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 am reading Kelley’s book on general topology. There are a few statements on nets there (chapter 2), but the characterization of compact sets in the language of nets is not given. How should we prove the following

Theorem: A topological space X is compact iff every net has a convergent subnet.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Suppose that $x_\alpha$ is a net in $X$ with no convergent subnet. Then $(x_\alpha)$ do not have accumulation point in $X$. For each $x\in X$, let $V_x$ be an open neighbourhood of $x$ that excludes all the part of the net from some term onward. Let $V=\{V_x:\ x\in X\}$ and note that $V$ is an open cover of $X$. Can you prove that it is impossible to find a finite subcover of $X$ in $V$?

On the other hand, let $V$ be a open cover of $X$ such that every finite subcover of $V$ do not cover $X$. Consider the open cover $U$ of $X$ consisting of finite unions of elements of $V$. If $A,B\in U$, we say that $A\leq B$ when $A\subseteq B$. With this relation, $V$ is an directed set. For $A\in V$, let $x_A\in X\setminus A$. Can you show that the net $x_A$ does not have any convergent subnet?

share|improve this answer
    
I suppose you mean for me to prove those claims by contradiction. Can you give me a hint about where the contradictions stem from. –  Student Mar 13 '13 at 18:08
    
Where do you got stucked? –  Tomás Mar 13 '13 at 18:43
    
I'm about as far as nowhere. –  Student Mar 13 '13 at 19:41

See Theorem $15.3$ in this excellent PDF, Translating Between Nets and Filters, by Saitulaa Naranong; it’s well worth reading the whole thing.

share|improve this answer
    
An interesting paper, but I was a bit confused, because they switched $\Psi$ and $\Phi$ in the definition of subnet on page 11. –  Stefan Hamcke Mar 9 '13 at 18:29
    
@Stefan: I’m not sure what you mean: on that page he consistently uses $\Psi$ for the subnet and $\Phi$ for the original net. –  Brian M. Scott Mar 9 '13 at 18:32
    
I mean $\Psi$ is subnet of $\Phi$ iff $\Psi$ is eventually in all the sets in which $\Phi$ is eventually. So in the second line of Definition 10.2 the arrow should point in the other direction. –  Stefan Hamcke Mar 9 '13 at 18:39
    
@Stefan: No, the definition goes the other way: $\Phi$ is eventually in all of the sets in which $\Psi$ is eventually. The subnet may be in more sets eventually. –  Brian M. Scott Mar 9 '13 at 18:41
    
Are you sure? I tried Theorem 11.3.(1), and it seems to work only if it's the other way. –  Stefan Hamcke Mar 9 '13 at 18:43

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.