text:
# Reentrant superconductivity in a strong applied field within the tight–binding model

## I Introduction

There are two mechanisms responsible for a suppression of conventional superconductivity in an external magnetic fieldRT : the Pauli pair breaking and the diamagnetic pair breaking. First of them, the Pauli pair breaking, is connected with the Zeeman coupling. The magnetic field tends to align the spins of the electrons forming the Cooper pair, and the singlet superconductivity disappears at the Chandrasekhar–Clogston (CC) limitCC . However, this critical field for the majority of type–II systems is found to be above $`H_{c2}`$ determined by the orbital (diamagnetic) pair–breaking. Especially, this effect is of minor significance in materials with low effective $`g`$–factor. Another possibility is the superconductivity with nonhomogeneous order parameter (the Larkin–Ovchinnikov–Fulde–Ferrell stateLOFF ), which can exist above the CC limit. One can also look for high–magnetic–field superconductivity in superconductors with triplet equal spin pairing.

The second effect, the diamagnetic pair–breaking, usually crucial in determining the upper critical field, is connected with the orbital frustration of the superconducting order parameter in a magnetic field. This frustration enlarges the free energy of the superconducting state, and, when the magnetic field is strong enough, the normal state becomes energetically favorable. The orbital effect can be reduced in layered two–dimensional superconductors, when the applied magnetic field is parallel to the conducting layers. Such a situation has been analyzed theoreticallyLebed  and recently observed experimentally in organic conductorsUji .

However, it was shown that large values of the critical field are possible also in the systems without two–dimensional layers, i.e., in systems where the orbital effects are present. When describing a superconductor within the Ginzburg–Landau-Abrikosov–Gor’kov theory GLAG , one treats the magnetic field in the semiclassical phase–integral approximation, thus neglecting the quantum effects of the magnetic field. This approximation is valid for relatively small fields, when $`\mathrm{}\omega _ck_BT_c`$ (or $`\omega _c2\pi /\tau `$ for large impurity concentration, where $`\tau `$ is the elastic scattering time). In this regime, the number of occupied Landau levels is very large and the energy spacing of them is very small, and therefore this discrete structure is not observable. However, when the magnetic field increases, the Landau-level degeneracy also increases, so the number of occupied levels decreases and one has to take it into account. The inclusion of the Landau level quantization in the BCS theory leads to reentrant behavior at a very high magnetic field ($`\mathrm{}\omega _cϵ_F`$). Namely, when only the lowest Landau level is occupied, $`T_c`$ is increasing function of $`H`$, limited only by impurity scattering and the Pauli pair breaking effect.

The aim of this paper is to show that the reentrant behavior survives in the presence of a strong periodic lattice potential.

Weak, unidirectional periodic potential removes (or, at least, modify) the Landau–level structure: the levels are broadened (they form “Landau bands”) and the degeneracy is liftedLangbein . The width of a Landau band oscillates as the magnetic field is tuned as a consequence of commensurability between the cyclotron diameter and the period of the potential. It results in a magnetoresistance oscillations (Weiss oscillationsWeiss ). If the periodic potential is modulated in two dimensions, “minigaps” open in the “Landau bands”, and the energy spectrum of the system plotted versus the applied field composes the famous Hofstadter butterflyLangbein ; Hofstadter , recently observed experimentally in the quantized–Hall–conductance measurementAlbrecht . The same spectrum can be obtained in a complementary limit, when the lattice potential is strong (tight binding approach) and the field is weak. It is interesting that when the periodic potential does not lead to a scattering between states from different Landau levels, the eigenvalue equations in both the limiting cases are formally the sameLangbein . Of course the parameters have a different physical meaning.

The simplest model for the case where a aplied field and a lattice potential are present simultaneously, is commonly referred to as the Hofstadter or Azbel–Hofstadter model Hofstadter ; Azbel . The corresponding Hamiltonian describes electrons on a two–dimensional square lattice with the nearest–neighbor hopping, in a perpendicular uniform magnetic field. The Schrödinger equation takes the form of a one–dimensional difference equation, known as the Harper equation (or the almost Mathieu equation) Harper ; Hofstadter ; Rauh . It is also a model for one–dimensional electronic system in two incommensurate periodic potentials. The Harper equation has also links to many other areas of interest, e.g., the quantum Hall effect, quasicrystals, localization–delocalization phenomena bellissard ; guarneri , the noncommutative geometrybellissard1 , the renormalization groupthouless1 ; wilkinson , the theory of fractals, the number theory, and the functional analysislast1 .

The Hofstadter model is useful in approach to the fundamental problem of the external magnetic field influence on the superconductivity. Most of the works devoted to superconductors in the mixed state are based on the Bogolubov–de Gennes equationsBdG , particularly useful for spatially inhomogeneous systems, e.g., for an isolated vortexwang  or a vortex latticefranz1 . However, in the regime $`H_{c1}HH_{c2}`$ we can neglect contributions to the spectrum from the inside of the vortex core (for $`HH_{c2}`$ the distance between the vortices is large) and regard the magnetic field as uniform in the sample (for $`H_{c1}H`$). We derive, under these assumptions, a lattice model for the superconductor in applied field (in the normal state such a system is described by the Hofstadter model). In this paper we present a generalized Harper equation that describes the influence of magnetic field on the two–dimensional tightly bound electrons in the superconducting state.

## II The model

In analogy to Hofstadter’s approach, we couple the magnetic field to the system via the Peierls substitutionpierls , i.e., multiply the hopping matrix elements by a phase factor which depends on the field and on the position within the lattice. Thus, the vector–potential–dependent hopping integral for sites $`i`$ and $`j`$ is given by

$$t_{ij}\left(\text{A}\right)=t\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ie}{\mathrm{}c}_{\text{R}_j}^{\text{R}_i}\text{A}𝑑\text{l}\right),$$
(1)
where $`t`$ is the usual hopping integral. We also include the Zeeman term. In effect, the BCS Hamiltonian has the form

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij,\sigma }{}}t_{ij}\left(\text{A}\right)c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}\left(ϵ_\sigma \mu \right)c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}c_i^{}c_j^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^{}c_ic_j\right),`$
where the Zeeman splitting is given by $`ϵ_\sigma =\frac{1}{2}\sigma g\mu _BH`$, $`\sigma =1`$ for spin up and $`1`$ for spin down, $`g`$ is the Landé factor, and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. Here, we have introduced the spin–singlet pair amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=\frac{V}{2}c_ic_jc_ic_j`$. The strength of the nearest neighbor attraction $`V`$ is assumed to be field independent. The validity of this assumption depends on the nature of pairing potential and the strength of the magnetic field. foot2  For example, in the $`tJ`$ model $`J_{ij}(𝐀)=4t_{ij}(𝐀)t_{ji}(𝐀)/U`$ is strictly field independent, since the change of the phase generated when an electron hops from site $`i`$ to $`j`$ and back, cancels out. Such an assumption has been also partially justified on the basis of antiferromagnetic–spin–fluctuation–driven superconductivity.mmmm2

Our starting point is a two–dimensional square lattice with basis vectors $`\text{a}=(a,0,0)`$ and $`\text{b}=(0,a,0)`$, immersed in a perpendicular, uniform magnetic field $`\text{H}=(0,0,H)`$. We choose the Landau gauge, $`\text{A}=(0,Hx,0)`$. Since the vector potential A is linear in $`x`$, the translation corresponding to the vector a shifts the phase of the wave function. This shift can be compensated by a gauge transformation, introducing magnetic translations. If the magnetic flux per unit cell, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, is a rational multiple of the flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=hc/e`$, i.e., if

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}=\frac{p}{q},$$
(3)
with $`p`$ and $`q`$ coprime integers, we can define magnetic lattice, with $`q\text{a}`$ and b as the basis of the magnetic unit cell. Such an enlarged unit cell is penetrated by $`p`$ flux quanta. Magnetic translations corresponding to the magnetic lattice vectors ($`\text{R}=nq\text{a}+m\text{b}`$, with $`n,m`$ – integers) commute with each other and with the Hamiltonian. If the system is of rectangular shape with $`L_x`$ sites in the $`x`$ direction and $`L_y`$ sites in the $`y`$ direction, and $`L_x`$ is a multiple of $`q`$, we can find eigenfunctions which diagonalize the Hamiltonian and the magnetic translation operators simultaneously. Due to the absence of translational invariance with vectors $`m\text{b}`$, vectors $`\text{k}=(k_x,k_y)`$ from the firs Brillouin zone $`(|k_x|\pi /a,|k_y|\pi /a)`$ are not good quantum numbers. Instead, we have to use vectors from a magnetic (reduced) Brillouin zone (MBZ), defined by $`|k_x|\pi /qa,|k_y|\pi /a`$, to enumerate the eigenstates. The Hamiltonian (1) in the momentum space can be written as

