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

What I have done so far is give a contradiction, namely the cover:


Because $\cup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}[0,1-\frac{1}{n})=[0,1)$, it means that there is no finite subcover that covers $[0,1)$. Is this right or am I doing something wrong$?$ For some reason I have a feeling it is compact and I am overseeing something.

share|cite|improve this question
You should trust yourself a little more. Your cover perfectly proves it's not compact. – Daniel Fischer Dec 11 '13 at 19:56
yes. It's not compact and your example and method are correct.This topology on the set of reals is called the Sorgenfrey line. – user254665 Nov 21 '15 at 7:23
This also shows that $[0,1)$ is not compact in the Euclidean topology. If you knew already that it is not compact in the Euclidean topology, you could also use the fact that a non-compact set remains non-compact when we refine the topology (or that a continuous image of a compact space is compact). – Stefan Hamcke Apr 25 at 13:59

Let $\mathbb{R}_S$ be the Sorgenfrey line, i.e., $\mathbb{R}$ with the lower limit topology. As any uncountable set of real numbers contains a strictly increasing infinite sequence, if $K\subseteq\mathbb{R}_S$ is compact then $K$ is countable.

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.