, and without
loss of generality that \(F \cap X_B = \emptyset\), that is,
\(F \subseteq X_A\).  So \(F\) has a least element. We will show
that \(F\) has a greatest element as well.

Define:
\[
C := \{ \alpha < \rho \,\colon\; F \cap Y_\alpha \neq \emptyset \}.
\]
Then \(C \subseteq A\) by our assumption \(F \subseteq X_A\), and
\(C \neq \emptyset\) since \(F \neq \emptyset\).

If \(C\) has a largest element \(\mu\), then \(F \cap Y_\mu\) must be
non-empty finite by countable compactness, and so will have a largest
element, which must then be the greatest element of \(F\).  Hence
it suffices to show that \(C\) has a largest element.

Suppose (for contradiction) that \(C\) does not have a largest element.
Then \(\sup C \in \Lim C \,\setminus\, C\).  Let:
\[
\mu := \min ( \Lim C \,\setminus\, C).
\]
Thus \(\mu\) is a limit ordinal \(\leq \rho\),
and \(\cf \mu \geq \omega_1\) by countable
compactness.  Note that \(C \cap \mu\) is a
closed unbounded set in \(\mu\).  Now,
since \(B\) reflects at \(\mu\), \(B \cap \mu\) is stationary in \(\mu\),
and so \((C \cap \mu) \cap (B \cap \mu)\) must be non-empty.
But this implies that \(C \cap B \neq \emptyset\) which is a contradiction
since \(C \subseteq A\).
\end{proof}
Our goal now is to try to use the above theorem to show that
if a scattered Hausdorff space is countably compact, then
it is St\"ackel-compact.
But, as mentioned earlier,
we are unable to do this without
additional set-theoretic hypothesis beyond ZFC
(Section~\ref{sec:bzfc}).
In ZFC alone,
we can
use the next theorem below along with Theorem~\ref{theo:scattered}
to obtain the result for spaces with CB-rank \(< \omega_2\),
giving us Theorem~\ref{theo:main}.
\begin{theorem}[ZFC]%
\label{theo:lessthanomega2}
If \(\rho < \omega_2\), then there exist disjoint sets
\(A\) and \(B\) each of which reflects everywhere on \(\rho\).
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
The proof is by induction on \(\rho\).

Suppose that \(\rho < \omega_2\) and that for every \(\xi < \rho\)
there are disjoint \(A_\xi, B_\xi\) each of which
reflects everywhere on \(\xi\).

Without loss of generality we can assume that \(\rho\) is a limit
ordinal, so there are two cases:  \(\cf \rho = \omega\) and
\(\cf \rho = \omega_1\).

\medskip

\textbf{Case 1}: \(\cf \rho = \omega\).  We can then choose
a countable sequence of ordinals
\[
0 = \rho_0  < \rho_1 < \dots < \rho_n < \rho_{n+1} < \dots
\]
such that \(\sup_n \rho_n = \rho\).  By induction hypothesis,
for each \(n \in \omega\) we can fix disjoint sets \(A_n, B_n\)
such that both of them reflect everywhere on \(\rho_{n+1}\).
Now let:
\[
A := \bigcup_{n \in \omega} A_n \cap (\rho_{n+1} \setminus \rho_n)
\qquad \text{ and } \qquad
B := \bigcup_{n \in \omega} B_n \cap (\rho_{n+1} \setminus \rho_n).
\]
(For ordinals \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\), the set-difference
\(\alpha \setminus \beta\) equals
\(\{\xi \,\colon\; \beta \leq \xi < \alpha \}\).)

Notice that \(A \cap B = \emptyset\).  We show that both \(A\) and \(B\)
reflect everywhere on \(\rho\).  Suppose that \(\alpha \leq \rho\),
with \(\cf \alpha \geq \omega_1\).  Then \(0 < \alpha < \rho\) (since
\(\cf \rho = \omega\) and \(\cf \alpha \geq \omega_1\)), and so
there is \(n\) such that \(\rho_n < \alpha \leq \rho_{n+1}\).
Now \(A_n\) reflects everywhere on \(\rho_{n+1}\), so
\(A_n \cap \alpha\) is stationary in \(\alpha\), and therefore
\(A_n \cap (\alpha \setminus \rho_n)\) is also
stationary in \(\alpha\)
(as \(\alpha \setminus \rho_n\) is closed unbounded in \(\alpha\)).
But
\[
A_n \cap (\alpha \setminus \rho_n) \subseteq
A_n \cap (\rho_{n+1} \setminus \rho_n)
\subseteq A,
\]
hence \(A \cap \alpha\) is stationary in \(\alpha\).
Similarly, \(B \cap \alpha\) is stationary in \(\alpha\).
Thus both \(A\) and \(B\) reflect everywhere on \(\rho\).

