For given the usual topology $\tau$ on $\Bbb{R}$, define the compact complement topology on $\mathbb{R}$ to be $$\tau'=\{A\subseteq \Bbb{R}:A^C\text{ is compact in }(\Bbb{R},\tau)\} \cup \{\emptyset \}.$$

Hausdorff : let $G_1$ and $G_2$ be disjoint open sets containing $x$ and $y$ for $x \ne y$ then $$G_1 \cap G_2 = \varnothing $$ $$G_1^C \cup G_2^C = \Bbb R$$ but $\Bbb R$ is not compact. So space is not Hausdorff.

Connectedness: Will the above also work for connectedness? Showing it's connected?

And are there any easy proof on compactness? I already saw this link but can't understand.


Yes, it works for connectedness. You have essentially shown that any two non-empty open subsets (so those sets with compact complement) always intersect. A space where this holds is called hyperconnected (see Wikipedia) and such spaces are connected, by the definition of connectedness.

Simple fact: as compact subsets of the standard topology are closed in that topology, all open subsets of the compact complement topology are standard open too.

Compactness is not too hard: suppose $\{U_i: i \in I\}$ is an open cover of $\mathbb{R}$ by non-empty open sets. Take any $U_{i_0}$ in this cover. Then $U_{i_0}^c$ is compact (in the usual topology) and the other sets of the cover are an (also standard) open cover of the complement so there is a finite subset $F \subseteq I\setminus \{i_0\}$ that covers $U_{i_0}^c$ and then $\{U_i: i \in F \cup \{i_0\}\}$ is a finite subcover of our original cover. Hence the space is compact.

  • $\begingroup$ Doesn't that mean just two open sets are enough for cover . If I could I could have given two upvotes one for compactness and other for its simplicity. $\endgroup$ – Pranita Gupta Feb 1 '19 at 17:49
  • $\begingroup$ @PranitaGupta no we can have a finite subcover. Try to find a cover of size 3 without a smaller subcover. $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Feb 1 '19 at 17:52
  • $\begingroup$ I Don't understand . Why cover of size three? If we take two open sets that cover X then we can take same subcover and cover ,and that will be finite . $\endgroup$ – Pranita Gupta Feb 1 '19 at 17:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @PranitaGupta you ask whether two subsets are enough for all subcovers and I claim this is not the case. Sure, there are two element covers, but also irreducible three element open covers etc. My argument just needs to show finiteness which I did. $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Feb 1 '19 at 17:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @PranitaGupta it has several meanings. An irreducible cover is one where we cannot leave one out and still have a cover. $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Feb 1 '19 at 18:05

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.