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}}[2\mathrm{cos}\left(k_xa\right)c_{𝐤,\sigma }^{}c_{𝐤,\sigma }`$ (4)
$`+e^{ik_ya}c_{𝐤𝐠,\sigma }^{}c_{𝐤,\sigma }+e^{ik_ya}c_{𝐤+𝐠,\sigma }^{}c_{𝐤,\sigma }]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma }{}}(ϵ_\sigma \mu )c_{𝐤\sigma }^{}c_{𝐤\sigma }{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤c_𝐤^{}c_𝐤^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.),`$
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤=\underset{𝐤^{}}{}V_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}c_𝐤^{}c_𝐤^{},$$
(5)
and $`\text{g}=(2\pi p/q,0)`$. In order to rewrite the above Hamiltonian as a sum over the MBZ we introduce a multicomponent Nambu spinors

$`C_𝐤^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(c_{𝐤,}^{},c_{𝐤𝐠,}^{},c_{𝐤2𝐠,}^{},\mathrm{},c_{𝐤(q1)𝐠,}^{},`$ (6)
$`c_{𝐤,},c_{𝐤+𝐠,},c_{𝐤+2𝐠,},\mathrm{},c_{𝐤+(q1)𝐠,}).`$
Then Eq. (4) can be written as

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{𝐤}{}^{}C_𝐤^{}H_𝐤C_𝐤,$$
(7)
where the prime denotes summation over the MBZ and $`H_𝐤`$ has a block structure

$$H_𝐤=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{𝐓}_𝐤& \widehat{𝚫}_𝐤\\ & \\ \widehat{𝚫}_𝐤^{}& \widehat{𝐓}_𝐤\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
The diagonal blocks describe noninteracting lattice fermions under the influence of magnetic field, and have the form similar to that derived by Hasegawa et al.hasegawa

$$\widehat{𝐓}_{𝐤,\sigma }=t\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}M_{0,\sigma }& e^{ik_y}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& e^{ik_y}\\ e^{ik_y}& M_{1,\sigma }& e^{ik_y}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& e^{ik_y}& M_{2,\sigma }& e^{ik_y}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& e^{ik_y}& M_{q2,\sigma }& e^{ik_y}\\ e^{ik_y}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& e^{ik_y}& M_{q1,\sigma }\end{array}\right),$$
(9)
where $`M_{n,\sigma }=2\mathrm{cos}\left(k_xa+n\gamma \right)+ϵ_\sigma \mu `$, $`\gamma =|𝐠|=2\pi p/q`$, and diagonal matrix $`\widehat{𝚫}_𝐤`$ represents the pairing amplitudes

$$\widehat{𝚫}_𝐤=\text{diag}(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤,\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐤𝐠},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐤(q1)𝐠}).$$
(10)
Diagonalization of Eq. (8) provides a set of eigenenergies $`\left\{_{𝐤,i}\right\}`$, where $`i`$ enumerates $`2q`$ values corresponding to a given $`𝐤`$ from the MBZ.

The pairing amplitude in the presence of external magnetic field is determined self–consistently from the BCS–like equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤=\frac{1}{2N}\underset{𝐤^{}}{}^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2q}{}}\frac{V_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^{}}{2_{𝐤^{},i}}\mathrm{tanh}\frac{_{𝐤^{},i}}{2k_BT},$$
(11)
where $`N=L_xL_y`$ and the prime summation denotes again summation over the MBZ. In the following we restrict ourselves to the singlet pairing in the $`s`$–wave channel $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤=\mathrm{\Delta })`$, even though Eq. (11) is completely general. Generally, this equation can be used, e.g., to analyze the magnetic–field–induced change of gap parameter symmetrykrishana  or the upper critical field in the systems with the spin–triplet pairing. The latter area of application is especially attractive, since in these systems the Pauli pair breaking mechanism is absent, and the upper critical field is expected to be very high.JS

## III Results

### III.1 Orbital effects

The transition lines $`T_c(H)`$, obtained in the absence of the Zeeman splitting ($`g=0`$), are presented in Fig. 1.

Note that for $`a`$ of the order of a few angströms, experimentally available magnetic fluxes are much less than $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. Consequently, these plots correspond to the region of extremely high magnetic field. The size of the Hamiltonian matrix $`H_𝐤`$, that has to be diagonized for all values of $`𝐤`$ in each step of the iterative procedure, is $`2q\times 2q`$. Therefore, since the magnetic flux is proportional to $`q^1`$, the proposed approach does not allow to carry out calculations for a small magnetic field. This is why the transition lines in Fig. 1. start at finite magnetic field.

For weak field thermal smearing and/or disorder induced broadening destroy the Hofstadter butterfly structure. In the absence of the lattice periodic potential this regime corresponds to a classical limit, where the number of occupied Landau levels is huge, and the Ginzburg–Landau description of the mixed state is valid. In this regime, in accordance with the common feeling, superconductivity in the tight–binding system is suppressed by magnetic field, disappearing at $`H_{c2}`$mmmm2 ; mmmm1 . The corresponding transition line is presented in Fig. 2.

The method used in Ref. mmmm2  does not work at low temperature and the present method does not work at weak field. Therefore, there is no crossover line from the low to high field regimes.

The transition lines for $`1/2<\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_01`$ can be obtained reflecting the lines presented in Fig. 1. around the line $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0=1/2`$, and $`T_c(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is periodic on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. Both these properties reflect properties of the Hofstadter butterfly. Of course, these unphysical results are valid only when the Pauli pair breaking is neglected. The influence of the Zeeman splitting will be discussed later. For strong pairing potential, comparable with the band width, the critical temperature in the reentrant regime is almost field independent (see Fig 1a.). As $`V`$ is reduced, the influence of the nontrivial density of states becomes apparent. It was shown by HofstadterHofstadter , that in normal state the Bloch band for $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0=p/q`$ is symmetric and broken up into $`q`$ distinct energy bands. In the half–filling case the Fermi level ($`E_F`$) is located in the center of the (unperturbed) subband. Therefore, if $`q`$ is odd, $`F_E`$ points to the singularity of the central subband (a remnant of the original van Hove singularity), whereas for even $`q`$ it is in the gap between two subbands (In fact, for even $`q`$ these subbands touch itself at the Fermi level). This is depicted in Fig. 3.

The changes of the density of states result in an oscillatory behavior of $`T_c(H)`$: $`T_c`$ approaches its maxima for odd $`q`$ and is reduced for even $`q`$. Similar oscillations were predicted by Rasolt and Tešanović RT  in a homogeneous system, where the Hofstadter spectrum is replaced by the Landau–level ladder.

The superconductivity suppression is especially apparent for small and even $`q`$, when $`V`$ is comparable with the central–gap width. The smooth character of the function $`T_c(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ close to $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0=p/q`$ and for small $`q`$ (e.g., close to the values $`p/q=1/2,1/3,1/4`$), seems counterintuitive, since a tiny detuning of the magnetic field completely changes the spectrum. For $`p/q=1/2`$ the spectrum consists of two subbands, whereas for $`p/q=10/21`$ there are 21 narrow subbands (see Fig.4). However, in spite of this difference, the integrated densities of states, presented in Fig. 4c, are almost the same.

For larger $`q`$, the differences between $`1/q`$ and $`1/(q+1)`$ are smaller, and consequently the distances between successive minima in the density of states decrease. For a strong pairing potential (and high $`T_c`$) there is large number of subbands within a range of energy $`k_BT_c`$ and then the amplitude of oscillations is strongly reduced. On the other hand, for the weak potential (i.e., at low temperature), this irregular oscillations are visible even at low fields (cf. Fig. 1c).

### III.2 Zeeman splitting

The previous discussion ignored the effect of Pauli pair breaking. We consider it next. Since the Zeeman splitting is proportional to the magnitude of the magnetic field and the orbital effect depends on the flux, we have to find a relation between these two quantities. It can be done by using the relation $`t=\mathrm{}^2/2m^{}a^2`$, where $`m^{}`$ is the effective mass. Then the Zeeman splitting is given by $`g\mu _BH=2\pi g^{}\frac{p}{q}t`$, where $`g^{}=g\frac{m^{}}{m}`$.Mo

The inclusion of the Zeeman term results in a reduction of the phase space available for pairing. For strong pairing potential, when the structure of the Hofstadter butterfly is hidden, it leads to a monotonic reduction of $`T_c`$ with increasing magnetic field. Such a situation is presented in Fig. 5a.

However, for smaller values of $`V`$, when $`k_BT_c`$ is comparable with the miniband (or minigap) widths, the situation is more complicated. The Zeeman term leads to the splitting of each of the minibands into a spin–up and spin–down minibands. To have nonzero $`T_c`$ we need minibands of both types present close to the Fermi level. As the magnitude of the splitting is proportional to the magnetic field, $`T_c`$ will be an oscillatory function of the magnetic field. When the spin–up and spin–down minibands overlap at the Fermi level, $`T_c`$ is strongly enhanced. This mechanism may induce superconductivity in regions, where $`T_c`$ is zero or close to zero in the absence of the Zeeman splitting (compare the solid and dashed lines in Fig. 5b). For example, for $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0=1/4`$ $`E_F`$ is located in the central minigap for $`g^{}=0`$, whereas there is a singularity at $`E_F`$ for $`g^{}=0.15`$. The corresponding densities of states are presented in Fig. 6.

