Simple question about compactness

  • B
  • Thread starter BWV
  • Start date
In summary: Wikipedia article too seriously. Try to find the definition of open cover on Wikipedia. You won't get it. Because the concept of open cover is not defined on Wikipedia.In summary, [0,1] is compact because any infinite collection of open subsets that covers the set must also include the boundary points, thus there exists a finite collection of these sets that also covers the set. However, (0,1) is not compact because it can be covered by an infinite number of subsets without a finite subcover. The set of integers in R is not compact because it is closed and unbounded, meaning that there exists an infinite open cover without a finite subcover. The concept of boundary points is related to the Heine
  • #1
BWV
1,455
1,769
Is this statement accurate? (Not trying a proof, just trying to understand the concept)

[0,1] is compact because any infinite collection of open subsets that covers the set has to include the boundry points therefore there is a finite collection of these sets that also covers

(0,1) is not compact because to cover the set you need an infinite number of subsets to obtain the limit condition on the open boundary - with a finite collection of open subsets you can always arbitrarily find a point outside of the union of your finite collection of open subsets and closer to a boundary
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
[0,1] is compact, but your argument does not show that there must be such a finite collection.
BWV said:
(0,1) is not compact because to cover the set you need an infinite number of subsets
No, there are finite covers of it. (0,1) itself is a trivial example.

You have to show that there are infinite covers that don't have a finite subcover, e.g. by giving an example.
 
  • #3
Thanks, the definition is that every infinite cover contains a finite subcover so:

(0,1) is not compact because there exists infinite covers that relay on the limit condition on the open boundary - with a finite collection of open subsets you can always arbitrarily find a point outside of the union of your finite collection of open subsets and closer to a boundary

My thinking was that with the closed interval you did not have these infinite covers that relied on limits, not a proof in itself but maybe could be used in one?
 
  • #4
BWV said:
My thinking was that with the closed interval you did not have these infinite covers that relied on limits, not a proof in itself but maybe could be used in one?
Only if you can make a mathematical statement out of it. "does not rely on" is far too vague to be used anywhere. You can cover ##[0,1]## by infinite many sets which don't allow a finite selection, e.g. ##\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \,(\frac{1}{n},1-\frac{1}{n}) \cup \{0\} \cup \{1\}##.
 
  • #5
fresh_42 said:
Only if you can make a mathematical statement out of it. "does not rely on" is far too vague to be used anywhere. You can cover ##[0,1]## by infinite many sets which don't allow a finite selection, e.g. ##\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \,(\frac{1}{n},1-\frac{1}{n}) \cup \{0\} \cup \{1\}##.

Ok, but if [0,1] is compact doesn’t that mean any infinite cover allows a finite selection?
 
  • #6
BWV said:
Ok, but if [0,1] is compact doesn’t that mean any infinite cover allows a finite selection?
Yes, it does. The truth is hidden behind what a cover is. It is requested to be open sets, which wasn't the case in my example. Thus it is usually called an open cover and an open finite subcover. Finiteness alone isn't the point here.
 
  • #7
Thanks,

Right, so it has to be covered by open sets, so the issue is that to cover a closed set with an group of open sets there have to be some sets that contain the boundary. A proof that [0,1] is compact would consist of demonstrating that any infinite collection of open sets that covers the interval contains a finite cover.

So
##\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \,(\frac{1}{n} -1/2,1-\frac{1}{n}+1/2) ##

Is an infinite cover of [0,1] which allows
n in {2,3} as a finite subcover

This would also cover (0,1) but that’s OK because compact means that all infinite covers allow a finite subcover and per above you can cover an open set with collections that require limits at the boundariesCorrect?
 
  • #8
BWV said:
Correct?

You are developing the correct intuition, but your focus on boundaries could be misleading.

As a subset of the real numbers, is the set ##\mathbb{Z}## consisting of the integers compact?
 
  • #9
Before I googled it, I would have thought that the set of integers in R was an open set - I don’t get how the concept of boundary applies to Z. The beginning analysis book I am reading has limited the discussion to finite sunsets of R
 
  • #10
BWV said:
Before I googled it, I would have thought that the set of integers in R was an open set - I don’t get how the concept of boundary applies to Z. The beginning analysis book I am reading has limited the discussion to finite sunsets of R
When in doubt, look at the definition.