\textbf{Case 2}: \(\cf \rho = \omega_1\).  Fix \(E \subseteq \rho\)
of order type \(\omega_1\) with \(\sup E = \rho\), and let
\(L := \rho \,\cap\, \Lim E\).
Then \(L\) is closed unbounded
in \(\rho\) of order type \(\omega_1\) and each \(\lambda \in L\)
is a limit ordinal of countable cofinality.
Enumerate \(L\) increasingly as
\(\seq{\lambda_\xi}_{\xi < \omega_1}\):
\[
L = \{ \lambda_\xi \,\colon\; 0 \leq \xi < \omega_1 \},
\quad\text{with \(\lambda_\alpha < \lambda_\beta\) for all
    \(\alpha < \beta < \omega_1\)}.
\]
Now, for each \(\alpha < \omega_1\), we have \(\lambda_{\alpha+1} < \rho\),
so by induction hypothesis we can find disjoint sets
\(A_\alpha, B_\alpha\) such that both
\(A_\alpha\) and \(B_\alpha\) reflect everywhere on
\(\lambda_{\alpha + 1}\).
Define:
\[
A^* := 
    \bigcup_{\alpha < \omega_1} \left[ A_\alpha \cap
        (\lambda_{\alpha + 1} \setminus (\lambda_{\alpha} + 1)) \right]
    =
    \bigcup_{\alpha < \omega_1} \left[ 
        A_\alpha \cap 
            \{\xi \,\colon\; \lambda_{\alpha} < \xi < \lambda_{\alpha + 1}\}
    \right],
\]
\[
B^* := 
    \bigcup_{\alpha < \omega_1} \left[ B_\alpha \cap
        (\lambda_{\alpha + 1} \setminus (\lambda_{\alpha} + 1)) \right]
    =
    \bigcup_{\alpha < \omega_1} \left[ 
        B_\alpha \cap 
            \{\xi \,\colon\; \lambda_{\alpha} < \xi < \lambda_{\alpha + 1}\}
    \right].
\]
Note that the sets \(A^*\), \(B^*\), and \(L\) are pairwise disjoint.
As \(L\) is
closed unbounded
in \(\rho\), we can fix disjoint subsets
\(C\) and \(D\) of \(L\) that are stationary in $\rho$.  Finally,
define:
\[
A := A^* \cup C \qquad\text{and}\qquad B := B^* \cup D.
\]
Then \(A \cap B = \emptyset\).
We show that both \(A\) and \(B\)
reflect everywhere on \(\rho\).  Suppose that \(\alpha \leq \rho\),
with \(\cf \alpha > \omega\).
If \(\alpha = \rho\), then
\(C\), and so \(A\),
is stationary in \(\rho = \alpha\).
If \(\alpha < \rho\), then \(\lambda_{\xi} \leq \alpha < \lambda_{\xi + 1}\)
for some \(\xi < \omega_1\).  Since the limit ordinal \(\lambda_{\xi}\)
has countable cofinality but \(\cf \alpha > \omega\), we get
\(\lambda_{\xi} < \alpha\).  Also, \(A_\xi\) reflects everywhere on
\(\lambda_{\xi + 1}\), so \(A_\xi \cap \alpha\) is stationary in \(\alpha\),
and therefore \(A_\xi \cap (\alpha \setminus (\lambda_{\xi}+1))\)
is stationary in \(\alpha\)
(as \(\alpha \setminus (\lambda_{\xi}+1)\) is closed unbounded in \(\alpha\)).
But
\[
A_\xi \cap (\alpha \setminus (\lambda_{\xi}+1))
\subseteq
A_\xi \cap (\lambda_{\xi + 1} \setminus (\lambda_{\xi}+1))
\subseteq
A^*
\subseteq
A,
\]
hence \(A \cap \alpha\) is stationary in \(\alpha\).
Similarly, \(B \cap \alpha\) is stationary in \(\alpha\).
Thus both \(A\) and \(B\) reflect everywhere on \(\rho\).
\end{proof}


Theorem~\ref{theo:main} now follows immediately from
Theorem~\ref{theo:scattered} and Theorem~\ref{theo:lessthanomega2}.