## IV Discussion

Let us comment on the possibility of observing the oscillatory behavior of $`T_c`$ in real systems. Assuming lattice constant $`a`$=2Å the magnetic field required to obtain $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_01`$ is $`O(10^5)`$T, which is obviously too large. However, there are some possibilities to overcome this problem. For example, it was recently shown3d , that in some three–dimensional systems fractal spectra, like Hofstadter’s butterfly, can be obtained for $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_01`$. On the other hand, it is possible to reach the needed increase of flux enlarging the lattice constant. Two–dimensional superconducting wire network can be suitable for this task, since the magnetic field corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is about 1 mT for a network cell of 1 $`\mu \mathrm{m}^2`$, and the system can be mapped onto a tight–binding one. Another possibility is connected with the case, where the influence of the modulation potential on the Landau–quantized 2D electron system may be considered as a small perturbation. This situation is complementary to the tight–binding case, but the energy spectrum is also obtained by solving the Harper equation. Therefore, one can expect similar behavior of $`T_c`$ in 2D superconducting systems modulated in two dimensions. Again, since the modulation period is larger than the lattice constant, the required values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are well within the experimental accessibility.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author is grateful to Józef Spałek for a fruitful disscussion.


format: text

text:
# Continuous selections and finite 𝐶-spaces

## 1. Introduction

Finite $`C`$-spaces were recently introduced by Borst  and classified with the help of transfinite dimension function $`dim_C`$ (Borst considered only separable metric spaces, but his definition can be extended for any normal space, see ). Every finite $`C`$-space has property $`C`$ in the sense of Addis and Gresham  and, in the realm of compact spaces, both classes coincide. On the other hand, every finite $`C`$-space is weakly infinite-dimensional in the sense of Smirnov (abbr., $`S`$-wid), while $`C`$-spaces are weakly infinte-dimensional in the sense of Alexandrov (abbr., $`A`$-wid). One of the main problems in infinite dimension theory is whether every weakly infinite-dimensional compact metric space has property $`C`$ (it is well known that both properties $`S`$-wid and $`A`$-wid are equivalent for compact spaces). The positive solution of this problem would imply that finite $`C`$-spaces and $`S`$-wid spaces constitute the same class. But perhaps the most important implication from the positive solution of this problem is a positive solution of another old problem in dimension theory (according to  and , Pasynkov was who first asked this question in 1972-73): Is any product of two weakly infinite-dimensional compact metric spaces weakly infinite-dimensional?

In the present paper we give other two characterizations of paracompact finite $`C`$-spaces in the terms of continuous selections for set-valued maps. The first one is similar to Uspenskij’s description of paracompact $`C`$-spaces \[26, Theorem 1.3\] and to the Ščepin and N. Brodskii theorem . To state this result let us agree some notations. All spaces are assumed to be Tychonoff. A set-valued map $`\theta :X2^Y`$, where $`2^Y`$ is the family of nonempty subsets of $`Y`$, is called strongly lower semi-continuous (br., strongly lsc) if for every compact $`KY`$ the set $`\{xX:K\theta (x)\}`$ is open in $`X`$; $`\theta `$ is said to be $`m`$-aspherical if all $`\theta (x)`$ are $`C^m`$-sets (recall that a $`AB`$ is $`C^m`$-embedded, or $`m`$-embedded in $`B`$, if every continuous image of a $`k`$-sphere in $`A`$, $`km`$, is contractible in $`B`$; when $`A`$ is $`m`$-embedded in itself, then it is called $`C^m`$). We also say that a sequence of maps $`\theta _n:X2^Y`$ is increasing (resp., decreasing) if $`\theta _n(x)\theta _{n+1}(x)`$ (resp., $`\theta _{n+1}(x)\theta _n(x)`$) for all $`xX`$ and $`n`$; the sequence $`\{\theta _n\}`$ is aspherical provided it is increasing and each $`\theta _n(x)`$, $`xX`$, is $`C^{n1}`$-embedded in $`\theta _{n+1}(x)`$.

###### Theorem 1.1.

For a paracompact space $`X`$ the following are equivalent:

* $`X`$ is a finite $`C`$-space;
* For any space $`Y`$ and any aspherical sequence of strongly lsc maps $`\varphi _n:X2^Y`$, there exists $`m`$ such that $`\varphi _m`$ admits a continuous selection;
* For any space $`Y`$ and any aspherical sequence $`\varphi _n:X2^Y`$ of set-valued open-graph maps there exists $`m`$ such that $`\varphi _m`$ admits a continuous selection.

Another characterization of paracompact finite $`C`$-spaces is the following selection theorem of Michael’s type (see \[13, Theorem 1.1\] for a similar characterization of paracompact $`C`$-spaces).

###### Theorem 1.2.

For a paracompact space $`X`$ the following are equivalent:

* $`X`$ is a finite $`C`$-space;
* Suppose that $`Y`$ is a Banach space and $`\varphi :X_c(Y)`$ is an lsc map. Then, for every decreasing $`Z`$-sequence $`\{\psi _n\}`$ for $`\varphi `$ consisting of closed-graph maps $`\psi _n:X(Y)`$, there exist $`m`$ and a continuous selection for $`\varphi `$ avoiding the map $`\psi _m`$;
* Let $`Y`$ be a Banach space and $`\varphi :X_c(Y)`$ be an lsc map. Then, for every decreasing $`Z`$-sequence for $`\varphi `$ consisting of closed sets $`F_nY`$, there exists a continuous selection for $`\varphi `$ avoiding some $`F_m`$.

Here, $`(Y)`$ stands for the closed sets $`FY`$ and $`_c(Y)`$ denotes the convex elements of $`(Y)`$ (the same notation will be used when $`Y`$ is a subset of a vector space). A set-valued map $`\theta :X2^Y`$ is lower semi-continuous (br., lsc) if $`\theta ^1(U)=\{xX:\theta (x)U\mathrm{}\}`$ is open in $`X`$ for every open $`UY`$. The term ”continuous selections avoiding a set” is due to E. Michael . If $`\varphi :X2^Y`$ is a set-valued map and $`FY`$, then a map $`f:XY`$ is a selection for $`\varphi `$ avoiding $`F`$ if $`f(x)\varphi (x)\backslash F`$ for every $`xX`$. Similarly, if $`\psi :X2^Y`$ is another set-valued map, we say that $`f`$ is a selection for $`\varphi `$ avoiding $`\psi `$ provided $`f(x)\varphi (x)\backslash \psi (x)`$ for any $`xX`$. We adopt the following definition for a $`Z_n`$-set: if $`n0`$ we say that $`F(Y)`$ is a $`Z_n`$-set in $`Y`$ if the set $`C(I^n,Y\backslash F)`$ is dense in $`C(I^n,Y)`$, where $`C(I^n,Y)`$ stands for the space of all continuous maps from $`I^n`$ into $`Y`$ equipped with the compact open topology. When $`F=\{F_n:n\}`$ such that each $`F_n`$ is a $`Z_n`$-set in $`Y`$, we say that it is a $`Z_\sigma `$-set in $`Y`$. The collection of all $`Z_n`$-sets in $`Y`$ is denoted by $`𝒵_n(Y)`$. Obviously, $`Z_0`$-sets are precisely the closed and nowhere dense subsets of $`Y`$. A sequence of maps $`\psi _n:X2^Y`$ is called a $`Z`$-sequence for a given map $`\varphi :X2^Y`$ if $`\varphi (x)\psi _n(x)𝒵_{n1}(\varphi (x))`$ for every $`xX`$ and $`n`$.

The definition and some general properties of $`C`$-spaces and finite $`C`$-spaces are given in Section 2. Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2 are proved in Section 3 and Section 4, respectively. Section 5 is devoted to some applications. The idea to characterize dimension like properties by removing maps from ”small” sets goes back to the Alexandroff characterization of $`n`$-dimensional compacta in Euclidean spaces $`^k`$ as the compacta which are removable from any $`kn1`$-dimensional polyhedron ,  (see  for more general treatment of removable maps in Euclidean spaces). Following this general idea, we apply Theorem 1.2 to characterize finite $`C`$-spaces in terms of removable sequences of maps (see Proposition 5.1). This characterization is then used to obtain that finite $`C`$-space property is preserved by approximately invertible maps (an analogue to Ancel’s result ). In the final Section 6 we prove a factorization theorem for finite $`C`$-spaces when the image space is metrizable and apply this theorem to obtain that any metrizable finite $`C`$-space has a completion with the same property.

I cordially thank Prof. V. Gutev for his suggestion to redefine $`C`$-space and finite $`C`$-space properties by using functionally open covers. My thanks are also due to the referee for his/her valuable comments and to Prof. T. Banakh for the preprint of his joint paper  with K. Trushchak.

## 2. Some preliminary results

This section is devoted to the definition and general properties of $`C`$-spaces and finite $`C`$-spaces.