"A subset
Inline1.gif
of a topological space
Inline2.gif
is compact if for every open cover of
Inline3.gif
there exists a finite subcover of
Inline4.gif
"

Nothing about boundaries in there. So, can you think of an infinite open cover without a finite open subcover?
 

Attachments

  • Inline1.gif
    Inline1.gif
    290 bytes · Views: 470
  • Inline2.gif
    Inline2.gif
    296 bytes · Views: 489
  • Inline3.gif
    Inline3.gif
    290 bytes · Views: 455
  • Inline4.gif
    Inline4.gif
    290 bytes · Views: 465
Last edited:
  • #11
But is not every compact space bounded (Heine–Borel theorem)?
Googling, it looks like the set of integers in R is closed, but unbounded therefore not compact?

you can't have a finite number of open sets covering the infinite set of integers, correct?
 
  • #12
BWV said:
you can't have a finite number of open sets covering the infinite set of integers, correct?
Sure you can. The set of all real numbers is an open set.

[But it may not be a subcover of the infinite cover that I asked you to think of]
 
  • #13
Can I ask where your intuition about boundary points comes from? Does the definition of open covering say something about boundary points, or are you maybe using a certain theorem...?
 
  • #14
Well its something I am trying to understand - what intuition I have is the result of trying to read a book on introductory analysis last night.

the Wikipedia entry on the Heine-Borel theorem states:

For a subset S of Euclidean space Rn, the following two statements are equivalent:

  • S is closed and bounded
  • S is compact, that is, every open cover of S has a finite subcover. This is the defining property of compact sets, called the Heine–Borel property.
 
  • #15
BWV said:
Well its something I am trying to understand - what intuition I have is the result of trying to read a book on introductory analysis last night.

the Wikipedia entry on the Heine-Borel theorem states:

For a subset S of Euclidean space Rn, the following two statements are equivalent:

  • S is closed and bounded
  • S is compact, that is, every open cover of S has a finite subcover. This is the defining property of compact sets, called the Heine–Borel property.

Yes, that's indeed where the intuition should come from. What book are you reading on analysis?
 
  • #16
41p-0AKJ7lL._SX314_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 41p-0AKJ7lL._SX314_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
    41p-0AKJ7lL._SX314_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
    17.5 KB · Views: 475
  • #17
BWV said:
So
##\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \,(\frac{1}{n} -1/2,1-\frac{1}{n}+1/2) ##

Is an infinite cover of [0,1] which allows
n in {2,3} as a finite subcover
Okay, you checked a single example of an infinite cover. But you have to check all infinite covers to make sure they all have a finite subcover.
 
  • #18
mfb said:
Okay, you checked a single example of an infinite cover. But you have to check all infinite covers to make sure they all have a finite subcover.

Well, one at a time. Will post the rest of them over the next few days
 
  • Like
Likes mathwonk, mfb and member 587159
  • #19
that is a great post.
 
  • #20
The main skill to learn in a theoretical math class is to be very precise and disciplined with your definitions and proofs. So trying to get an informal intuition is the wrong thing to do till after you have a very clear understanding of the precise definitions and proofs. First, you need to learn to use the definitions, proofs, and theorems.
 
  • Like
Likes BWV
  • #21
FactChecker said:
The main skill to learn in a theoretical math class is to be very precise and disciplined with your definitions and proofs. So trying to get an informal intuition is the wrong thing to do till after you have a very clear understanding of the precise definitions and proofs. First, you need to learn to use the definitions, proofs, and theorems.

I don't know if I agree with this. Intuition is often very useful to memorize definitions, and I think it is useful to have some intuition before defining things formally (E.g. limit of a sequence, understanding what's going on makes you understand why the definition looks that way, and why the quantifiers are not in another order). But I agree that relying on intuition can be very misleading, especially, since this post is about analysis, in general metric spaces that look nothing alike the Euclidean space.

As an easy example, intuition could lead to the conjecture that the closure of open balls are closed balls, but this is false (if I remember correctly the discrete space gives a counterexample), while the intuition in the Euclidean space might tell you that this is true.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
  • #22
Math_QED said:
I don't know if I agree with this. Intuition is often very useful to memorize definitions, and I think it is useful to have some intuition before defining things formally (E.g. limit of a sequence, understanding what's going on makes you understand why the definition looks that way, and why the quantifiers are not in another order). But I agree that relying on intuition can be very misleading, especially, since this post is about analysis, in general metric spaces that look nothing alike the Euclidean space.

