The whole space is an open set in a metric space 
Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. Then both $X$ and $\emptyset$ are open sets.

I went over the proofs and it seems to be trivial, and I get it for $\emptyset$, but why must the whole space be open? Can't $X$ be a closed ball?
 A: If $x \in X$ is any point and $\epsilon > 0$ any positive real number, then the open ball of radius $\epsilon$ centered at $x$, $\{ y\in X \mid d(x,y) < \epsilon)\}$, is by definition contained in $X$. Note that there is nothing wrong with a subset being simultaneously closed and open in a space (despite the terminology).
For example, consider the boundary point $(1,0)$ of the closed disk $$D = \{(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2\mid x^2 + y^2 \leq 1\}.$$ By definition, the open ball with respect to the metric of the closed disk centered around $(1,0)$ of radius $\epsilon > 0$ is the set of points in $D$ that are at distance $< \epsilon$ from $(1,0)$. (This is the red subset of the disk in the picture. The line has length $\epsilon$.)

For instance, if $\epsilon = 1000$, then this ball is the whole disk $D$. But no matter the choice of $\epsilon$, the ball will always be a subset of the disk $D$.
On the other hand, if we consider open balls with respect to the metric of the plane, then any open ball around $(1,0)$ won't be contained inside $D$.
A: If $(X,d)$ is a metric space, then as far as closed and open sets in $X$ go, $X$ is the universe.  There is nothing outside of $X$.  There is nothing which $X$ is a part of.  There is no intrinsic notion of a "boundary" of an arbitrary metric space.
Here is why $X$ is an open subset of $X$.  Let $x \in X$.  To show $X$ is open in $X$, we need to show there is at least one $\epsilon > 0$ such that the ball $B(x,\epsilon)$ with center $x$ and radius $\epsilon$ is contained in $X$.  Note that by definition,
$$B(x,\epsilon) = \{ y \in X : d(x,y) < \epsilon \}$$
so $B(x,\epsilon)$ is always a subset of $X$, for any choice of $\epsilon$ whatsoever.  This is why $X$ is open in $X$.
Example: Let $X = \{ (x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 : x^2 + y^2 \leq 1 \}$ be the closed disc in $\mathbb{R}^2$.  Give $X$ the Euclidean metric.  If you consider $X$ as a subset of the metric space $\mathbb{R}^2$ (with the same metric), it is obviously not open.  But if you consider $X$ as a subset of the metric space $X$, it is open.
If you are confused, think about the fact that open balls (and more generally open sets) in $X$ are in general not open when you consider them as subsets of $\mathbb{R}^2$.  take the point $(1,0)$ in $X$ and consider the ball in $X$ of radius $\frac{1}{2}$ and center $(1,0)$.  Draw it.  By definition, it is an open set in the metric space $X$.  But it's not going to be an open circle.  And it will not be open when considered as a subset of $\mathbb{R}^2$.

A: A set that contains everything must be open as every neighborhood of every point must be a subset of the space. So every point is an  interior point.
Take for example the metric space $[0,1] $  (this is a "closed ball" obviously).  Then $N_e (1)=\{x\in [0,1]| d (x,1)< e\}=(1-e] \subset [0,1] $.  So 1 is an nterior point.
A: I have also seen a lot of "trivial" answers, which somehow look incomplete. I like to prove it with a contradiction. The theorem states:
$X \subseteq X$ is open because $\forall x \in X : \exists \epsilon >0 : B_\epsilon (x) \subseteq X$. 
Suppose $X \subseteq X$ is not open. Then we logically negate the "open set" condition:
$\exists x \in X : \forall \epsilon > 0 : B_\epsilon (x) \cap (X \setminus X) \ne \emptyset$
In words: we expect points on the boundary span non-pointlike balls which should intersect with whatever is beyond the set X. Now, X contains all elements. In $(X, d)$ X is our universe. Any other set within can be equal or smaller than X. Any other set beyond is empty.
So, let's find that intersection.
Firstly, $X \setminus X = \emptyset$, since X is the universe. Now comes the funny part. Any intersection with empty set is empty, since empty set does not possess any elements. And, if intersection is empty, then those sets do not overlap. And this is a contradiction.
Probably, the confusion stems from the symmetry of the boundary of the ball. The "open ball" set does not have to be filled homogeneously as a ball. The "open ball" is a ball only to the extent the underlying set is providing non-empty elements to fill that ball.
