Compact Sets of Metric Spaces Which Are Also Open

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Poopsilon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Compact Metric Sets
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the existence of compact sets within metric spaces that are also open. Participants explore examples, conditions, and the implications of compactness in various types of metric spaces, including connected and disconnected spaces.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the p-adic integers \(\mathbb{Z}_p\) are examples of compact sets that are also open, noting their properties in the context of p-adic numbers.
  • Others argue that a compact subset of a metric space is generally closed, and that open compact sets can only exist in non-connected metric spaces.
  • There is confusion regarding whether open compact sets can exist in connected metric spaces, with some participants affirming that they cannot.
  • One participant proposes that the union of two disjoint compact subspaces of a metric space can serve as an example of an open compact set.
  • Another example provided is the space \([0, 1] \cup [2, 3]\), where both intervals are compact and open in the given topology.
  • A participant points out that compact subsets are closed only in Hausdorff spaces, introducing the concept of non-Hausdorff spaces where compact sets may not be closed.
  • There is a technical discussion about the completeness of compact metric spaces and the implications for limit points and Cauchy sequences.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conditions under which compact sets can be open, particularly regarding the necessity of non-connectedness. Some agree on the properties of compact sets in metric spaces, while others challenge these notions, leading to unresolved disagreements.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the definitions of compactness and connectedness, as well as the specific properties of metric versus non-metric spaces. The discussion also highlights the nuances of compactness in relation to Hausdorff conditions.

Poopsilon
Messages
288
Reaction score
1
Are there any down to Earth examples besides the empty set?

Edit: No discrete metric shenanigans either.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think [itex]\mathbb{Z}_p[/itex], the set of p-adic integers, qualifies. They are the closed unit disk in the p-adic numbers, hence closed. Every closed disk with nonzero radius in the p-adics is clopen, and [itex]\mathbb{Z}_p[/itex] is sequentially compact.

Actually, I think any disk in [itex]\mathbb{Q}_p[/itex] would work.

I'm not sure if you'd count that as "down-to-earth."
 
A compact subset of a metric space is closed. A closed open subset of a connected metric space is the whole space or the empty set. You need to look at metric spaces that are not connected.
 
I'm confused, so there are such open compact sets, but only in non-connected metric spaces?
 
Poopsilon said:
I'm confused, so there are such open compact sets, but only in non-connected metric spaces?

I think that's correct. Suppose we have a nonempty proper subset S of a metric space X with S open and compact. As deluks said, then S is closed, hence clopen. Then S and [itex]X \setminus S[/itex] are both open, disjoint, and nonempty and [itex]X = S \cup (X \setminus S)[/itex]. Therefore X is disconnected.

Incidentally, the p-adic numbers are totally disconnected.
 
What is the simplest disconnected metric space you can think of? I'd be willing to bet it works. There are very simple examples.
 
The union of two disjoint compact subspaces of a metric space will work. Metric spaces are normal, so this union will be disconnected. The simplest would be a two-point metric space if you don't accept the empty or singleton metric space, but any metric space will do. Just consider sufficiently small closed balls around two different points.
 
For example, if X is [itex][0, 1]\cup[2, 3][/itex], with the topology inherited from R, then both [0,1] and [2, 3] are compact and open in X.
 
deluks917 said:
A compact subset of a metric space is closed.

Only in Hausdorff spaces. There are non-Hausdorff spaces with compact sets which are not closed.

For example, take X an infinite set and equip it with the finite complement topology:

[tex]\mathcal{T}=\{A\subseteq X~\vert~X\setminus A~\text{is finite}\}[/tex]

then all subsets of X are compact, and so are the open subsets. But of course, not all subsets are closed.

This is an example of a noetherian space (= a space in which all open subsets are compact). They arise naturally in algebraic geometry.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I saw now that they were asking for a metric space. But I'll leave my answer here because it might be useful to some.
 
  • #10
Deluks917 wrote, in part:

"A compact subset of a metric space is closed"

Just a quick comment, to refresh my metric topology: an argument for why compact subsets X of metric spaces M are closed: as metric subspaces, compact metric spaces are complete. Now, use closed set version that a subset is closed iff (def.) it contains all its limit points. Now, assume there is a limit point m of X that is not in X. Then you can construct a Cauchy sequence in X that would converge to m, e.g., by taking balls B(m, 1/2n), but then X cannot be complete, since m is not in X.
 
  • #11
Bacle2 said:
Deluks917 wrote, in part:

"A compact subset of a metric space is closed"

Just a quick comment, to refresh my metric topology: an argument for why compact subsets X of metric spaces M are closed: as metric subspaces, compact metric spaces are complete. Now, use closed set version that a subset is closed iff (def.) it contains all its limit points. Now, assume there is a limit point m of X that is not in X. Then you can construct a Cauchy sequence in X that would converge to m, e.g., by taking balls B(m, 1/2n), but then X cannot be complete, since m is not in X.

Indeed. Do notice that you have used here that limits of sequences are unique! The argument does not hold for pseudo-metric spaces.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
621
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K