Some compact subspaces
Let’s say we have a compact space . A subset
may not be itself compact, but there’s one useful case in which it will be. If
is closed, then
is compact.
Let’s take an open cover of
. The sets
are open subsets of
, but they may not be open as subsets of
. But by the definition of the subspace topology, each one must be the intersection of
with an open subset of
. Let’s just say that each
is an open subset of
to begin with.
Now, we have one more open set floating around. The complement of is open, since
is closed! So between the collection
and the extra set
we’ve got an open cover of
. By compactness of
, this open cover has a finite subcover. We can throw out
from the subcover if it’s in there, and we’re left with a finite open cover of
, and so
is compact.
In fact, if we restrict to Hausdorff spaces, must be closed to be compact. Indeed, we proved that if
is compact and
is Hausdorff then any point
can be separated from
by a neighborhood
. Since there is such an open neighborhood,
must be an interior point of
. And since
was arbitrary, every point of
is an interior point, and so
must be open.
Putting these two sides together, we can see that if is compact Hausdorff, then a subset
is compact exactly when it’s closed.
[…] Heine-Borel Theorem We’ve talked about compact subspaces, particularly of compact spaces and Hausdorff spaces (and, of course, compact Hausdorff spaces). So […]
Pingback by The Heine-Borel Theorem « The Unapologetic Mathematician | January 18, 2008 |
[…] is a closed interval covered by the open intervals . But the Heine-Borel theorem says that is compact, and so we can find a finite collection of the which cover . Renumbering the open intervals, we […]
Pingback by An Example of Monotonicity « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 15, 2010 |
[…] base since it’s open. This union gives an open covering of the set. Since the set is closed, it is compact. And so the open covering we just found has a finite subcover. That is, we can write our clopen set […]
Pingback by Stone’s Representation Theorem II « The Unapologetic Mathematician | August 19, 2010 |