return

Celebratio Mathematica

Mary Ellen Rudin

A Tribute to Mary Ellen Rudin

by Peter Nyikos

I had the hon­or of de­liv­er­ing a short eu­logy for Mary El­len at this year’s Spring To­po­logy and Dy­nam­ics Con­fer­ences (STDC) in Con­necti­c­ut. It said: “Mary El­len was a great math­em­atician. But she was much more than that: she was what Prabir Roy called a guru — someone you could turn to for ad­vice and com­fort on all kinds of mat­ters… To those of us who knew her well, she was simply ‘Mary El­len.’ Whenev­er set-the­or­et­ic to­po­lo­gists got to­geth­er for a chat, and someone said “Mary El­len,” 99 times out of a hun­dred, every­one would know who was be­ing talked about.” I briefly lis­ted some of her main ac­com­plish­ments, in­clud­ing of course the writ­ing of “Mary El­len’s book­let” [1]. an­oth­er ex­pres­sion that usu­ally gets in­stant re­cog­ni­tion. Among her re­search ac­com­plish­ments is a beau­ti­ful gen­er­al­iz­a­tion of the Hahn–Mazurkiewicz the­or­em. It is an im­me­di­ate co­rol­lary of her solu­tion to Nikiel’s Con­jec­ture [3] and of a 1988 the­or­em of Nikiel [e3]. The Hahn–Mazurkiewicz the­or­em states that, if a met­riz­able space is a loc­ally con­nec­ted con­tinuum (com­pact, con­nec­ted space), then it is a con­tinu­ous im­age of \( [0, 1] \). (The con­verse is ele­ment­ary.) These spaces are called “Peano con­tinua” in re­cog­ni­tion of Peano’s space-filling curve. Back in 1966 [e2], Sibe Mardeši wrote: “It is nat­ur­al to ask for a non­met­ric ana­logue of this the­or­em….Re­cently the in­terest in this and re­lated prob­lems has been re­vived….” Mary El­len’s solu­tion to Nikiel’s Con­jec­ture al­lows one to sub­sti­tute “mono­ton­ic­ally nor­mal” for “met­riz­able” in the Hahn–Mazurkiewicz the­or­em. And the proof that every met­ric space is mono­ton­ic­ally nor­mal is es­sen­tially identic­al to the usu­al proof that every met­ric space is nor­mal. The search for a nat­ur­al ex­ten­sion of the Hahn–Mazurkiewicz the­or­em to com­pact con­nec­ted, lin­early ordered spaces was akin to the search for a met­riz­a­tion the­or­em gen­er­al­iz­ing the Uryso­hn met­riz­a­tion the­or­em, and it las­ted even longer. (The Bing–Nagata–Smirnov the­or­em was hailed as the solu­tion to this met­riz­a­tion prob­lem after a search of over three dec­ades.)

Mary Ellen and coauthor Keiko Chiba in Kyoto for the ICM in 1990.

I closed my eu­logy by ex­press­ing the hope that there would be some pub­lic­a­tions in re­mem­brance of Mary El­len that would do justice to her great­ness, and I am very happy to be able to con­trib­ute both to the spe­cial is­sue of To­po­logy and its Ap­plic­a­tions ded­ic­ated to Mary El­len and to this re­mem­brance. I got a unique taste of Mary El­len’s gra­cious­ness and hos­pit­al­ity in early 1974, when I was a postdoc­tor­al stu­dent at the Uni­versity of Chica­go. She in­vited me up to Madis­on, where I ar­rived with a bad cold (I naïvely de­cided not to post­pone the vis­it, which had already been delayed a num­ber of times), but al­though it was ob­vi­ous to every­one, she nev­er men­tioned it once and had me stay overnight at her house, where I met her two sons and played board games with them. The same even­ing she in­tro­duced me to the ax­ioms \( \diamond \) and \( \clubsuit \) and to Os­taszewski’s \( S \)-space, all of which were totally new to me at the time. The next two years I saw her at the two STDC con­fer­ences, where I be­came im­pressed first by her lec­tur­ing style and then by the high re­gard in which she was held. There was a pan­el dis­cus­sion in Mem­ph­is about the fu­ture of point-set to­po­logy, and the pan­el in­cluded Mary El­len and oth­er lead­ing fig­ures such as R. H.Bing, R. D. An­der­son, A. H. Stone, and E. Mi­chael.

Her pa­per on her screen­able Dowker space [2] solved a 1955 prob­lem of Nagami wheth­er every nor­mal, screen­able space is para­com­pact [e1]. The proof of nor­mal­ity was a tour de force, amaz­ing in its ori­gin­al­ity. I had nev­er seen any­thing re­motely like it, nor the way she was able to use the in­tric­ate set-the­or­et­ic ax­iom \( \diamond^{++} \) to define the space it­self. To this day I have no idea how it entered in­to her mind that a pe­cu­li­ar space like this would have all the prop­er­ties re­quired to solve Nagami’s prob­lem nor how she was able to de­cide on the way to use \( \diamond^{++} \) in the defin­i­tion. One part of her pa­per re­minded me of an an­ec­dote that was told about a ses­sion in the Lara­m­ie work­shop. She had been go­ing over a par­tic­u­larly in­tric­ate con­struc­tion when F. Bur­ton Jones in­ter­rup­ted: “What al­lows you to say that?” Mary El­len replied, “Why that’s — that’s just God-giv­en.” “Yes,” Jones is sup­posed to have said, “but what did God say when he gave it to you?”

Mary Ellen and Walter when they retired in 1991. (Photo courtesy of Yvonne Nagel.)

There were some prob­lems in set-the­or­et­ic to­po­logy which Mary El­len could not solve but on which she did ob­tain large “con­sol­a­tion prizes.” One such prize was her screen­able Dowker space, an off­shoot of her un­suc­cess­ful at­tempts to solve a prob­lem for which we still have no con­sist­ency res­ults: is there a nor­mal space with a \( \sigma \)-dis­joint base that is not para­com­pact? Zoltán Ba­logh later [e4] came up with one of his “greatest hits”: a ZFC ex­ample of a screen­able Dowker space. Mary El­len’s con­sist­ent ex­ample is, however, the only one known to be col­lec­tion­wise nor­mal. A re­cur­ring theme in Mary El­len’s re­search, up to the very end of her life, were two fur­ther prob­lems about Dowker spaces: the prob­lem of wheth­er there is a nor­mal, lin­early Lindelöf space that is not Lindelöf and the prob­lem of wheth­er there is a nor­mal space with a \( \sigma \)-dis­joint base that is not para­com­pact.

Works

[1] M. E. Rud­in: Lec­tures on set the­or­et­ic to­po­logy (Lara­m­ie, WY, 12–16 Au­gust 1974). CBMS Re­gion­al Con­fer­ence Series in Math­em­at­ics 23. Amer­ic­an Math­em­at­ic­al So­ci­ety (Provid­ence, RI), 1975. Re­prin­ted in 1980. MR 367886 Zbl 0318.​54001 book

[2] M. E. Rud­in: “A nor­mal screen­able non-para­com­pact space,” To­po­logy Ap­pl. 15 : 3 (May 1983), pp. 313–​322. MR 694550 Zbl 0516.​54004 article

[3] M. E. Rud­in: “Nikiel’s con­jec­ture,” To­po­logy Ap­pl. 116 : 3 (December 2001), pp. 305–​331. MR 1857669 Zbl 0988.​54022 article