CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Alexander's subbase lemma

Theorem in topology

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionApr 24, 2026
Entity authorityQ26882835
Source-derived summary

In mathematics, specifically topology, Alexander's subbase lemma states that for a topological space to be a compact, it is necessary and sufficient that each open cover of the space consisting of sets in a (fixed) subbase has a finite subcover. Precisely,

given a topological space

X

{\displaystyle X}

and a subbase

S

{\displaystyle S}

for it, a subset

K

X

{\displaystyle K\subset X}

is compact if and only if for each cover of

K

{\displaystyle K}

consisting of sets in

S

{\displaystyle S}

, there exists a finite subcover of it.

The lemma, also often called Alexander's subbase theorem, is due to James Waddell Alexander II. The lemma is typically used to prove Tychonoff's theorem.

Proof

If

K

{\displaystyle K}

is compact, the existence of a finite cover holds by definition. So, we shall show the converse and without loss of generality, replace

X

{\displaystyle X}

by

K

{\displaystyle K}

.

Suppose for the sake of contradiction that the space

X

{\displaystyle X}

is not compact (so

X

{\displaystyle X}

is an infinite set), yet every subbasic cover from

S

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}}

has a finite subcover.

Let

S

{\displaystyle \mathbb {S} }

denote the set of all open covers of

X

{\displaystyle X}

that do not have any finite subcover of

X

.

{\displaystyle X.}

Partially order

S

{\displaystyle \mathbb {S} }

by subset inclusion and use Zorn's Lemma to find an element

C

S

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}\in \mathbb {S} }

that is a maximal element of

S

.

{\displaystyle \mathbb {S} .}

Observe that:

Since

C

S

,

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}\in \mathbb {S} ,}

by definition of

S

,

{\displaystyle \mathbb {S} ,}

C

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}}

is an open cover of

X

{\displaystyle X}

and there does not exist any finite subset of

C

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}}

that covers

X

{\displaystyle X}

(so in particular,

C

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}}

is infinite).

The maximality of

C

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}}

in

S

{\displaystyle \mathbb {S} }

implies that if

V

{\displaystyle V}

is an open set of

X

{\displaystyle X}

such that

V

C

{\displaystyle V\not \in {\mathcal {C}}}

then

C

{

V

}

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}\cup \{V\}}

has a finite subcover, which must necessarily be of the form

{

V

}

C

V

{\displaystyle \{V\}\cup {\mathcal {C}}_{V}}

for some finite subset

C

V

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}_{V}}

of

C

{\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}}

(this finite subset depends on the choice of

V

{\displaystyle V}

).

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Alexander's subbase lemma” is theorem in topology. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Alexander's, subbase and lemma, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current 411-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Alexander's, subbase and lemma is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “theorem in topology” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 24, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q26882835. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Alexander's subbase lemma”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Alexander's subbase lemma primary sources, Alexander's subbase lemma archive and Alexander's research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Alexander's subbase lemma”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Alexander's subbase lemma” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.