$`C`$-space property was introduced by Haver  for compact metric spaces. Addis and Gresham  reformulated Haver’s definition so that it has meaning for any space: A space $`X`$ has property $`C`$ (or $`X`$ is a $`C`$-space) if for any sequence $`\{\omega _n\}`$ of open covers of $`X`$ there exists a sequence $`\{\gamma _n\}`$ of open disjoint families in $`X`$ such that each $`\gamma _n`$ refines $`\omega _n`$ and $`\{\gamma _n:n\}`$ covers $`X`$. The family $`\{\gamma _n\}`$ is called $`C`$-refinement for $`\{\omega _n\}`$. We now adopt the following definition: $`X`$ is a $`C`$-space if every sequence $`\{\omega _n\}`$ of locally finite and functionally open covers of $`X`$ has a $`C`$-refinement $`\{\gamma _n\}`$ such that $`\{\gamma _n:n\}`$ is a locally finite and functionally open cover of $`X`$. In the realm of paracompact spaces, this definition coincides with the Addis and Gresham one. Let us note that countable-dimensional metric spaces have property $`C`$ . Since the countable sum theorem for property $`C`$ holds in the class of paracompact spaces , any strongly countable-dimensional (a countable union of closed finite-dimensional subspaces) paracompact is a $`C`$-space. On the other hand, there exists a metric $`C`$-compactum which is not countable-dimensional .

In  P. Borst originally defined finite $`C`$ property for separable metric spaces: $`X`$ is a finite $`C`$-space if for any sequence $`\{\omega _n\}`$ of finite open covers of $`X`$ there exists a finite sequence $`\{\gamma _n\}_{n=1}^k`$ of disjoint open families in $`X`$ such that each $`\gamma _n`$ refines $`\omega _n`$ and $`\{\gamma _n:n=1,..,k\}`$ covers $`X`$. The sequence $`\{\gamma _n\}_{n=1}^k`$ is called a finite $`C`$-refinement for $`\{\omega _n\}`$. Obviously, the existence of a finite $`C`$-refinement for $`\{\omega _n\}`$ is equivalent to the existence of a finite $`C`$-refinement consisting of finite families. As above, we reformulate this definition for arbitrary spaces: $`X`$ is a finite $`C`$-space if any sequence $`\{\omega _n\}`$ of finite functionally open covers of $`X`$ has a finite $`C`$-refinement $`\{\gamma _n\}_{n=1}^k`$ such that each $`\gamma _n`$ is a finite functionally open and disjoint family. Note that, in the realm of normal spaces we can omit the requirement $`\omega _n`$ and $`\gamma _n`$ to be functionally open.

Since any locally finite family of open sets in a pseudocompact space is finite, we have the following

###### Proposition 2.1.

Property $`C`$ and finite $`C`$-space property are equivalent for any pseudocompact space.

The proof of our first observation follows from the well known fact that if $`YX`$ is $`C^{}`$-embedded (i.e., every bounded function on $`Y`$ can be continuously extended to a bounded function on $`X`$), then for any finite functionally open cover $`\omega `$ of $`Y`$ there exists a finite functionally open cover $`\gamma `$ of $`X`$ such that $`\omega `$ is refined by $`\gamma Y`$.

###### Proposition 2.2.

For any space $`X`$ we have:

* If $`X`$ is a finite $`C`$-space and $`YX`$ is $`C^{}`$-embedded, then $`Y`$ has finite $`C`$-space property;
* $`X`$ is a finite $`C`$-space if and only if $`\beta X`$ is a $`C`$-space.

Let us note that, in case $`X`$ is normal, Proposition 2.2(b) was proved by Chatyrko  (he proved somewhat more, that $`dim_CX=dim_C\beta X`$). Next lemma is well known in case of metrizable spaces (see ). The same proof remains valid in our situation.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Every normal finite $`C`$-space is $`S`$-weakly infinite dimensional.

Recall that a space $`X`$ satisfies the condition $`(K)`$  if there is a compact set $`KX`$ such that every closed in $`X`$ set which is disjoint from $`K`$ has finite covering dimension $`dim`$. P. Borst \[6, Theorem 3.8\] proved that his definition of finite $`C`$-spaces is equivalent to the following one: Any sequence of open covers has a finite $`C`$-refinement. This implies that, in the realm of metric spaces, every finite $`C`$-space has property $`C`$. Next theorem shows that the same is true for any space.

###### Theorem 2.4.

For a space $`X`$ the following condition are equivalent:

* $`X`$ is a finite $`C`$-space;
* Any sequence $`\{\omega _n\}`$ of locally finite functionally open covers of $`X`$ has a finite $`C`$-refinement $`\{\gamma _n\}_{n=1}^s`$ such that $`\{\gamma _n:n=1,2,..,s\}`$ is a locally finite functionally open cover of $`X`$.

###### Proof.

$`(a)(b)`$. Let $`\omega _n=\{U_\alpha ^n:\alpha A_n\}`$ be a sequence of locally finite functionally open covers of $`X`$. Then there exists a map $`f:XY`$ onto a metrizable space $`Y`$ and a sequence $`\eta _n=\{W_\alpha ^n:\alpha A_n\}`$ of open covers of $`Y`$ such that $`f^1(W_\alpha ^n)U_\alpha ^n`$ for every $`n`$ and $`\alpha A_n`$ (see \[12, Exercise 5.1.J(b)\]). Let $`Z=(\beta f)^1(Y)`$, where $`\beta f:\beta X\beta Y`$ is the extension of $`f`$, and $`\overline{\omega _n}=(\beta f)^1(\eta _n)`$. Then each $`\overline{\omega _n}`$ is a functionally open cover of $`Z`$ and its restriction on $`X`$ refines $`\omega _n`$. By Proposition 2.2(b), $`Z`$ is a finite $`C`$-space. Hence, by Lemma 2.3, $`Z`$ is $`S`$-wid. Because every paracompact $`S`$-wid space satisfies the condition $`(K)`$ (see ), so does $`Z`$. The set $`KZ`$ has property $`C`$ (as a compact subset of a finite $`C`$-space). Therefore, there exists a finite $`C`$-refinement $`\{\overline{\gamma _n}\}_{n=1}^k`$ of $`\{\overline{\omega _n}K\}`$ consisting of finite, disjoint and functionally open in $`K`$ families. Since $`K`$ is compact, we can find finite, disjoint and functionally open in $`Z`$ families $`\beta _n`$, $`n=1,..,k`$, such that every $`\beta _n`$ refines $`\overline{\omega _n}`$ and $`V=\{G\beta _n:n=1,..,k\}`$ covers $`K`$. Next, take an open set $`WZ`$ such that $`Z\backslash \overline{W}`$ is functionally open in $`Z`$ and $`KW\overline{W}V`$. Then $`Z\backslash W`$, being closed in $`Z`$ and disjoint from $`K`$, is finite-dimensional. So is $`Z\backslash \overline{W}`$ as an $`F_\sigma `$-subset of $`Z\backslash W`$. Let $`dimZ\backslash \overline{W}=m`$. According to \[2, Proposition 2.12\], there exists a finite $`C`$-refinement $`\{\beta _n\}_{n=k+1}^{k+m+2}`$ of $`\{\overline{\omega _n}(Z\backslash \overline{W})\}_{n=k+1}^{k+m+2}`$. Since $`Z\backslash \overline{W}`$ is paracompact, we can assume that $`\{\beta _n:n=k+1,..,k+m+2\}`$ is a locally finite and functionally open cover of $`Z\backslash \overline{W}`$. We finally obtain that $`\{\beta _n\}_{n=1}^{k+m+2}`$ is a finite $`C`$-refinement for the sequence $`\{\overline{\omega _n}\}`$ such that $`\{\beta _n:n=1,..,k+m+2\}`$ is a locally finite and functionally open cover of $`Z`$. Then $`\{\beta _nX\}_{n=1}^{k+m+1}`$ is the required finite $`C`$-refinement of $`\{\omega _n\}`$.

$`(b)(a)`$. Let $`\omega =\{\omega _n\}`$ be a sequence of finite functionally open covers of $`X`$. According to our assumption, there is a finite $`C`$-refinement $`\{\beta _n\}_{n=1}^k`$ for $`\omega `$ such that $`\{\beta _n:n=1,..,k\}`$ is a locally finite and functionally open cover of $`X`$. For fixed $`m`$ let $`\omega _m=\{U_i:i=1,..,s\}`$ and $`\beta _m=\{V_\alpha :\alpha A\}`$. We define disjoint sets $`A_iA`$, $`i=1,2,..,s`$, by $`A_1=\{\alpha :V_\alpha U_1\}`$ and $`A_{i+1}=\{\alpha A\backslash _{j=1}^iA_j:V_\alpha U_{i+1}\}`$. Since the union of any locally finite family consisting of functionally open sets is again functionally open, every $`W_i=\{V_\alpha :\alpha A_i\}`$ is functionally open. Moreover, $`\gamma _m=\{W_i:i=1,..,s\}`$ is a disjoint family refining $`\omega _m`$. Then $`\{\gamma _n\}_{n=1}^k`$ is a finite $`C`$-refinement of $`\omega `$ and consists of finite functionally open families. ∎

###### Corollary 2.5.

Every finite $`C`$-space has property $`C`$.

