Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Claim:Let $S\subset T\subset X$ where $X$ is a metric space. If $T$ is compact in $X$ then $S$ is also compact in $X$.

Proof:Given that $T$ is compact in $X$ then any open cover of T, there is a finite open subcover, denote it as $\left \{V_i \right \}_{i=1}^{N}$. Since $S\subset T\subset \left \{V_i \right \}_{i=1}^{N}$ so $\left \{V_i \right \}_{i=1}^{N}$ also covers $S$ and hence $S$ is compact in X

Edited: I see why this is false but in general, why every closed subset of a compact set is compact?

share|cite|improve this question
You need to prove it for any open cover of $S$, not just the covers of $S$ that also cover $T$ – Thomas Andrews Oct 13 '12 at 15:58
O i see which part goes wrong, since $S\subset T$ there may exist a subcover of $S$ which may not cover $T$ and that subcover may not finite at all. – Mathematics Oct 13 '12 at 16:01
No, there may exist a coverof $S$ that does not cover $T$ – Thomas Andrews Oct 13 '12 at 16:05
Please do your best to use informative titles. As it is right now, it is impossible to figure out what the question is about from the title and tags. – Asaf Karagila Oct 13 '12 at 17:15

If $S\subseteq T$ and $T$ is compact and $S$ is closed then $S$ is compact.

Why? Let $\cal U$ be an open cover of $S$. Every open set in $\cal U$ is of the form $U\cap S$ for some open set $U$ (open in $T$). Let $\mathcal V=\{U\subseteq T\mid U\text{ is open, and }\exists U'\in\mathcal U:U\cap S=U'\}$. Then $\mathcal V$ is an open cover of $S$ as well, since $S$ is closed we have that $T\setminus S$ is open so $\mathcal V\cup\{T\setminus S\}$ is an open cover of $T$.

By compactness of $T$ we have a finite subcover, from which we can produce a finite subcover of $\cal U$.

We have shown that every open cover of $S$ has a finite subcover, and therefore $S$ is compact. We have used the fact that $S$ is closed to make sure that $T\setminus S$ is open. If $S$ is not closed we cannot use this to produce an open cover of $T$ and we cannot continue and find an open subcover for $\cal U$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your proof cannot possibly be correct, because the statement is wrong. Note that if $S$ is not closed, then it cannot possibly be compact. Counterexample: $(1/4,1/2)\subset[0,1]\subset\mathbb{R}$.

The correct statement is: If $S\subset T\subset X$, $S$ closed, $T$ compact. Then $S$ is compact.

Alternatively: $S\subset T\subset X$, $T$ compact. Then $S$ is relatively compact.

share|cite|improve this answer
But i can find a open subcover, which part goes wrong? – Mathematics Oct 13 '12 at 15:59
See Thomas' comment. – Your Ad Here Oct 13 '12 at 16:00
You've proven only that for some open covers of $S$ there is a finite sub-cover. You need to prove that for all covers of $S$. – Thomas Andrews Oct 13 '12 at 16:01
I think you mean "cannot possibly" when you say "can impossibly". – Austin Mohr Oct 13 '12 at 19:59
Is that not correct English? I didn't know that, sorry. – Your Ad Here Oct 13 '12 at 22:46

Edited: I see why this is false but in general, why every closed subset of a compact set is compact?

Another proof: Let $S \subset T$ be a closed set, where $T$ is compact. Let $\{\mathcal{U}_\alpha\}$ be an open cover of $S$. Then $\{\mathcal{U}_\alpha\} \cup \{S^c\}$, where $S^c$ is the complement of $S$ w.r.t. to $X$, covers $T$. Since $T$ is compact, we can extract a finite subcover $\{ \mathcal{U}_{\alpha_1}, \mathcal{U}_{\alpha_2}, \ldots, \mathcal{U}_{\alpha_n}, S^c \}$ from $\{\mathcal{U}_\alpha\} \cup \{S^c\}$. Notice that $S^c$ maybe wasn't necessary, but we throw it in anyway. Since $S \cap S^c = \varnothing$, we have that $\{ \mathcal{U}_{\alpha_1}, \mathcal{U}_{\alpha_2}, \ldots, \mathcal{U}_{\alpha_n}\}$ is a subcover of $\{\mathcal{U}_\alpha\}$.

share|cite|improve this answer
I guess that "Since $S \cup S^c = \varnothing$" is a typo. Did you want to write intersection $S \cap S^c$ there? – Martin Sleziak Jul 25 '14 at 7:19
@MartinSleziak that's right! Thanks for pointing (: – Ivo Terek Jul 25 '14 at 10:13

Suppose $F \subset K \subset X$, F is closed relative to X and K is compact. Let $\{V_{\alpha}\}$ be an open cover of F. Now, F being closed implies $F^c$ is open. Therefore, $F^c \cup \{V_{\alpha}\} $ forms an open cover of set K (As any union of collection of open sets is open). But, K is compact that implies there is a finite sub-cover of $F^c \cup \{V_{\alpha}\} $ denoted by $\beta$ that covers K. Now, $F \subset K$ implies that $\beta$ is a finite cover of F too. Finally, if $F^c \in \beta$ remove it to get a finite sub-cover of $\{V_{\alpha}\}$ that clearly still covers F. Hence, we showed that for any open cover of F denoted by $\{V_{\alpha}\}$ there is a finite sub-cover that covers F. $\blacksquare$

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.