Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A misunderstanding of compact sets

  1. Oct 26, 2014 #1
    I am trying to understand the definition of compact sets (as given by Rudin) and am having a hard time with one issue. If a finite collection of open sets "covers" a set, then the set is said to be compact. The set of all reals is not compact. But we have for example:

    C1 = (-∞, 0)
    C2 = (0, +∞)
    C3 = (-1, 1)

    ℝ ⊆ C1 ∪ C2 ∪ C3

    The first thing I can think of as a problem is that the endpoints of two of the sets are infinities. But when I read the definition of an open set, that doesn't seem to pose a problem. What am I missing?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 26, 2014 #2
  4. Oct 26, 2014 #3

    Stephen Tashi

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    That isn't the definition of a compact set.

    (Each open set covers itself and so is covered by a finite collection of open sets. We don't want a definition of "compact" that makes each open set a compact set.)
     
  5. Oct 26, 2014 #4

    lurflurf

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    The definition does not say a set is compact if it has a finite open cover. The definition says a set is compact if every open cover has a finite subcover. In you example indeed R has the finite open cover
    C1 = (-∞, 0)
    C2 = (0, +∞)
    C3 = (-1, 1)

    However R has other open covers such as
    Ck=(k-10^-10,k+10^-10)
    k an integer

    This open cover has no finite subcover as if we remove (k-10^-10,k+10^-10) we have lost real numbers.
     
  6. Oct 26, 2014 #5
    The way I like to phrase the definition is: given an infinite open cover, you can finite it.
     
  7. Oct 27, 2014 #6
    Okay, that clarifies it, thanks guys! Sorry, I'm not very experienced in these types of more rigorous approaches to math yet and sometimes fail to see/remember certain parts of definitions which turn out to be crucial.
     
  8. Oct 28, 2014 #7

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I don't believe I have ever seen "finite" used as a verb before!
     
  9. Oct 28, 2014 #8

    Stephen Tashi

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Those parts often involve the quantifiers "for each" and "there exists", the order in which they appear being important (for example, "for each ....there exists...such that ." versus "there exists .... such that for each....").

    I find "for each" a clearer phrase than the ambiguous "for all", even though the symbol [itex] \forall [/itex] is named "forall" in LaTex.
     
  10. Oct 28, 2014 #9

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think the quantifier should be called "for all", but when I type out a statement in plain English, I will sometimes write "for each". Example:

    For each positive real number x, there's a unique positive real number y such that ##y^2=x##.​

    If we write "for all" here, English grammar says that we should change "number" to "numbers", and then the entire sentence gets weird.

    But sometimes "for all" sounds better.

    For all positive real numbers x, x has a square root. For all real numbers x, we have ##x^2>0##.​

    "For each" is also very nice in definitions.

    For each positive integer n, we define n! by n!=n(n-1).​
     
  11. Oct 29, 2014 #10

    Stephen Tashi

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The ambiguity of "for all" that I don't like is illustrated by the contrast between

    "For all real numbers x, there exists a number y such that y > x"

    versus

    "For all real numbers x, there exists a number y such that x + y = x"
     
  12. Oct 29, 2014 #11
    Are you afraid that the second example might be misconstrued to mean the same thing as, "There exists a number y such that, for all real numbers x, x+y=x," or do you think the second example is actually intended to mean the same thing as what I have written?

    Or to put it another way, is it possible that the ambiguity that you are experiencing is the result of not being careful with the order of the quantifiers as opposed to the meaning of "for all"?
     
  13. Oct 29, 2014 #12

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't understand. Why would it matter if the property satisfied by the dummy variable y is y>x or x+y=x?
     
  14. Oct 29, 2014 #13

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    On second thought, I'm not sure I think that "for each" is ever really better. I think I just let myself get confused by some plain English. When a sentence starts with "for all x", then the statement that follows is a true statement about the set represented by the variable x, regardless of what set that is. Since a variable can only represent one set at a time, there's no doubt that the rest of the sentence should be talking about x as if it's only one set (because it is...we're just making a statement that's true regardless of what set that is). For example, "for all positive real numbers x, x has a square root" is perfectly fine, even though the word "all" usually requires us to use the plural form, as in "all positive real numbers have square roots".
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: A misunderstanding of compact sets
  1. Compact sets are closed (Replies: 13)

Loading...