Next corollary was actually proved in Theorem 2.4.

###### Corollary 2.6.

If $`X`$ is paracompact, then $`X`$ is a finite $`C`$-space if and only if $`X`$ satisfies condition $`(K)`$ such that $`KX`$ has property $`C`$.

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1.1

$`(a)(b)`$. Our proof is a slight modification of the proof of \[26, Theorem 2.1\]. Suppose $`X`$ is a finite $`C`$-space and let $`\{\varphi _n\}`$ be an aspherical sequence of strongly lsc maps from $`X`$ into $`Y`$. We shall construct by induction the following objects (for simplicity, every abstract simplicial complex is identified with its polyhedron equipped with the Whitehead topology):

1. a sequence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ of pairwise disjoint sets;
2. two sequences $`\{\omega _n\}`$ and $`\{\gamma _n\}`$ of open locally finite covers of $`X`$ such that $`\omega _n=\{U_\alpha :\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_n\}`$, $`\gamma _n=\{V_\alpha :\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_n\}`$ and $`\overline{U_\alpha }V_\alpha `$ for every $`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$;
3. an increasing sequence of simplicial complexes $`\{𝒦_n\}`$ such that $`dim𝒦_nn1`$ and $`_{k=1}^{k=n}\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$ is the set of vertices of $`𝒦_n`$;
4. finite subcomplexes $`P_\alpha `$ of $`𝒦_n`$ for every $`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ and $`n`$;
5. continuous maps $`g_n:𝒦_nY`$ such that $`g_n`$ extends $`g_m`$ whenever $`m<n`$ and $`g_n(P_\alpha )\varphi _n(x)`$ for every $`xV_\alpha \gamma _n`$;
6. if $`_{j=1}^{j=k}U_{\alpha (j)}\mathrm{}`$, where $`\alpha (j)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n(j)}`$, $`j=1,..,k`$, and $`n(1)<\mathrm{}.<n(k)`$, then the set $`\{\alpha (1),..,\alpha (k)\}`$ is a simplex of the complex $`P_{\alpha (k)}`$.

Let describe the first step of the induction. For every $`xX`$ fix a point $`c(x)\varphi _1(x)`$. Since $`\varphi _1`$ is strongly lsc, we can find neighborhoods $`O(x)`$ in $`X`$ such that $`zO(x)`$ yields $`c(x)\varphi _1(z)`$. Let $`\gamma _1=\{V_\alpha :\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_1\}`$ be a locally finite open refinement of of the cover $`\{O(x):xX\}`$ and $`\omega _1=\{U_\alpha :\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_1\}`$ an index closure refinement of $`\gamma _1`$. Let $`𝒦_1`$ be the $`0`$-dimensional complex with the set of vertices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and every $`P_\alpha `$, $`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ be the subcomplex of $`𝒦_1`$ with one vertex $`\alpha `$. Choose the points $`x_\alpha X`$ such that $`V_\alpha O(x_\alpha )`$ and define $`g_1:𝒦_1Y`$ by $`g_1(\alpha )=c(x_\alpha )`$. Following the Uspenskij argumnts from the proof of \[26, Theorem 2.1\] and using that each $`\varphi _n(x)`$ is $`C^{n1}`$-embedded in $`\varphi _{n+1}(x)`$, one can complete the construction.

As in the proof of \[26, Theorem 2.1\], we can see that property (6) holds. We set $`𝒦=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝒦_n`$ and $`g:𝒦Y`$ is the continuous map extending all maps $`g_n`$. Since $`X`$ is a paracompact finite $`C`$-space, by Theorem 2.4, there exists a finite sequence $`\{\lambda _k\}_{k=1}^{k=m}`$ of open disjoint families such that $`\lambda _k`$ refines $`\omega _k`$ and $`\lambda =_{k=1}^{k=m}`$ is a locally finite cover of $`X`$. We can suppose that each $`\lambda _k=\{W_\alpha :\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_k\}`$ is an index refinement of $`\omega _k`$, so $`\lambda =\{W_\alpha :\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_{k=1}^{k=m}\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$. Let $`\{h_\alpha :\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$ be a locally finite partition of unity subordinated to $`\lambda `$. For any $`xX`$ let $`s(x)=\{\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }:h_\alpha (x)>0\}`$. The sets $`s(x)`$ are finite and since each $`\lambda _k`$ is disjoint, we have $`|s(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }_k|1`$ for $`km`$. Hence $`s(x)=\{\alpha _1,..,\alpha _j\}`$ such that $`\alpha _k\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i(k)}`$ for each $`k=1,..,j`$ and $`i(1)<..,<i(j)m`$. Observe that $`_{k=1}^{k=j}U_{\alpha _k}\mathrm{}`$ (it contains $`x`$). Therefore, by (6), $`s(x)`$ is a simplex of $`P_{\alpha _j}`$. Then the formula $`h(x)=\{h_\alpha (x)\alpha :\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$ defines a continuous map $`h:X𝒦_m`$ such that $`h(x)P_\delta `$ for some $`\delta s(x)`$. But $`\delta s(x)`$ implies $`W_\delta U_\delta V_\delta `$. Consequently, by (5), $`g_m(h(x))g_m(P_\delta )\varphi _m(x)`$. We finally obtain that the composition $`g_mh`$ is a selection for $`\varphi _m`$.

$`(b)(c)`$ This implication is trivial because every set-valued map with an open graph is strongly lsc.

$`(c)(a)`$ We shall prove that Theorem 1.1(c) implies Theorem 1.2(b), and then the proof of the present implication will follow from Theorem 1.2.

We agree the following notations: for any metric space $`Y`$, a point $`yY`$ and a positive number $`\delta `$ the open (resp., closed) ball in $`Y`$ with center $`y`$ and radius $`\delta `$ is denoted by $`B(y,\delta )`$ (resp., $`\overline{B}(y,\delta )`$). If $`Y`$ is a normed space, then $`d`$ stands for the metric generated by the norm of $`Y`$.

Now we need some notations from . Let $`Y`$ be a metric space. For every pair of set-valued maps $`\varphi :X2^Y`$ and $`\psi :X2^Y`$ a set-valued map $`_{(\varphi ,\psi )}:X\times Y2^{}\{\mathrm{}\}`$ is associated such that, for $`(x,y)X\times Y`$, the value $`_{(\varphi ,\psi )}(x,y)`$ consists of all $`\delta >0`$ for which there exists a neighborhood $`U_\delta `$ of $`x`$ with $`B(y,\delta )\varphi (z)\mathrm{}`$ and $`B(y,\delta )\psi (z)=\mathrm{}`$ whenever $`zU_\delta `$. We define a set-valued map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\varphi ,\psi )}:X2^Y\{\mathrm{}\}`$ by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\varphi ,\psi )}(x)=\{yY:_{(\varphi ,\psi )}(x,y)\mathrm{}\}`$. Consider the functions $`u_{(\varphi ,\psi )},l_{(\varphi ,\psi )}:G(\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\varphi ,\psi )})`$, $`u_{(\varphi ,\psi )}(x,y)=inf_{(\varphi ,\psi )}(x,y)`$ and $`l_{(\varphi ,\psi )}(x,y)=sup_{(\varphi ,\psi )}(x,y)`$, where $`G(\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\varphi ,\psi )})=\{(x,y)X\times Y:y\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\varphi ,\psi )}(x)\}`$ is the graph of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\varphi ,\psi )}`$.

###### Lemma 3.1 ().

Let $`Y`$ be a metric space, and let $`\varphi :X2^Y`$ and $`\psi :X2^Y`$ be set-valued maps such that $`\varphi `$ is lsc, $`\psi `$ has a closed graph and $`\varphi (x)\backslash \psi (x)\mathrm{}`$ for every $`xX`$. Then,

* $`\varphi (x)\backslash \psi (x)\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\varphi ,\psi )}(x)`$ for every $`xX`$;
* The graph of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\varphi ,\psi )}`$ is open in $`X\times Y`$;
* $`u_{(\varphi ,\psi )}`$ and $`l_{(\varphi ,\psi )}`$ are, respectively, usc and lsc functions.

###### Proposition 3.2.

Theorem $`1.1(c)`$ yields Theorem $`1.2(b)`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`Y`$ is a Banach space, $`\varphi :X_c(Y)`$ is lsc and $`\{\psi _n\}`$ a decreasing sequence of maps $`\psi _n:X(Y)`$ such that each $`\psi _n`$ has a closed graph and $`\{\psi _n\}`$ is a $`Z`$-sequence for $`\varphi `$. Consider the maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n=\mathrm{\Phi }_{(\varphi ,\psi _n)}`$. Observe that each $`\varphi (x)\backslash \psi _n(x)\mathrm{}`$ because $`\psi _n(x)\varphi (x)`$ is a $`Z_{n1}`$-set in $`\varphi (x)`$. Then, by Lemma 3.1, each $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ has an open graph and $`\varphi (x)\backslash \psi _n(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_n(x)`$ for all $`xX`$ and $`n`$. Since $`\psi _{n+1}(x)\psi _n(x)`$, $`_{(\varphi ,\psi _n)}(x,y)`$ is a subset of $`_{(\varphi ,\psi _{n+1})}(x,y)`$ for every $`n`$ and $`(x,y)X\times Y`$. Consquently, $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_n\}`$ is an increasing sequence.