\medskip

\section{Beyond ZFC.}%
\label{sec:bzfc}
This section
uses extra set-theoretic hypotheses to improve
Theorem~\ref{theo:main}.
As usual (see Jech \cite{Jech}), V=L denotes
G\"odel's Axiom of Constructibility (which states that
every set is constructible), and ZFC\(+\)V=L denotes
the axioms of ZFC augmented with this axiom.
Under ZFC\(+\)V=L,
St\"ackel-compactness coincides with countable compactness
in all scattered Hausdorff spaces
(Theorem~\ref{theo:veql} below).

\smallskip

For any well-ordered set \(X\), we will use the notation
\(\ord(X)\) to denote the  order-type of \(X\), that is,
the unique ordinal isomorphic to \(X\).

\smallskip

Let \(\kappa\) be an uncountable cardinal.
Recall Jensen's \emph{square principle} \(\square_\kappa\),
a combinatorial set-theoretic hypothesis
true under ZFC\(+\)V=L (see Jech \cite{Jech}).
The square principle \(\square_\kappa\)
is the following statement:

\smallskip

\noindent
\(\square_\kappa\):
There is a sequence
\(\seq{C_\alpha \colon \alpha < \kappa^+, \text{\(\alpha\) a limit ordinal}}\)
of sets, known as a \emph{\(\square_\kappa\)-sequence,}
such that for all limit \(\alpha < \kappa^+\) we have:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\(C_\alpha\) is closed unbounded in \(\alpha\);
\item
\(\cf \alpha < \kappa\) implies \(|C_\alpha| < \kappa\); and
\item
\(\beta \in \Lim(C_\alpha)\) implies \(C_\beta = C_\alpha \cap \beta\).
\end{enumerate}
For such a \(\square_\kappa\)-sequence, we have
\(\ord(C_\alpha) \leq \kappa\) for all limit \(\alpha < \kappa+\),
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:omegatwo}
Assume \(\square_{\omega_1}\).  Then \(\omega_2\) has a pair of disjoint
subsets which reflect everywhere on \(\omega_2\).
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By \(\square_{\omega_1}\), we can fix a sequence
\(\seq{C_\alpha \colon \alpha < \omega_2, \text{\(\alpha\) a limit ordinal}}\)
such that for all limit \(\alpha < \omega_2\):
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\(C_\alpha\) is closed unbounded in \(\alpha\);
\item
\(\cf \alpha = \omega_1\) implies \(\ord(C_\alpha) = \omega_1\); and
\item
\(\beta \in \Lim(C_\alpha)\) implies \(C_\beta = C_\alpha \cap \beta\).
\end{enumerate}
Fix disjoint stationary subsets \(A_0, B_0\) of \(\omega_1\)
consisting of limit ordinals.
For each \(\mu < \omega_2\) with \(\cf \mu = \omega_1\),
the set \(C_\mu\) is closed unbounded in \(\mu\) and
of order type \(\omega_1\), so we can
form ``isomorphic copies of \(A_0\) and \(B_0\) within \(C_\mu\)''
(under the unique order-isomorphism
between \(\omega_1\) and \(C_\mu\)) by defining:
\[
A_\mu := \{ \xi \in C_\mu \colon \ord(C_\mu \cap \xi) \in A_0 \}
\;\text{ and }\;
B_\mu := \{ \xi \in C_\mu \colon \ord(C_\mu \cap \xi) \in B_0 \}.
\]
Note that \(A_\mu \subseteq \Lim C_\mu\) and \(B_\mu \subseteq \Lim C_\mu\).
Finally, ``put them all together'' by defining:
\[
A := \bigcup_{\substack{\mu < \omega_2 \\ \cf \mu = \omega_1}} A_\mu
\qquad\text{ and }\qquad
B := \bigcup_{\substack{\mu < \omega_2 \\ \cf \mu = \omega_1}} B_\mu.
\]
Then \(A\) and \(B\) are disjoint, since if \(\xi \in A_\mu \cap B_\nu\)
then \(\xi \in \Lim C_\mu \cap \Lim C_\nu\), so
\(C_\mu \cap \xi = C_\xi = C_\nu \cap \xi\),
so \(\ord(C_\mu \cap \xi) = \ord(C_\nu \cap \xi)\), which is a
contradiction since \(\ord(C_\mu \cap \xi) \in A_0\)
and \(\ord(C_\nu \cap \xi) \in B_0\), while \(A_0\) and \(B_0\) are disjoint.

