Compactness
See Notes:Compactness and sequences - I think there's a different definition for metric spaces, I have not seen a proof that the metric one ⟹ this one
Not to be confused with Sequential compactness
There are two views here.
- 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
- 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[1] if every open cover of X contains a finite sub-covering that also covers X.
That is to say that given an arbitrary collection of sets:
The following is true:
- ∃{i1,⋯,in}⊂I such that X=⋃α∈{i1,⋯,in}Aα
Then X is compact[1]
Lemma for a set being compact
Take a set Y⊂X in a topological space (X,J). Then to say:
- Y is compact
Means Y satisfies the definition of compactness when considered as a subspace of (X,J)
Theorem: A set Y⊆X is a compact in (X,J) if and only if every covering of Y by sets open in X contains a finite subcovering.
See also
Notes
- Jump up ↑ Note that we actually have X⊆⋃α∈IAα but as topologies are closed under arbitrary union and contain the set the open sets are subsets of we cannot "exceed X", so we must have X=⋃α∈IAα
References
- ↑ Jump up to: 1.0 1.1 Topology - James R. Munkres - Second Edition