Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've been looking at various problems from past Topology exams, and I came across a problem dealing with compact metric spaces that I have never seen before. The statment to the problem is as follows:

Let $X$ be a compact metric space. Show every open subset of $X$ is homeomorphic to a compact metric space.

I'm having difficulty showing why this is true. Can anyone help? Thank you in advance!

share|improve this question
1  
Isn't there some kind of typo? This would mean that every open subset of $X$ is compact. $(0,1)$ is an open subset of compact metric space $[0,1]$, but it is not compact. –  Martin Sleziak Oct 23 '12 at 15:17
5  
I don’t blame you for having difficulty: it’s false. Compactness is a topological property, preserved by homeomorphisms, so if $U$ is a non-compact open subset of $X$, $U$ cannot be homeomorphic to a compact metric space. Example: $(0,1)$ in $[0,1]$. –  Brian M. Scott Oct 23 '12 at 15:18
    
I wrote the problem down from one of my old exams, so there might be a typo. I will dig through my old notes and try to find it again. –  josh Oct 23 '12 at 15:31

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Can't be shown.

Let $X = \{ (x,y) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{2} \colon -1 \leq x,y \leq 1 \} $ and $B = \{ (x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^{2} \colon x^{2} + y^{2} < 1 \} $ with the usual topology. The set $X$ is compact. The set $B$ is not compact. Suppose that $B$ is homeomorphic to some compact metric space $Y$. Let's say $f \colon B \rightarrow Y$ is the homeomorphism. Let $\mathcal{O}$ be an open cover of $B$ that does not have a finite subcover. Then $\{ f(O) \colon O \in \mathcal{O} \}$ is an open cover of $Y$. Since $Y$ is compact there exists a finite $\mathcal{F} \subseteq \{ f(O) \colon O \in \mathcal{O} \} $ that covers $Y$. But then $\{ f^{-1}(U) \colon U \in \mathcal{F} \} $ is a finite cover of $B$. This is a contradiction of there not being a finite subcover in $\mathcal{O}$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you Jay for the formal argument. I copied the problem incorrectly. I meant complete instead of compact. I posted that question here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/219706/… –  josh Oct 23 '12 at 22:37

Your Answer

 
discard

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.