Claim. Each $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ is $`(n2)`$-aspherical.

This claim can be proved by making use of the arguments from the proof of \[13, Claim 1, Proposition 3.1\].

We now proceed to the rest of the proof. We already proved that $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_n\}`$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 1.1(c). Hence, there exists $`m`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m`$ admits a continuous selection $`g:XY`$. Relying once again on Lemma 3.1(c) and the results of , there exists a continuous selection $`\delta :X`$ for the map $`_{(\varphi ,\psi _m)}(x,g(x))`$, $`xX`$.Then $`d(g(x),\varphi (x))<\delta (x)<d(g(x),\psi _m(x))`$ for every $`xX`$. Therefore, $`F(x)=\overline{B(g(x),\delta (x))\varphi (x)}`$ defines an lsc map $`F:X_c(Y)`$. Hence, applying Michael’s convex-valued selection theorem \[18, Theorem 3.2”\], we get a continuous selection $`f`$ for $`F`$. Since $`F(x)\varphi (x)\backslash \psi _m(x)`$, $`f`$ is as required. ∎

## 4. Proof of Theorem 1.2

First, note that implication $`(a)(b)`$ follows from Theorem 1.1, implication $`(a)(c)`$ and Proposition 3.2. Implication $`(b)(c)`$ is trivial, so it remains only to prove the implication $`(c)(a)`$.

$`(c)(a)`$. Take a sequence $`\{\omega _n:n=1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ of finite open covers of $`X`$. By definition, we must prove that there exists a finite sequence $`\{\gamma _n:n=1,2,..,m\}`$ of disjoint open families in $`X`$ such that each $`\gamma _n`$ refines $`\omega _n`$ and the union $`\{\gamma _n:n=1,2,..,m\}`$ is a cover of $`X`$. To this end, we proceed just like in \[26, Theorem 1.3, implication $`S_2C`$\], (see also \[13, Theorem 1.1, implication $`(c)(a)`$\]) with a few modifications. Note that, for every $`n`$, there exists an $`\omega _n`$-map $`f_n:XQ_n`$ of $`X`$ to a compact polyhedron $`Q_n`$. Considering $`Q_n`$ as a subspace of a Euclidean space $`^{k(n)}`$ and multiplying, if necessary, $`f_n`$ by a constant, we may assume that $`Q_n`$ is the cube $`[0,k(n)]^{k(n)}`$ and that

(7)  $`\{f_n^1(U):U\text{is an open ball of radius 2 in}(Q_n,d_n)\}`$ is an open cover of $`X`$ refining $`\omega _n`$.

Here we consider the metric $`d_n((x_j),(y_j))=\mathrm{max}|x_jy_j|`$ on $`^{k(n)}`$. Let $`A_n`$ be the union of all sets $`B(j,s)=\{(x_m)Q_n:x_j=s\}`$, where $`j,s`$ are natural numbers with $`1jk(n)`$ and $`1sk(n)1`$. Obviously, $`Q=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}Q_n`$ is homeomorphic to the Hilbert cube. Next, let $`Z`$ be the linear subset of $`E=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}^{k(n)}`$ defined as

$$Z=\{(y_{k(n)})E:\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{y_{k(n)}}{2^{k(n)}}<+\mathrm{}\}.$$

The space $`Z`$ is equipped with the norm

$$(y_{k(n)})_\omega =\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{y_{k(n)}}{2^{k(n)}},$$

where $`y_{k(n)}=\mathrm{max}|y_{k(n),j}|`$, $`y_{k(n),j}`$ being the $`j`$th coordinate of $`y_{n(k)}`$, is the norm on $`^{k(n)}`$. Observe that the topology of $`(Z,._\omega )`$ coincides with the topology of $`Z`$ as a subspace of $`E`$, and let $`Y`$ be the completion of $`Z`$.

It suffices to find a finite sequence $`g_n:XQ_n`$, $`n=1,..,m`$, of continuous maps such that

(8)  $`d_n(f_n(x),g_n(x))1`$ for all $`xX`$ and $`nm`$;

(9)  For every $`xX`$ there is $`nm`$ with $`g_n(x)A_n`$.

Indeed, let $`\lambda _n`$ be the family of all components of $`Q_n\backslash A_n`$ which is disjoint and consists of open sets in $`Q_n`$ with diameter $`1`$. Then (8) yields that each of the disjoint families $`\gamma _n=g_n^1(\lambda _n)`$ refines $`\omega _n`$ (see \[26, proof of Theorem 1.3\]), and (9) implies that $`_{n=1}^{n=m}\gamma _n`$ covers $`X`$. Let us observe also that condition (9) is equivalent to the existence of a continuous map $`G:XQ(m)=_{n=1}^mQ_n`$ avoiding the set $`A(m)=_{n=1}^mA_n`$.

We shall prove that, under the hypotheses of (c), such $`g_n`$’s exist. For every $`n`$ consider the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n:X_c(^{k(n)})`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_n(x)=\{yQ_n:d_n(f_n(x),y)1\},xX$$

and define $`\mathrm{\Phi }:X_c(Y)`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=\{\mathrm{\Phi }_n(x):n=1,2,\mathrm{}\},xX.$$

It is easily seen that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is lsc and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)QZ`$ for every $`xX`$.

We proceed to the final step in this proof. Thus, we have a Banach space $`Y`$ and an lsc map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:X_c(Y)`$. Further, if $`A=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}A_nQ`$, then for every $`xX`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)A`$ is the product $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}A_n\mathrm{\Phi }_n(x)`$. Since each $`A_n\mathrm{\Phi }_n(x)`$ is closed and nowhere dense in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n(x)`$, by \[5, Corollary 2\], $`_{n=1}^{n=k}A_n\mathrm{\Phi }_n(x)`$ is a $`Z_{k1}`$-set in $`_{n=1}^{n=k}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(x)`$ for every $`k`$. This yields that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)F_k`$ is a $`Z_{k1}`$-set in $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$, $`xX`$, where $`F_k=A(k)\times _{n=k+1}^{\mathrm{}}Q_n`$. Therefore the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the decreasing sequence $`\{F_k\}`$ satisfy the hypotheses of (c). Hence, there is $`m`$ and a continuous selection $`G_1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ avoiding $`F_m`$. Let $`\pi _m`$ be the projection from $`Q`$ onto $`Q(m)`$ and $`G=\pi _mG_1`$. Then $`G=(g_1,..,g_m)`$, where each $`g_n`$ is a continuous map from $`X`$ into $`Q_n`$. It is easily seen that the maps $`g_n`$ satisfy (8) and (9). Hence, the proof is complete.

## 5. Some corollaries and applications

Let $`(Y_n,._n)`$ be a sequence of normed spaces. We denote by $`Y`$ the product $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}Y_n`$ and for every $`m`$ let $`\pi _m:YY(m)`$ be the natural projection, where $`Y(m)=_{n=1}^mY_n`$. We say that a sequence of maps $`f_n:XY_n`$ is finitely removable from a set $`AY`$ if for every sequence $`\{ϵ_n\}`$ of positive real numbers there exists a finite sequence of maps $`g_n:XY_n`$, $`n=1,..,m`$, such that $`g(X)\pi _m(A)=\mathrm{}`$ and $`(f_n(x)g_n(x)_nϵ_n`$ for every $`n`$ and $`xX`$, where $`g=(g_n):XY(m)`$. A sequence of maps $`f_n:XY_n`$ is called uniformly bounded if there exists a common bound for all diameters $`diam(f_n(X))`$, $`n`$.

Our first application of Theorem 1.2 is the following characterization of finite $`C`$-spaces:

