Difference between revisions of "Compactness"

From Maths
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Lemma for a set being compact)
m
Line 47: Line 47:
  
 
::Thus <math>\{A_{\alpha_i}\}^n_{i=1}</math> is a finite covering of <math>Y</math> consisting of '''open''' sets from <math>X</math>
 
::Thus <math>\{A_{\alpha_i}\}^n_{i=1}</math> is a finite covering of <math>Y</math> consisting of '''open''' sets from <math>X</math>
 
+
:'''End of warning''' - I've left this here because I must have put it in for a reason! {{Todo|What was I hoping to do here?}}
  
  

Revision as of 10:41, 8 April 2015

Not to be confused with Sequential compactness


There are two views here.

  1. Compactness is a topological property and we cannot say a set is compact, we say it is compact and implicitly consider it with the subspace topology
  2. We can say "sure that set is compact".

The difference comes into play when we cover a set (take the interval [0,5]R) with open sets. Suppose we have the covering {(1,3),(2,6)} this is already finite and covers the interval. The corresponding sets in the subspace topology are {[0,3),(2,5]} which are both open in the subspace topology.


Definition

A topological space is compact if every open cover (often denoted A) of X contains a finite sub-collection that also covers X

Lemma for a set being compact

Take a set YX in a topological space (X,J).

To say Y is compact is for Y to be compact when considered as a subspace of (X,J)

That is to say that Y is compact if and only if every covering of Y by sets open in X contains a finite subcovering covering Y

[Expand]

Theorem: A set YX is a compact space (considered with the subspace topology) of (X,J) if and only if every covering of Y by sets open in X contains a finite subcovering.