Questions on locally compact space

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jtceleron
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Compact Space
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of locally compact spaces in topology, specifically addressing two questions related to the properties of certain topological spaces. The first question examines whether a topology defined on a set X, based on a subset A, results in a locally compact space. The second question investigates the local compactness of open sets in a specific topology on the interval X = [-1, 1].

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Post 1 raises two questions about local compactness, expressing uncertainty about the implications of the topology defined on X and the nature of open sets in the specified topology.
  • Post 2 provides an example of the rationals as a subspace of the reals, arguing they are not locally compact due to the lack of convergent subsequences in certain sequences, and questions the definition of local compactness in relation to open sets.
  • Post 3 reiterates the points made in Post 2, emphasizing the relationship between compactness and convergent subsequences, and suggests that if every point in an open set has a compact subset, then the open set is locally compact.
  • Post 4 critiques the approach in Post 1, suggesting that the topology defined may resemble a discrete topology when considering the rationals as a subset, and questions the appropriateness of imposing a metric topology on it.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the topology defined in the questions, with some arguing that certain properties of spaces like the rationals indicate a lack of local compactness, while others question the definitions and assumptions being used. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the local compactness of the spaces in question.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the definitions of local compactness being used, as well as the assumptions about the topologies defined in the questions. The relationship between open and closed sets in the specified topologies is also not fully explored.

jtceleron
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Q1. if A is a subset of X, choose the topology on X as {∅,U|for every U in X that A is a subset of U}. Then is this topology a locally compact space?
Q2. X=[-1,1], the topology on X is {∅, X, [-1, b), (a,b), (a,1] | for all a<0<b}. How to prove every open set (a,b) in X is NOT locally compact?

for Q1, there is so few restrictions on X, I don't know whether it's a locally compact space or not, however, I also cannot find a counterexample.
for Q2, when defined open set of a specific topology, does is mean that we have also defined closed set? If so, then for every point a in X, a closed set including a is a compact subset, then it is locally compact, a contradiction.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Usually, you find a condition satisfied by your space that is not satisfied by locally-compact spaces.

Example : Rationals as a subspace of Reals are not locally compact; in metric spaces,

compactness is equivalent to every sequence having a convergent subsequence.

Then, e.g. the sequences given by:

1) a1=1, a1=1.4 , a3=1.41 ,... (first n terms of the decimal expansion of √2 )

2) a1=1 , a2=2,..., an =n ,...

are sequences without convergent subsequences. In non-metric spaces it is a little harder.

Still, re #2 : I have never seen a description of local compactness in terms of open sets,

but in terms of points. What definition are you using?
 
Bacle2 said:
Usually, you find a condition satisfied by your space that is not satisfied by locally-compact spaces.

Example : Rationals as a subspace of Reals are not locally compact; in metric spaces,

compactness is equivalent to every sequence having a convergent subsequence.

Then, e.g. the sequences given by:

1) a1=1, a1=1.4 , a3=1.41 ,... (first n terms of the decimal expansion of √2 )

2) a1=1 , a2=2,..., an =n ,...

are sequences without convergent subsequences. In non-metric spaces it is a little harder.

Still, re #2 : I have never seen a description of local compactness in terms of open sets,

but in terms of points. What definition are you using?

I mean, in #2, that if every point in the open set (a,b) has a compact subset, then the open set is locally compact.
 
in #1. the topology on X has already defined, which mean if choosing rationals as the subset A, then U are all the subsets including A, it is like a discrete topology, so imposing a metric topology on it seems not right.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
496
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K