I have a doubt about covers, finite subcovers and its relation with compactness.

Let $X$ be a topological space. We define an open cover of $A\subset X$ as an union of a collection of open subsets of $X$ that contains $A$.

We define a finite subcover taking a finite number of those sets that still cover $A$.

If a set has a finite open subcover, then it's compact.

Question: $(-1,0)\cup(-1/2,2)$ is a finite open cover of $(0,1)$. Regarding the definition of compactness, $(0,1)$ is compact. What am I not understanding correctly?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For a set $A$ to be compact you must be able to take any collection of open sets $\{U_i: i\in I\}$ ($I$ is an arbitrary index set) such that $A\subset \cup_i U_i$ and then out of these arbitrary $U_i$ you must find finitely many that still do the job of covering $A$—it isn’t enough to find any finite subcover, you must extract one from the original arbitrary open cover $\endgroup$ – Nap D. Lover Jan 21 '18 at 18:41
  • $\begingroup$ Just to give a concrete example, consider the cover $\{(0,a): 0<a<1\}$ of $(0,1)$. If there was a finite subcover, then it would have the form $\{(0,a_1),\dots,(0,a_n)\}$ where we can impose the order $a_1<\dots<a_n$, and thus the union of these sets is $(0,a_n)$. But $a_n<1$, so $(0,a_n)$ is a proper subset of $(0,1)$ and does not cover it. Thus no finite cover can exist, and so $(0,1)$ is not compact. $\endgroup$ – Santana Afton Jan 21 '18 at 18:48
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "If a set has a finite open subcover, then it's compact." No. It's not the set that has the subcover. It is the open cover that has the finite subcover. A set is compact if every open cover has a finite subcover. $\endgroup$ – fleablood Jan 21 '18 at 18:49

Your definition of compactness is wrong. A subset $A\subset X$ is compact if, given any open cover of that set, we can extract a finite open subcover. That is, to check compactness of $A$, you have to take an arbitrary collection $(U_i)_{i\in I}$ of open sets that cover $A$ and prove that you find finitely many $i_1,\dots,i_n\in I$ such that $A\subset \bigcup_{k=1}^n U_{i_k}$. By your definition, every subset would be compact since it can be covered by $X$ itself.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ A finite open subcover. $\endgroup$ – Nap D. Lover Jan 21 '18 at 18:38
  • $\begingroup$ okay, so let's take $(-3,0)\cup (-1,0)\cup(-1/2,2)$ as a cover of $(0,1)$. Then we take the subcover in my question. It means that $(0,1)$ is compact? $\endgroup$ – Alure Jan 21 '18 at 18:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Alure No, you cannot just choose an open cover of your liking, you have to show that it works for any open cover. $\endgroup$ – asdq Jan 21 '18 at 18:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Alure you are still missing the fact that to prove this directly you need to start with an arbitrary open cover. One you know nothing about. $\endgroup$ – Nap D. Lover Jan 21 '18 at 18:42
  • $\begingroup$ @LoveTooNap29 Thanks, I edited it. $\endgroup$ – asdq Jan 21 '18 at 18:42

"If a set has a finite open subcover, then it's compact."

This is incorrect.

The correct definition is "If every open cover of a set, has a finite subcover, then the set is compact."

"(−1,0)∪(−1/2,2) is a finite open cover of (0,1)"

Right, but so what?

it is not the only open cover of $(0,1)$. For $(0,1)$ to be compact. Every open cover has a finite subcover. The is only one open cover. There are others and if $(0,1)$ is not compact, at least one open cover will not have an open cover. But if every possible open cover, any open cover anyone in the universe can think of has a finite subcover, then $(0,1)$ is compact.

Suppose I said: A country is "rich" if every single person has over \$500,000. And the I said: America is not rich because not every single person has over \$500,000. And you said: What about Malcolm Forbes? He has over \$500,000. So isn't America a "rich" country. The answer to that is Malcolm Forbes is not every single person. To be "rich" everyone must have more than \$500,000.

So the question comes down to: Can we think of an open cover of $(0,1)$ that has no finite subcover?

In the comment Santana Afton had a good example of an open cover of $(0,1)$ that has no finite subcover.

Let $0 < a < 1$ and let $U_a = (0,a)$. I claim that $\{U_a|a \in (0,1)\} = \{ (0,a)|0 < a < 1\}$ is an open cover.

Pf: If $x \in (0,1)$ then there is a $y$ so that $0 < x < y < 1$ so $x \in (0,y)= U_y$. So $x$ is "covered" by $\{U_a\}$. That is true for all $x$ so all of $(0,1)$ is covered. And as $(0,a)$ is open it is an open cover.

I claim it has no finite subset that covers $(0,1)$. If there is a finite subset $\{(0, a_n)\}$ for some finite number of $a_i$ then there is a maximum value of $A = \max (a_i)$ so $a_i \le A < 1$ for all $\{(0,a_n)\} $. So if $A < x < 1$ then $x \not \in (0, a_i)$ for any of the finite number of $a_i$. So $x$ is not covered by $\{(0, a_n)\}$.

So no finite subset of $\{(0,a)\}$ will cover $(0,1)$. So $\{(0,a)\}$ has no finite subcover.

So $(0,1)$ is not compact.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.