- #1
Chain
- 35
- 3
So the definition I have seen is:
Given a topological space <S,F> it is compact if for any cover (union of open sets which is equal to S) there exists a finite subcover.
By the definition of a topological space both S and the empty set must belong to the family of subsets F.
Wouldn't <S, empty set> be a finite subcover for S? In which case S is compact.
By this sort of logic any open subset X of a topological space S is also compact in the relative topology since X will belong to the family of subsets in the relative topology so <X, empty set> would be a finite subcover for X.
I'm assuming the resolution to this is that the finite subcover cannot include the space itself but I just want to double check I haven't horribly misunderstood something.
Given a topological space <S,F> it is compact if for any cover (union of open sets which is equal to S) there exists a finite subcover.
By the definition of a topological space both S and the empty set must belong to the family of subsets F.
Wouldn't <S, empty set> be a finite subcover for S? In which case S is compact.
By this sort of logic any open subset X of a topological space S is also compact in the relative topology since X will belong to the family of subsets in the relative topology so <X, empty set> would be a finite subcover for X.
I'm assuming the resolution to this is that the finite subcover cannot include the space itself but I just want to double check I haven't horribly misunderstood something.