###### Proposition 5.1.

A space $`X`$ is a finite $`C`$-space if and only if it satisfies the following condition: for any sequence of Banach spaces $`Y_n`$ and closed nowhere dense subsets $`A_nY_n`$, every uniformly bounded sequence of maps $`f_n:XY_n`$ is finitely removable from the set $`A=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}A_n`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`X`$ satisfies the condition from Proposition 5.1. To show that $`X`$ is a finite $`C`$-space, take a sequence $`\{\omega _n\}`$ of finite functionally open covers of $`X`$. Proceeding just like in the proof of Theorem 1.2, implication $`(c)(a)`$, we obtain $`\omega _n`$-maps $`f_n:XQ_n^{k(n)}`$, where now $`Q_n=I^{k(n}`$, $`I=[1,2]`$. Let $`K_n=[0,3]^{n(k)}`$. Since $`f_n:XK_n`$ is an $`\omega _n`$-map, there exists positive $`ϵ_n1`$ such that if $`U`$ is an open ball in $`K_n`$ with radius $`<2ϵ_n`$, then $`f_n^1(U)`$ is contained in an element of $`\omega _n`$. Next, take hyperplanes $`B(j,s)=\{(x_i)^{k(n)}:x_j=s\}`$, $`1jk(n)`$ and $`0<s<3`$, such that their union $`A_n`$ partitions $`K_n`$ into open (in $`K_n`$) cubes, each having a diameter $`<ϵ_n`$. Since $`\{f_n\}`$ is uniformly bounded and every $`A_n^{k(n)}`$ is closed nowhere dense, $`\{f_n\}`$ is finitely removable from the set $`A=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}A_n`$. So, there exists a finite sequence of maps $`g_n:X^{k(n)}`$, $`n=1,..,m`$ such that each $`g_n`$ is $`ϵ_n`$-close to $`f_n`$ and the map $`g=(g_n):X_{n=1}^m^{k(n)}`$ avoids the set $`A(m)=_{n=1}^mA_n`$. Observe that all $`g_n`$ map $`X`$ into $`K_n`$ (because $`g_n`$ is $`ϵ_n`$-close to $`f_n`$) and the family $`\lambda _n`$ of all components of $`K_n\backslash A_n`$ is disjoint and consists of open sets in $`K_n`$ with diameter $`<ϵ_n`$. Consequently, $`\gamma _n=g_n^1(\lambda _n)`$ is a disjoint and functionally open in $`X`$ family which refine $`\omega _n`$. It remains only to note that, since the map $`g`$ avoids the set $`A(m)`$, $`\{\gamma _n:n=1,..,m\}`$ covers $`X`$. Hence, $`\{\gamma _n\}`$ is a finite $`C`$-refinement for $`\{\omega _n\}`$.

To prove the inverse implication, first let show that $`X`$ can be supposed to be paracompact. Indeed, let the maps $`f_n:XY_n`$ and the sets $`A_nY_n`$ be as in Proposition 5.1. Consider the Čech-Stone extension $`\beta f:\beta X\beta Y`$ of $`f=(f_n)`$ and let $`H=(\beta f)^1(Y)`$. Obviously, $`H`$ is paracompact (as a perfect preimage of $`Y`$). Denote by $`h=(h_n):HY`$ the restriction $`(\beta f)|H`$. Then $`h_n:HY_n`$ is uniformply bounded and, by Proposition 2.2, $`H`$ is a finite $`C`$-space. Hence, if $`\{h_n\}`$ is finitely removable from $`A`$, so is $`\{f_n\}`$. Therefore, we can assume that $`X`$ is paracompact.

We consider the normed space $`Z`$ defined by

$$Z=\{(y_n)Y:\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{y_n_n}{2^n}<+\mathrm{}\},$$

where

$$(y_n)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{y_n_n}{2^n}$$

is the norm in $`Z`$. Let $`E`$ be the completion of $`Z`$ and, for a given bounded sequence $`\{ϵ_n\}`$ of positive numbers, define the lsc map $`\varphi :X_c(Z)`$, $`\varphi (x)=\{(y_n)Y:y_nf_n(x)_nϵ_n,n\}`$. This definition is correct because $`\{f_n\}`$ is uniformly bounded. The norm topology of $`Z`$ coincides with the topology inherited from $`Y`$ and the values of $`\varphi `$ are norm-complete in $`Z`$ (see \[13, proof of Theorem 1.1, implication $`(c)(a)`$\] for a similar proof). So, $`\varphi `$ is a map from $`X`$ into $`_c(E)`$. Let $`D_n=A^n\times _{k=n+1}^{\mathrm{}}Y_k`$ and $`F_n`$ be the closure in $`E`$ of $`D_nZ`$, $`n`$. Then, using a result of , we can show that each $`F_n\varphi (x)`$ is a $`Z_{n1}`$-set in $`\varphi (x)`$. Since $`\{F_n\}`$ is a decreasing sequence, by Theorem 1.2(c), there exists $`m`$ and a continuous map $`G:XE`$ such that $`G(x)\varphi (x)\backslash F_m`$ for every $`xX`$. Finally, the map $`g=\pi _mG`$ is generated by a sequence $`g_n:XY_n`$, $`n=1,..,m`$ which witnesses that $`\{f_n\}`$ is finitely removable from the set $`A`$. ∎

Next corollary, which follows from the proof of Proposition 5.1, is useful for applications.

###### Corollary 5.2.

$`X`$ is a finite $`C`$-space iff for any sequence $`\{Q_n\}`$ of finite-dimensional cubes and closed nowhere dense sets $`A_nQ_n`$, every sequence of maps $`f_n:XQ_n`$ is finitely removable from the set $`A=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}A_n`$.

Following F. Ancel , we say that a map $`f:XY`$ is approximately invertible if there exists a $`C^{}`$-embedding $`i:XZ`$ into a space $`Z`$ such that for every collection $`𝒲`$ of open subsets of $`Z`$ which is refined by $`\{i(f^1(y)):yY\}`$, there is a map $`g:YZ`$ with $`gf`$ is $`𝒲`$-close to $`i`$ (i.e. the family $`\{g(f(x)),i(x):xX\}`$ refines $`𝒲`$). F. Ancel  proved that every approximately invertible surjection between metric spaces having compact fibers preserves property $`C`$. The analogue of Ancel’s result for finite $`C`$-spaces also holds.

###### Corollary 5.3.

Any approximately invertible surjection preserves finite $`C`$-space property.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`p:XY`$ is approximately invertible and surjective, where $`X`$ is a finite $`C`$-space. Let $`\{Q_n\}`$ be a sequence of finite-dimensional cubes, $`A_nQ_n`$ closed nowhere dense subsets and $`f_n:YQ_n`$ arbitrary sequence of maps. By Corollary 5.2, if suffices to show that $`\{f_n\}`$ is finitely removable from the set $`A=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}A_n`$. To this end, let $`d_n`$ be a metric on $`Q_n`$ and $`\{ϵ_n\}`$ a sequence of positive numbers. Since $`X`$ is a finite $`C`$-space, according to Corollary 5.2, $`\{f_np\}`$ is finitely removable from $`A`$. So, there exists a number $`m`$ and a map $`g=(g_n):XQ(m)=_{n=1}^mQ_n`$ such that $`g(X)A(m)=\mathrm{}`$ and $`d_n(f_n(p(x)),g_n(x))4^1ϵ_n`$ for every $`xX`$ and $`nm`$, where $`A(m)=_{n=1}^mA_n`$. Now, let $`i:XZ`$ be a $`C^{}`$-embedding into a space $`Z`$ which witnesses the approximate invertibility of the map $`p`$. We identify $`i`$ with the identity $`id_X`$ and take an extension $`\overline{g}:ZQ(m)`$ of $`g`$. Let $`U=\{zZ:\overline{g}(z)A(m)\}`$. For every $`yY`$ let $`W(y)=\{zU:d_n(\overline{g}_n(z),f_n(y))<3^1ϵ_n,nm\}`$ and $`𝒲=\{W(y):yY\}`$. Obviously, each $`W_y`$ is open in $`Z`$ and contains $`p^1(y)`$. So, there is a map $`q:YZ`$ such that $`qp`$ and $`id_X`$ are $`𝒲`$-close. This implies that $`q(Y)U`$. Define now $`h_n:YQ_n`$ by $`h_n=\overline{g}_nq`$, $`nm`$. Then $`h=(h_n):YQ(m)`$ avoids the set $`A(m)`$.

It remains to show that each $`h_n`$ is $`ϵ_n`$\- close to $`f_n`$, $`nm`$. For any $`yY`$ choose $`xp^1(y)`$. Then $`x`$ and $`q(p(x))=q(y)`$ belong to $`W(y^{})`$ for some $`y^{}Y`$ because $`qp`$ and $`id_X`$ are $`𝒲`$-close. Hence, $`d_n(\overline{g}_n(x),\overline{g}_n(q(y)))<2.3^1ϵ_n`$ for every $`nm`$. On the other hand, since $`\overline{g}_n(x)=g(x)`$, we have $`d_n(f_n(y),\overline{g}_n(x))4^1ϵ_n`$. Finally, $`d_n(f_n(y),\overline{g}_n(q(y)))ϵ_n`$. ∎

Y. Hattori and K. Yamada  proved that if $`f:XY`$ is a closed map from a paracompact space $`X`$ onto a $`C`$-space $`Y`$ and all fibers $`f^1(y)`$ have property $`C`$, then $`X`$ is a $`C`$-space. Similar result for finite $`C`$-spaces is not valid. Indeed, let $`X`$ be a disjoint union of $`n`$-dimensional cubes $`Q_n`$ and for every $`n`$ denote by $`f_n`$ the projection of $`Q_n`$ onto $`I_n=[0,1]`$. Let $`Y`$ be the disjoint union of all $`I_n`$ and define $`f:XY`$ as $`f|Q_n=f_n`$. Then, $`f`$ is a perfect map with finite-dimensional fibers and $`Y`$ is a finite $`C`$-space ($`dimY=1`$). Since every paracompact finite $`C`$-space satisfies condition $`(K)`$ (see Corollary 2.6), $`X`$ is not a finite $`C`$-space. But still there is an analogue of the Hattori and Yamada result.

