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

It is usually argued (and also joked about) that classifying sets into open and closed is a bit paradoxical, since sets can be open and closed at the same time, or neither. This can be analyzed very clearly by noting that closed is an antonym of open: it means exactly not open (and vice versa). Then, by saying that a set is clopen, or open and closed, we are in some way claiming that the set is open and not open, and this is a basic contradiction from a logical point of view.

While I don't dare to think that I can make an impact on the use of these terms by changing the way I myself call some sets, it would be much easier for me to at least think of them with different names. Particularly, I've been wondering about the correctness of saying co-open instead of closed.

In the first place, it makes sense because it's more natural to see the link between declaring $A$ is co-open and the complement of $A$ is open. Also, since complementation is an involution, in some natural way we can say that a co-co-open set, which we may understand as a set whose complement has an open complement, is nothing but an open set; this, I believe, is desirable behavior for the use of the co- prefix.

My final worry about the correctness of using co-open is that the co- prefix is widely used in category theory, and is formalized by the notion of duality (to name but a few examples: initial and coinitial, or terminal and coterminal, product and coproduct, limit and colimit, cone and cocone). So I've been wondering whether there should be some categorical formulation of a topology so that saying $A$ is co-open in $\mathcal{C}$ was equivalent to saying $A$ is open in $\mathcal{C}^{op}$, where $\mathcal{C}$ was the categorical formulation of a topology in which $A$ is a closed set. This, in order to justify the use of co- with duality.

However, I am aware of the existence of other terms which start with the prefix co- but, I believe, don't have a possible categorical formulation or which were named before they were redefined in terms of categorical notions, like cologarithm, cosine, cosecant, cotangent, cotree.

My question would then be: aside from the issue that every mathematician writes closed, could co-open be considered correct as a terminological alternative, based on the points I exposed, and on others I might possibly have missed? At the end, if co-open is correct, this will be only useful for my own pedagogical reasons.


share|cite|improve this question
reminds me of this (slightly) related youtube video: – Aaron Mazel-Gee Apr 4 '11 at 7:16
Why not “closed” and “coclosed”? “Closed” and “closure” are derived from the same word. “Open” and “interior” from different. IMHO it is better to keep words with 1 root. – beroal Apr 5 '11 at 16:13
The link between open and closed sets is related to and dual logical connectives. – beroal Apr 5 '11 at 16:14

This can be analyzed very clearly by noting that closed is an antonym of open: it means exactly not open (and vice versa)

This is confusing. Closed doesn't 'mean not open, it means the complement of an open set. So a set that is both open and closed is one which is open and for which its complement is open.

I think the terminology is good because we want a closed set to be one for which every convergent sequence in that set converges to a limit that is also in that set. We want it to be closed under convergence and this can only be the case if its complement is open.

So, closed is a valuable word in this context. If anything, I would replace open. I'm just beginning with this stuff though so there might be something that I'm missing.

share|cite|improve this answer
I meant that the literal meaning of closed is not open, not the specific mathematical definition. I see your point with the usefulness of closed. Basically, a set that contains its boundary. It might be the case that in certain circumstances it could be better to think of a set as co-open as I defined it, and in others to consider it closed, referring to different aspects of the concept according to which are more important in a given setting, and making the obvious identification. This is, after all, only about how I find convenient to think of these concepts. – Abel Apr 3 '11 at 23:37
@Abel, right. They're two different things and I don't see what one has to do with the other. It seems like comparing the two is just a cause for confusion. Like I said, I'm just a nobody though. – knucklebumpler Apr 3 '11 at 23:39
I suspect that Abel was talking about the regular dictionary definition which, in my dictionary, is "closed. adjective. not open" – George Lowther Apr 3 '11 at 23:40
I guess I'm saying that closed in the mathematical sense and closed in the English sense are two entirely different words that only happen to share a spelling and pronunciation. So the literal meaning of closed is not not open but the complement of an open set. – knucklebumpler Apr 3 '11 at 23:44
@knucklebumper: I agree, but I'm arguing that some confusion stems from that particular choice of words. – Abel Apr 4 '11 at 0:11

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.