Two definitions of locally compact

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Fredrik
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Compact Definitions
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of proposition A.6.2.(1), which establishes the equivalence of two definitions of "locally compact" in Hausdorff spaces. The user initially struggled with understanding why the set F is a subset of U_1. After analysis, they concluded that since V_2 is open in the topology of K_x, there exists an open set V_2' such that V_2 equals K_x intersected with V_2'. This leads to the conclusion that K_x minus V_2' is indeed a subset of U_1, confirming the relationship between these sets.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of topology, specifically Hausdorff spaces
  • Familiarity with the concepts of locally compact spaces
  • Knowledge of set operations and intersections in topology
  • Ability to follow mathematical proofs and logical reasoning
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Hausdorff spaces in topology
  • Explore the concept of locally compact spaces and their implications
  • Learn about the role of open sets in topological proofs
  • Investigate the relationship between limit points and open sets in topology
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of topology, and anyone interested in understanding the nuances of locally compact spaces and their properties in Hausdorff contexts.

Fredrik
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
10,876
Reaction score
423
I'm trying to understand the proof of (ii)[itex]\Rightarrow[/itex](i) of proposition A.6.2.(1) here. The theorem says that the given definition of "locally compact" is equivalent to a simpler one when the space is Hausdorff. I found the proof quite hard to follow. After a few hours of frustration I'm down to one last detail. Why is [itex]F\subset U_1[/itex]? It seems to me that F could contain limit points of [itex]U_1[/itex] that aren't in [itex]U_1[/itex].

Edit: I figured it out. The set [itex]V_2[/itex] is open in the topology of [itex]K_x[/itex], so there's an open set [itex]V_2'[/itex] such that [itex]V_2=K_x\cap V_2'[/itex]. This implies that

[tex]F=K_x-V_2=K_x-(K_x\cap V_2')=K_x-V_2'.[/tex]

We also have [itex]K_x-U_1\subset V_2\subset V_2'[/itex], and this implies that

[tex]K_x-V_2'\subset K_x-(K_x-U_1)=K_x\cap U_1\subset U_1.[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks for posting the answer.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K