###### Proposition 5.4.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a closed surjection such that $`X`$ is normal, $`Y`$ paracompact and $`dimf^1(y)k`$ for every $`yY`$. If $`Y`$ is a finite $`C`$-space, so is $`X`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`T=(\beta f)^1(Y)`$. Since $`f`$ is closed and $`X`$ normal, the closure in $`\beta X`$ of each fiber $`f^1(y)`$, $`yY`$, is $`(\beta f)^1(y)`$. Hence, $`dim(\beta f)^1(y)k`$ for any $`yY`$. Because $`X`$ and $`T`$ have the same Čech-Stone compactification, they are simultaneously finite $`C`$-spaces. Therefore, we can suppose that $`f`$ is perfect and $`X`$ is paracompact (as a perfect preimage of $`Y`$).

Since $`Y`$ is a paracompact finite $`C`$-space, it satisfies condition $`(K)`$ such that $`KY`$ has property $`C`$. Then, by the mentioned result of Hattori and Yamada, $`H=f^1(K)`$ is a compact $`C`$-space. Hence, according to Corollary 2.6, it suffices to show that every closed $`FX`$, which is disjoint from $`H`$, is finite-dimensional. To this end, observe that $`f(F)Y`$ is closed and disjoint from $`K`$, so $`f(F)`$ is finite-dimensional. Then, by the Hurewicz formula (applied to the map $`f|F:Ff(F)`$, see ), $`dimFdimf(F)+k`$. ∎

## 6. Factorization theorems

Let $`f:XY`$ be a continuous surjection. We say that $`(Z,h,g)`$ is a factorization for $`f`$ if $`h`$ is a continuous map from $`X`$ to the space $`Z`$ and $`g`$ is a continuous map from $`Z`$ onto $`Y`$ such that $`f=gh`$ and $`w(Z)w(Y)`$. Here $`w(Y)`$ is the topological weight of $`Y`$. V. Chatyrko  proved that if $`f:XY`$ is a map between compact spaces and $`X`$ has property $`C`$, then there is a factorization $`(Z,h,g)`$ such that $`Z`$ is a compact $`C`$-space and $`dim_CZdim_CX`$, where $`dim_C`$ is the Borst transfinite dimension. Another factorization theorem for $`C`$-spaces was proved by M. Levin, L. Rubin and P. Schapiro  which implies that if $`f:XY`$ is a map between compact spaces and $`\{D_n\}`$ is a sequence of compact subsets of $`X`$ with property $`C`$, then $`f`$ admtis a factorization $`(Z,h,g)`$ such that each $`h(D_n)`$ has property $`C`$. In this section we are presenting some factorizations for $`C`$-spaces in the special case when $`Y`$ is a metric space.

###### Proposition 6.1.

Let $`\{K_n\}`$ be a sequence of compact $`C`$-subsets of a space $`X`$. Then every map $`f:XY`$ into a metrizable space $`Y`$ admits a factorization $`(Z,h,g)`$ such that $`Z`$ is metrizable and all sets $`h(K_n)`$ have property $`C`$.

###### Proof.

Recall that a map $`p:YS`$ between metrizable spaces is strongly $`0`$-dimensional if there is a metric on $`Y`$ generating its topology such that for every $`ϵ>0`$ and every $`zp(Y)`$ there exists an open neighborhood $`U`$ of $`z`$ with $`p^1(U)`$ being the union of disjoint open sets of diameter $`<ϵ`$. It is well known that every metrizable space admits a strongly $`0`$-dimensional map into Hilbert cube $`Q`$. So, we can take a strongly $`0`$-dimensional map $`p:YQ`$ and let $`\overline{f}:\beta XQ`$ be the Čech-Stone extension of $`pf`$. By the Levin, Rubin and Schapiro result mentioned above, there is a factorization $`(Z_0,h_0,g_0)`$ for $`\overline{f}`$ such that all sets $`h_0(K_n)`$ have property $`C`$. Let $`g:ZY`$ and $`q:Zh_0(X)`$ be the pullback of $`p`$ and $`g_0|h_0(X)`$ respectively, and $`h:XZ`$, $`h(x)=(h_0(x),f(x))`$. Then $`Z`$ is a metrizable space of the same weight as $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ admits a compatible metric such that $`q`$ is strongly $`0`$-dimensional. Since all fibers of $`q`$ are $`0`$-dimensional, each restriction $`q_n=q|h(K_n)`$ is a map from $`h(K_n)`$ onto $`h_0(K_n)`$ with $`0`$-dimensional fibers. Hence, by , $`h(K_n)`$ has property $`C`$. ∎

###### Proposition 6.2.

Every map $`f:XY`$ from a finite $`C`$-space $`X`$ onto metrizable $`Y`$ admits a factorization $`(Z,h,g)`$ such that $`Z`$ is a metrizable finite $`C`$-space.

###### Proof.

Let $`P=(\beta f)^1(Y)`$ and $`\overline{f}`$ be the restriction $`(\beta f)|P`$. Then $`P`$ is a paracompact finite $`C`$-space, so it satisfies condition $`(K)`$ such that $`KP`$ is a compact $`C`$-space. Let $`K_Y=\overline{f}(K)`$ and $`K_X=(\overline{f})^1(K_Y)`$. Obviously, $`K_XP`$ is compact and contains $`K`$. Next, if $`d`$ is a metric on $`Y`$, let $`H_n=\{yY:d(y,K_Y)n^1\}`$ and $`F_n=(\overline{f})^1(H_n)`$. Since each $`F_n`$ is closed in $`P`$ and disjoint from $`K_X`$, it is finite-dimensional. Because $`\overline{f}`$ is a closed map and any closed set in $`Y`$ disjoint from $`K_Y`$ is contained in some $`H_n`$, we have that

(10) every closed set in $`P`$ disjoint from $`K_X`$ is contained in some $`F_n`$.

Observe that $`K_X`$ has property $`C`$ as a compact set in $`P`$. Hence, by Proposition 6.1, $`\overline{f}`$ admits a factorization $`(M,h_1,g_1)`$ such that $`M`$ is metrizable and the set $`K_M=h_1(K_X)`$ has property $`C`$. Now, we can apply Pasynkov’s factorization theorem  to obtain a factorization $`(G,h_2,g_2)`$ for the map $`h_1`$ such that $`G`$ is metrizable and $`dim\overline{h_2(F_n)}dimF_n`$ for every $`n`$. But each $`h_2(F_n)`$ is closed in $`G`$, so $`G`$ is the union of the closed sets $`K_G=h_2(K_X)`$ and $`G_n=h_2(F_n)`$ with each $`G_n`$ being finite-dimensional and disjoint from $`K_G`$. It follows from (10) that every closed subset of $`G`$ disjoint from $`K_G`$ is contained in some $`G_n`$. Finally, attaching to $`G`$ the space $`K_M`$ by the map $`g_2|K_G`$, we obtain the metrizable space $`Z`$. Obviously, $`K_M`$ is homeomorhic to a subset $`K_ZZ`$ and $`Z\backslash K_Z`$ is the set $`G\backslash K_G`$. Therefore, $`Z`$, being the union of all sets $`G_n`$, $`n`$, and $`K_Z`$, satisfies condition $`(K)`$ with the compact $`C`$-set $`K_Z`$. Hence, $`Z`$ is a finite $`C`$-space. It remains only to define the maps $`h:XZ`$ and $`g:ZY`$ such that $`f=gh`$. Let $`q:GZ`$ be the natural quotient map. Identifying $`K_Z`$ with $`K_M`$ we set $`h(x)=q(h_2(x))`$, $`xX`$, and $`g(z)=g_1(g_2(z))`$ provided $`zZ\backslash K_Z`$ and $`g(z)=g_1(z)`$ if $`zK_Z`$. ∎

###### Corollary 6.3.

Every metrizable finite $`C`$-space has a completion which is also a finite $`C`$-space.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`X`$ is a metrizable finite $`C`$-space and let $`Y`$ be any completion of $`X`$. Extend the inclusion $`XY`$ to a map $`p:\beta X\beta Y`$ and denote $`G=p^1(Y)`$ and $`f=p|G:GY`$. Then $`G`$ is a finite $`C`$-space, so, by Proposition 6.2, $`f`$ admits a factorization $`(Z,h,g)`$ with $`Z`$ a metrizable finite $`C`$-space. Obviously, $`h`$ embeds $`X`$ into $`Z`$. Finally, since $`g`$ is a perfect map from $`Z`$ onto $`Y`$ and $`Y`$ is Čech-complete, so is $`Z`$. ∎


text:
# Fully parallel algorithm for simulating dispersion-managed wavelength-division-multiplexed optical fiber systems 1footnote 11footnote 1Accepted to Optics Letters (2001)

## Figure captions:

Fig.1. A schematic of parallel computation algorithm and required number of numerical steps. $`FFT_1,FFT_2,\mathrm{}`$ represent FFT in first, second etc. CPUs respectively. Righ-hand-side schematically shows calculation of vectors $`𝐛_m`$ (see text).

Fig.2. Power distributions of 5 WDM channels after propagation of pseudorandom sequences of Gaussian pulses over $`10^4`$ km. Only small part of the total computational interval of $`1000ps`$ is shown.