Why is the open interval [0,1) not compact?

  • Thread starter Thread starter margaret37
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Compact Sets
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the compactness of the set S = [0,1) in the context of real analysis. Participants are tasked with demonstrating that this set is not compact by providing a closed cover that lacks a finite subcover.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • One participant attempts to understand the concept of an open cover and questions why the interval (-1, 2) does not serve as a valid cover. Others suggest considering the cover formed by the intervals (-1, 1-1/n) for positive integers n, prompting a discussion on its properties as a cover and the implications for finite subcovers.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, with some clarifying their understanding of compactness and the nature of covers. There is a recognition of the need for a specific type of cover to illustrate the lack of compactness, and a productive line of reasoning is emerging regarding the intervals used in the cover.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing discussion about the definitions of open and closed sets, as well as the implications of boundedness on compactness. Participants are also exploring the nuances of finite versus infinite covers in relation to the set S.

margaret37
Messages
12
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Show that S = [0,1) is not compact by giving an closed cover of S that has no finite subcover.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I know that S is not compact because it is [STRIKE]an open[/STRIKE] not a closed set even though it is bounded.

But I am completely lost on the open cover part.

I understand an open cover is a union of open sets where S is a subset of the union...

But I appear to missing something very fundamental. If I picked (-1, 2) for the cover that is an open set and S is a subset of it's "trivial" union. Why doesn't that work?

<edit> OK, I understand it needs to work for every cover, that's why,
but is (-1,2) a cover? <end edit>

If instead I had [0,1], that is closed and bounded so it is compact.
What sort of sets would go into a cover for it?

Does anyone know some extremely elementary references for this?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
(-1,2) is a cover. And it has a finite subcover. No problems there. Really big hint. What about (-1,1-1/n) for all n. Can you tell me why i) it is a cover and ii) why it has no finite subcover? And S ISN'T open.
 
Thanks, I believe I understand.

[STRIKE]I said it backwards ... S is closed and bounded on the Reals so it is compact.[/STRIKE]

The union of the open intervals U = (-1, 1-1/n) for all positive n, covers S.

That is, S is a subset of U.

But if one takes a finite subset of u, then the finite union F is the interval (-1, 1-1/f) where f is the last interval in F.

Since 1/f < 1 for every positive integer f S is not a subset of F.

Does that sound good?
 
Last edited:
S=[0,1) isn't compact either. You just proved it! It's bounded but neither open nor closed. It's 'closed' at one end and 'open' at the other. You understand the point perfectly. You could work on phrasing it a little better. It sounds like you mean U to be the set of intervals (-1,1-1/n). Then S is contained in the union of the U, not S is contained in U. So it's a cover. And a finite subcover would a set {(-1,1-1/n1),(-1,1-1/n2),...(-1,1-1/nk)}. Defining f=max(nk), then the union of that set is just (-1,1-1/f) and just as you say, 1/f<1.
 
Last edited:
Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
561
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K