How can you prove that a Cartesian product of compact sets is compact?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Cartesian product of compact sets E and F, where E, F ⊆ ℝd, is also compact when viewed as a subset of ℝ2d. Both E and F being compact implies they are closed and bounded. The boundedness of E × F is preserved in ℝ2d, and any convergent sequence in E × F converges to a point in the product space. Additionally, the continuity of projection maps onto E and F can be utilized to demonstrate compactness through the concept of open covers and finite sub-covers.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of compact sets in topology
  • Familiarity with Euclidean spaces, specifically ℝd
  • Knowledge of continuity and convergence in metric spaces
  • Basic concepts of open covers and finite sub-covers
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of compactness in topological spaces
  • Learn about projection maps in product spaces
  • Explore the concept of open covers and their applications in topology
  • Investigate the implications of continuity in higher-dimensional spaces
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of topology, and anyone interested in the properties of compact sets and their applications in higher-dimensional Euclidean spaces.

AxiomOfChoice
Messages
531
Reaction score
1
I'm talking about [itex]E \times F[/itex], where [itex]E,F \subseteq \mathbb{R}^d[/itex]. If you know [itex]E[/itex] and [itex]F[/itex] are compact, you know they're both closed and bounded. But how do you define "boundedness" - or "closed", for that matter - for a Cartesian product of subsets of Euclidean [itex]d[/itex]-space?

The only idea I've had is viewing [itex]E\times F[/itex] as a subset of [itex]\mathbb{R}^{2d}[/itex]. If this is a legitimate thing to do, boundedness is certainly preserved. Also, since [itex]E[/itex] and [itex]F[/itex] were both closed, any sequence of points in [itex]E\times F[/itex] that converges necessarily converges to a point [itex](x,y) = (x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_d,y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_d)[/itex]. Does this look right?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
AxiomOfChoice said:
I'm talking about [itex]E \times F[/itex], where [itex]E,F \subseteq \mathbb{R}^d[/itex]. If you know [itex]E[/itex] and [itex]F[/itex] are compact, you know they're both closed and bounded. But how do you define "boundedness" - or "closed", for that matter - for a Cartesian product of subsets of Euclidean [itex]d[/itex]-space?

The only idea I've had is viewing [itex]E\times F[/itex] as a subset of [itex]\mathbb{R}^{2d}[/itex]. If this is a legitimate thing to do, boundedness is certainly preserved. Also, since [itex]E[/itex] and [itex]F[/itex] were both closed, any sequence of points in [itex]E\times F[/itex] that converges necessarily converges to a point [itex](x,y) = (x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_d,y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_d)[/itex]. Does this look right?

This is avoiding your question a little but if you think of compact to mean that every open cover has a finite sub-cover then one should be able to argue this from inverse images of the projection maps onto the two factors E and F.

But I think you can use the continuity of the projections to do it the close and bounded way as well.
 
You are quite right. If [itex]E, F \subset \mathbb{R}^d[/itex], then [itex]E \times F \subset \mathbb{R}^{2d}[/itex] .
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K