I fell like this question is simple, but I just can't get my head around it:

Thanks to anyone who replies!Quote:

Give an example of a space with two points in which not all compact sets are closed.

Printable View

- Mar 10th 2010, 09:51 AMShowcase_22Compactness
I fell like this question is simple, but I just can't get my head around it:

Quote:

Give an example of a space with two points in which not all compact sets are closed.

- Mar 10th 2010, 10:43 AMFocus
- Mar 10th 2010, 11:06 AMShowcase_22
What do you mean by "and only one sequence in it"?

Also, is the "open but not closed" set the empty set? I was told that the empty set was simultaneously closed and open, so what's the difference between "simultaneously closed and open" and "open but not closed"? - Mar 10th 2010, 11:33 AMDefunkt
If a set is both open and closed, then obviously it can't be open and not closed..

Do you understand why in any topological space , both and are open and closed?

The set he is talking about is . Do you see why it is open and not closed? And since it only has one point in it, do you see why it has only one sequence?

Now, can you finish? - Mar 10th 2010, 12:08 PMShowcase_22Quote:

Do you understand why in any topological space , both and are open and closed?

is open since the interior of is empty. If a set is equal to it's interior then it's open.

is closed since all it's boundary points are in since it doesn't have any.

Once we have this, and since is either open or closed, we get that is also either open or closed.

Quote:

The set he is talking about is . Do you see why it is open and not closed? And since it only has one point in it, do you see why it has only one sequence?

Why isn't that right?

Quote:

And since it only has one point in it, do you see why it has only one sequence?

has got to be closed since the only sequence is just repeated, so it has a convergent subsequence. This is just another sequence of just 's, so it converges to .

We know that every convergent sequence has a convergent subsequence iff the set is compact. Therefore is compact. - Mar 10th 2010, 12:16 PMFocus
Your notion of interior is flawed. Interior is the largest open subset of the set and I (or you) define the open sets with the topology. So when I have {a} in the topology but not {b}, that means that the largest open subset of {b} is the empty set.

A better way to think about open and closed sets is through topology. The whole space and the empty set are open by definition. A set is closed, if and only if its complement is open (in this case which is not open so {a} is not closed). - Mar 10th 2010, 12:21 PMDrexel28
Even more egregious is the above statement. Do not think about compactness as the above unless you are in metric spaces.

As**Focus**said there are only three topologies on up to homeomorphism. They are namely and .

The first is out since every non-open set isn't closed.. The last is out since it is metrizable under the discrete metric (and thus Hausdorff and so every compact subspace is closed). So it remains that we must choose . Now, clearly as a subspace has a finite topology and thus by*necessity*is compact. But, it is open since it is in the topology but it is not closed since which is not in the topology. - Mar 10th 2010, 12:35 PMShowcase_22
Oh, I think I get it!

So when you write , and define this to be your topology, all the sets in this set are defined to be open. I haven't encountered it written like this before.

So, returning to the question, you could have the set where is your topology (ie. all the sets defined to be open).

is a compact set because every sequence would be of the form . This gives that every subsequence converges since every subsequence (ie. converges to 2).

is not closed since and this is not open since is not in the topology (is this the correct way of saying this?).

Alternatively, looking at the definition, a set is closed it's complement is open. Since the complement is not open then our original set is not closed (i'm trying to think of it multiple ways). - Mar 10th 2010, 12:47 PMDefunkt
Everything is fine up to here!

Quote:

is a compact set because every sequence would be of the form . This gives that every subsequence converges since every subsequence (ie. converges to 2).

The right reasoning here is that every open covering of is finite, and thus you always have a finite subcover.

Quote:

is not closed since and this is not open since is not in the topology (is this the correct way of saying this?).

Alternatively, looking at the definition, a set is closed it's complement is open. Since the complement is not open then our original set is not closed (i'm trying to think of it multiple ways).

As a final note, you will probably later learn that in any metric space , the following 3 conditions are equivalent:

1) X is compact

2) X is sequentially compact

3) X is Limit-point compact (every infinite subset of X has a limit point)

So you would actually be better off not thinking of a general topological space as a generic metric space! - Mar 10th 2010, 09:46 PMShowcase_22Quote:

In a general topological space, compactness (Every open cover has a finite subcover) does NOT necessarily ensure sequential compactness (every sequence has a convergent subsequence), for example with the product topology.

Here compactness does not imply sequential compactness, but I know that a set is compact iff a set is sequentially compact.

Are you saying that, in general, compactness does not imply sequential compactness but a set is compact iff a set is sequentially compact holds in a euclidean space?

Quote:

with product topology.

Is this the cartesian product of a set with ?

Elements would be like as in the x value is either 0 or 1 and the y value is any number in .

If this is right, what is product topology? - Mar 10th 2010, 10:37 PMDefunkt
Yes, that is correct, but also for any metric space and not just a Euclidean one (for example , the set of all continuous functions from to ).

Though that brings up the question, have you studied topology yet?

Quote:

Also, what does this mean? I haven't seen this before =S

Is this the cartesian product of a set with ?

Elements would be like as in the x value is either 0 or 1 and the y value is any number in .

If this is right, what is product topology?

So generally speaking, is the set of all functions from the unit interval to . Equipping it with the product topology is another way of looking at it from a topological point of view - as a space of uncountably many cartesian products of the set , but now I guess that example is too advanced for what you have learned.

An element in that set would be of the form

Also, wikipedia provides a good first read on the product topology, if you're interested. By the way, what course was this question a part of? - Mar 11th 2010, 12:17 PMShowcase_22
I'm studying topology as part of my "metric spaces" course. I think it's interesting, i'm just not any good at it =S

This question was from a book I'm reading to try and understand it better. It is helping, the big problem is that it doesn't have the answers in the back of the book!

Anyway, I understand it a lot better since creating this thread. Thanks so much!