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.

So for a writing assignment in one of my classes we are asked to discuss and prove some basic results about compact sets in general topological spaces. I like proving these things, but they dont help me understand what a compact( locally compact, paracompact,...) set in a topological space "looks like." That said I'm asking for some examples of compact (locally compact, ...) sets in a variety of topological spaces. I'm also interested in some explanation of what extra "benefits" are brought about by singling out these compact sets. For example the p-adic numbers are locally compact and locally compact things (abelian groups to be precise) are a good setting in which to carry out fourier analyis.

share|improve this question
As you probably know: compact is an important notion because it singles out those spaces which share the basic properties of closed intervals of real numbers: continuous functions achieve a minimum and maximum, sequences have countable subsequences (here for simplicity of exposition I am ignoring the difference between compactness and sequential compactness), the intersection of a nested sequence of closed subsets is non-empty. Locally compact spaces are singled out because they share the property of the real numbers (or more generally of Euclidean spaces) that every point has a ... –  Matt E Oct 20 '10 at 2:19
... neighbourhood which is compact, i.e. which has the basic analytic properties of closed intervals. –  Matt E Oct 20 '10 at 2:21
add comment

2 Answers

You could try reading Terence Tao's notes on the subject; I found them very informative.

As for examples, here is an example and a non-example which I think are informative. The example is that, by Tychonoff's theorem, $[0, 1]^I$ is compact for any index set $I$. The non-example is that the closed unit ball in any infinite-dimensional Banach space, say $\ell_1(\mathbb{Z})$, is not compact.

Edit: Here is another perspective from which to think about compact Hausdorff spaces (and LCH spaces). A compact Hausdorff space $X$ is completely determined by the ring of continuous functions $C(X, \mathbb{R})$; this is a standard exercise which is worked out, for example, here. One gets the points of $X$ as the maximal ideals of $C(X, \mathbb{R})$ and the topology as the initial topology making every function in $C(X, \mathbb{R})$ continuous. Slightly generalized, this is the commutative Gelfand-Naimark theorem, and it says that studying commutative C*-algebras with unit is the same thing as studing compact Hausdorff spaces. Removing the requirement that we have a unit is the same thing as studying locally compact Hausdorff spaces.

So one can write down compact Hausdorff spaces by writing down commutative C*-algebras with unit. One choice is to take the space $C_b(X, \mathbb{R})$, the space of bounded continuous functions on an arbitrary topological space $X$, with the sup norm. If $X$ is completely regular Hausdorff, this gives the Stone-Cech compactification of $X$. (Which is hopeless to think about in general; even for $X = \mathbb{N}$ it's very weird, as the Wikipedia article describes.)

share|improve this answer
Wow! What a notes! Thank you, Qiaochu. –  a.r. Oct 20 '10 at 15:37
add comment

I don't know if I understand your question, but here are some elementary examples of compact and non compact spaces. You can find more examples in Wikipedia.

  1. $[0,1]$ is compact with the subspace topology of the usual, Euclidean topology on $\mathbb{R}$.
  2. Neither $(0,1)$, nor $\mathbb{R}$ are compact with the same topology.
  3. A set with a finite number of points $A \subset \mathbb{R}$ is always compact. In fact, it is always compact, with no matter which topology.
  4. With the usual topology on $\mathbb{R}^n$, $A \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is compact if and only if it is bounded and closed. Beware: this characterization of compactness is no longer true for arbitrary metric spaces: for instance, with the bounded metric $d(x,y) = \mathrm{min} \left\{ \| x-y\|,1 \right\}$ (which is equivalent to the Euclidean one), every subset $A \subset \mathbb{R}^n$, even the whole $\mathbb{R}^n$, is bounded. So, if the former characterization was still true with this metric, every closed subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ ($\mathbb{R}^n$ itself included) would be compact.
  5. This countable set $\left\{\frac{1}{n}\ \vert \ n \in \mathbb{N} \right\} \cup \left\{ 0\right\} \subset \mathbb{R}$ is compact (with the usual topology).
  6. This countable set $\left\{\frac{1}{n}\ \vert \ n \in \mathbb{N} \right\} \subset \mathbb{R}$ is not compact (with the usual topology).
  7. This countable set $\mathbb{N} \subset \mathbb{R}$ is not compact (with the usual topology).
  8. With the finite complement topology, $\mathbb{R}$ is compact. In fact, with this topology on the real line, every subset $A \subset \mathbb{R}$ is compact. In fact, every topological space with the finite complement topology is compact.
  9. $\mathbb{Q}$ is not compact with the subspace topology of the usual, Euclidean topology on $\mathbb{R}$.
  10. Btw, the empty set is always compact.
share|improve this answer
add comment

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.