0
$\begingroup$

I have been studying compact sets recently, and have been struggling a little to develop my intuition. I feel a little silly asking this question, because I know there is probably something very simple I am missing from a definition I've read.

So my issue is why sets in $\mathbb R$ closed and bounded sets must be compact. For example, the set $\{ \frac 1n, n \in \mathbb N \} $ is open, but it can be covered by the open set $(-1, 2)$. So if it can be covered by open sets such as this, why is it not compact?

The definition for compactness I've been working with is a set is compact if all open covers of that set have a finite subcover. Is the given set not compact because there is some open cover that doesn't have a finite subcover, even though there clearly are SOME finite subcovers?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, that is exactly right. All sets have a finite open cover (namely the entire space), but compact sets are those such that all open covers can be refined to finite open subcovers. $\endgroup$ – Mees de Vries Nov 6 '17 at 10:43
  • $\begingroup$ Compare show that $\{ 1/n : n\in \Bbb N \}$ is not compact using open covers. $\endgroup$ – Martin R Nov 6 '17 at 10:44
  • $\begingroup$ That's basically the DeMorgan law for quantifiers. The opposite of "all open covers have a finite subcover" is "there exists an open cover that doesn't have a finite subcover" (actually there's a quantifier more here in "have a finite subcover". $\endgroup$ – skyking Nov 6 '17 at 11:03
2
$\begingroup$

Why do you say that $\left\{\frac1n\,\middle|\,n\in\mathbb N\right\}$ is open? It is neither open nor closed.

Every subset $A$ of $\mathbb R$ can be covered by an open cover: $\{\mathbb{R}\}$. The point about compacteness is that every open cover has a finite subcover. Take again the set $\left\{\frac1n\,\middle|\,n\in\mathbb N\right\}$. It is not compact because the cover $\left\{\left(\frac1{2n},\frac3{2n}\right)\,\middle|\,n\in\mathbb N\right\}$ is an open cover which has no finite subcover.

Note that an unbounded subset of $\mathbb R$ cannot be compact, because $\left\{(-n,n)\,\middle|\,n\in\mathbb N\right\}$ is an open subcover without a finite subcover. And if $A$ is a non-closed subset of $\mathbb R$, then $A$ cannot be compact because, if $x\in\overline A\setminus A$, then $\left\{\left(-\infty,x-\frac1n\right)\cup\left(x+\frac1n,+\infty\right)\,\middle|\,n\in\mathbb N\right\}$ is an open cover without a finite subcover.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah I just didn't stop and think for long enough about that example. I thought about the open $\frac 1n \to 0 $ side and not the closed side that starts with $1$. Whoops. $\endgroup$ – leob Nov 6 '17 at 12:14
  • $\begingroup$ Ok thank you, that clears things up a lot. I think I've just been missing a lot of solid examples from $\mathbb R$ to help build my intuition. $\endgroup$ – leob Nov 6 '17 at 12:17
1
$\begingroup$

You've already got a specific response to do with your set, so I'll try to help with the intuition side.

The most intuitive way for me to think about compactness is that's a generalisation of finiteness. If a set isn't bounded, it's certainly not finite, nor is it "compact", our generalisation of finite. Now I'll try to explain why being "closed" is also akin to being finite.

Consider a closed interval $[a,b] \subset \mathbb{R}$. Then no matter how much you try to scale it, you'll still end up with an interval of the form $[x, y] \subset \mathbb{R}$. You can never stretch it so that it's "the same size" as $\mathbb{R}$.

On the other hand, consider an open interval, like $(-\pi/2, \pi/2)$. This also looks pretty small compared to $\mathbb{R}$, but what if you scale it with $\tan$? $\tan[(-\pi/2, \pi/2)]$ is well defined, but the image is the entirety of $\mathbb{R}$. In this way, you can "scale" open intervals and get the entire real line. So in a handwavy way, open intervals are "bigger", or "less finite" than closed intervals.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This seems arbitrary. If you take the extended real line $\mathbb R \cup \{\pm \infty\}$ the opposite is true. $\endgroup$ – Mees de Vries Nov 6 '17 at 11:47
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the comment. In the math units I've been taking intuition really doesn't get much time so I appreciate hearing some interesting ways to visualise this. $\endgroup$ – leob Nov 6 '17 at 12:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.