As an easy example, intuition could lead to the conjecture that the closure of open balls are closed balls, but this is false (if I remember correctly the discrete space gives a counterexample), while the intuition in the Euclidean space might tell you that this is true.
Ok. I'll buy that.
 
  • #23
I am sort of in-between both approaches. I used to be somewhat -fanatical about learning from the bottom-up, but I now think that there are too-many variables involved in the learning process to have a fixed strategy and I do bottom-up, top-down, sideways and any other combination that seems to work. EDIT: It comes down to input; just expose yourself to the material in as many forms as possible and take it from there, adjust given what you understand. Just expose yourself and tweak. EDIT: I just don't think one can really understand, model they way in which the brain/mind will tie things together. So , to me, repeated exposure is the best approach, let your subconscious guide you there.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
  • #24
Maybe you can improve your intuition by proving that a subset S of R is compact if and only if every continuous function f:S-->R is bounded. The definition of continuity plus the open cover version of compactness is useful for going one direction, i.e. for proving this boundedness property is implied by compactness. The other direction is easier to prove using the closed and bounded version.

I.e. try proving: heine borel implies all continuous functions are bounded implies closed and bounded.

Then the tricky part is proving all closed and bounded subsets of R have the heine borel property. The usual proof chooses a bounded closed interval [a,b] I containing the set S and, given an open cover of S, looks at the set of all t such that the subset S intersect [a,t] can be covered by a finite sub cover. Then look at the "least upper bound" of such t, and prove it equals b.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
BWV said:
Is this statement accurate? (Not trying a proof, just trying to understand the concept)

[0,1] is compact because any infinite collection of open subsets that covers the set has to include the boundry points therefore there is a finite collection of these sets that also covers

(0,1) is not compact because to cover the set you need an infinite number of subsets to obtain the limit condition on the open boundary - with a finite collection of open subsets you can always arbitrarily find a point outside of the union of your finite collection of open subsets and closer to a boundary
I don't know if you are interested in this perspective, for metric spaces, a space is compact ( to compare/contrast with other spaces such as (0,1) or [0,1] or any other type of subset) if every sequence has a convergent subsequence. A clear example of when this does not hold is for the Integers as a subset of the Real line. EDIT: If it interests you, you can try to prove some sort of equivalence of proofs using sequences with proofs using open covers. Still, it seems like a good idea to use open sets alone because the definition with open sets is a universal one; more general than the one with sequences.
 
Last edited:

1. What is compactness?

Compactness refers to the property of a set or object that allows it to fit within a specific space. In mathematics, compactness is often used to describe a set that is closed and bounded, meaning that it contains all of its limit points and can be contained within a finite region. In physics, compactness can refer to the density or size of an object, such as a star or planet.

2. How is compactness measured?

In mathematics, compactness can be measured using the Hausdorff dimension, which takes into account the fractal-like structure of a set. In physics, compactness can be measured by the object's mass, volume, or density. For example, a planet with a high mass and small radius would be considered more compact than a planet with the same mass but a larger radius.

3. What are the benefits of compactness in science?

Compactness is a desirable property in many scientific fields, as it allows for efficient use of space and resources. In mathematics, compact sets have well-defined and predictable properties, making them easier to study and analyze. In physics, compact objects such as stars and planets have high gravitational forces and can support life or provide valuable research opportunities.

4. How does compactness relate to complexity?

In general, compactness and complexity are inversely related. A set or object with high compactness is usually considered simpler or more organized, while a set or object with low compactness is often seen as more complex or chaotic. This relationship can be seen in various scientific fields, from mathematics to biology.

5. Can compactness change over time?

In most cases, compactness is a fixed property of a set or object. However, there are some situations in which compactness can change over time. For example, a planet may become more compact as it loses mass due to processes such as erosion or collisions. In mathematics, compactness can also be affected by transformations or deformations of a set.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
781
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus
Replies
3
Views
995
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • General Math
2
Replies
66
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
970
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top