2
$\begingroup$

I have a question about the last part of this proof (bold letters).

Why from the empty intersection between $X-A$ and $A$ and that each set $U_a$ contains only one point of $A$, can we conclude that the set $A$ must be finite?

Compactness implies limit point compactness.

Proof.

Let $X$ be a compact space. Given a subset $A$ of $X$, we wish to prove that if $A$ is infinite, then $A$ has a limit point. We prove the contrapositive - if $A$ has no limit point, then $A$ must be finite. Suppose $A$ has no limit point. Then $A$ contains all its limit points, so that $A$ is closed.

Furthermore, for each $a\in A$ we can choose a neighborhood $U_a$ of $a$ such that $U_a$ intersects A in the point $a$ alone. The space $X$ is covered by the open set $X - A$ and the open sets $U_a$; being compact, it can be covered by finitely many of these sets.

Since $X - A$ does not intersect $A$, and each set $U_a$ contains only one point of $A$, the set $A$ must be finite.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $\left\{ X - A , \{ U_a\}_{a \in A} \right\}$ is a cover of $X.$ Since $X$ is compact, there exists a finite subcover of the above cover, say $\left\{X - A, \{U_i\}_{i \le n} \right\}$. Now, since $X - A$ does not intersect $A,$ we must have, $A \subseteq \bigcup U_i,$ but the latter contains only a finite number of the elements of $A,$ by construction. $\endgroup$ – stochasticboy321 Dec 7 '17 at 3:54
  • $\begingroup$ If $A$ was NOT finite, then it could not be covered by finitely many $U_a$, since each $U_a$ contains only one element of $A$ (and $X\setminus A$ contains zero elements of $A$) $\endgroup$ – David M. Dec 7 '17 at 3:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ A word on the title: $(X-A)\cap A = \emptyset$ is always true, so your question looks much sillier than it is. $\endgroup$ – spaceisdarkgreen Dec 7 '17 at 3:59
  • $\begingroup$ @stochasticboy321 clear and good explanation, thank you. $\endgroup$ – Isa Dec 8 '17 at 0:22
1
$\begingroup$

The relevant assertions for the last line of the proof are the following. First, for all $a\in A$, $a\in U_a$ and $|U_a|=1$. Second, there are only finitely many sets in the family, $\{X-A\}\cup\{U_a:a\in A\}$.

From the first assertion, we deduce $U_a=\{a\}$ for all $a\in A$. Thus, for all $a,a'\in A$, $U_a=U_{a'}$ if and only if $a=a'$. This means that there are no repeats when we write $\{U_a:a\in A\}$. More formally, the function $A\to \{U_a:a\in A\}$ given by $a\mapsto U_a$ is bijective.

Now, as a consequence of the second assertion, the family $\{U_a:a\in A\}$ has only finitely many sets in it. So, because $A$ is in a bijective correspondence with $\{U_a:a\in A\}$, it follows that $A$ must be a finite set.

One will notice that we actually do not need the observation that $X-A$ and $A$ are disjoint, because $\{U_a:a\in A\}$ covers $A$ by definition.

$\endgroup$

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.