Now if \(\mu < \omega_2\) and \(\cf \mu = \omega_1\), then
\(A_\mu\) and \(B_\mu\) are stationary in \(C_\mu\) and hence in \(\mu\),
so \(A\) and \(B\) reflect at \(\mu\).  Also,
\(A\) and \(B\) reflect at \(\mu = \omega_2\) as well, since
they
are stationary in \(\omega_2\).
So \(A\) and \(B\) are disjoint sets which reflect everywhere on \(\omega_2\).
\end{proof}
Combining the above proposition with Theorem~\ref{theo:scattered} we get:
\begin{corollary}\label{coro:myfinal}
Assuming \(\square_{\omega_1}\), every countably compact scattered
Hausdorff space of CB-rank \(\omega_2\) is St\"ackel-compact.
\end{corollary}
Hamkins \cite{mathoverflow} shows that if the global square principle
is assumed, then for every \(\rho \geq \omega_2\), there are disjoint
sets which reflect everywhere on \(\rho\) (in fact, there exist
disjoint proper classes \(A, B\) of ordinals such that \(A \cap \alpha\)
and \(B \cap \alpha\) are stationary in \(\alpha\) for every ordinal
\(\alpha\) with uncountable cofinality).  Since the global square principle
holds under ZFC\(+\)V=L, we can
combine the result of Hamkins with Theorem~\ref{theo:scattered}
to get our final conclusion.
\begin{theorem}\label{theo:veql}
Assume ZFC\(+\)V=L, and let \(X\) be a scattered Hausdorff space.
Then \(X\) is St\"ackel-compact if and only if it is
countably compact.
\end{theorem}
\emph{Remark.}
Eisworth \cite{mathoverflow} notes that under large cardinals,
disjoint pairs which reflect everywhere on \(\mu\) may not exist
for \(\mu \geq \omega_2\) (although this does not necessarily imply the
existence of countably compact spaces which are not St\"ackel-compact).

\medskip

Many questions about St\"ackel-compact spaces remain unanswered.
Here are some examples.  Note that St\"ackel-compact spaces are
Hausdorff, by definition.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Are there
countably compact Hausdorff spaces which are not
St\"ackel-compact?
\item
Is the product of two St\"ackel-compact spaces St\"ackel-compact?
\item
Is every St\"ackel-compact space regular?
\item
Is the continuous image of a St\"ackel-compact space
in a Hausdorff space necessarily St\"ackel-compact?
\end{enumerate}

\section{History, Acknowledgements, and Remarks.}
The author initially
obtained the results up to Corollary~\ref{coro:myfinal}
and presented them in seminars in Detroit and Ann Arbor.
Ioannis Souldatos then posted
a MathOverflow question in~\cite{mathoverflow}.
The answers there by Joel Hamkins and Todd Eisworth showed that
the existence of disjoint sets which reflect everywhere is
both consistent with and (modulo large cardinals) independent of ZFC.
The question whether every St\"ackel-compact space is normal was
asked by T.~S.~S.~R.~K.~Rao~\cite{Rao}.

2022-08-12T02:10:51.000
2207
2207.13455
en
https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.13455
We introduce and investigate a topological version of Stäckel's characterization of finite sets, with the goal of obtaining an interesting notion that characterizes or is a close variant of compactness. Define a $T_2$ topological space $(X, \tau)$ to be Stäckel-compact if there is some linear ordering $\prec$ on $X$ such that every non-empty $\tau$-closed set contains a $\prec$-least and a $\prec$-greatest element. We find that compact spaces are Stäckel-compact but not conversely, and Stäckel-compact spaces are countably compact. The equivalence of Stäckel-compactness with countable compactness remains open, but our main result is that this equivalence holds in scattered spaces of Cantor-Bendixson rank $< \omega_2$ under ZFC. Under V=L, the equivalence holds in all scattered spaces.
General Topology (math.GN); Logic (math.LO)
Compactness and Symmetric Well Orders
Qwen/Qwen-72B
1. YES
2. YES