Why the space X=(0,1) is (not sequentially) compact?

  • I
  • Thread starter santiagorf
  • Start date
  • #1
My problem is that the space [itex] X= (0,1)[/itex] is not sequentially compact and compact at the same time.

It is not sequentially compact:
If we define the sequence [itex](\frac{1}{n}) [/itex] we can show that it is not sequentially compact as the sequence converges to 0, but [itex] 0 \notin X[/itex].

It is compact:
On the other hand, for X to be compact we need
1) bounded: The space X is bounded as any ball with center [itex] x \in X [/itex] and radius 2 will X.
2) closed: Is closed as its complement is the empty set (which is open)

Thus, the set [itex] X [/itex] is compact, which is a contradiction as X is not sequentially compact.

Where is my mistake when I show that X is compact?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
22,095
3,285
Closed and bounded does not imply compact in general.
 
  • #3
489
189
You are using the Heine-Borel theorem which only holds for subsets of Euclidean space.
In that case the interval isn't closed either.

Edit; Ninja'd
Edit 2; Subsets of Euclidean space as far as I know, there might be other special cases.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
I see, this works for subsets of [itex] R^n [/itex]
 
  • #5
lavinia
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,236
623
For a subset of a metric space, closed should mean that every Cauchy sequence converges to a point in the space. But a Cauchy sequence in the open unit interval that converges to 0 or 1 will not coverage to a point in the open interval. So the open unit interval is not closed in ##R^1##. If every Cauchy sequence in a metric space converges then the metric space is said to be complete.

Here is a metric space that is closed and bounded but not compact. On a closed disk in the plane, let the distance between two points be the Euclidean distance if the two points lie on the same radial line through the center of the disk; and the sum if their distances to the center of the disk if they lie on different radial lines.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes suremarc
  • #7
489
189
A follow-up question that's related to my research, does a similar theorem exist for a Riemannian submanifold of a Pseudo-Riemannian manifold?
 

Related Threads on Why the space X=(0,1) is (not sequentially) compact?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
29K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Top