Proving the open disc is not compact
Prove that the open disc $D={(x,y):x^2+y^2<1}$ considered as a subspace of $mathbb{R}^2$.
I can find the following covering of the disc $B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0):ninmathbb{N}$.
$Dsubseteqbigcup_limits{i=1}^{infty}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)$.
This covering is infinite and there is no finite sub covering then $D$ is not compact.
Question:
Is this right? If not. What should I do to prove $D$ is not compact?
Thanks in advance!
real-analysis general-topology
add a comment |
Prove that the open disc $D={(x,y):x^2+y^2<1}$ considered as a subspace of $mathbb{R}^2$.
I can find the following covering of the disc $B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0):ninmathbb{N}$.
$Dsubseteqbigcup_limits{i=1}^{infty}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)$.
This covering is infinite and there is no finite sub covering then $D$ is not compact.
Question:
Is this right? If not. What should I do to prove $D$ is not compact?
Thanks in advance!
real-analysis general-topology
Your proof is correct.
– drhab
Nov 28 '18 at 16:07
Take this note to your hand. A disc is in that case not a subspace but a subset
– Fakemistake
Nov 28 '18 at 21:12
@Fakemistake It is not me that said that but the book.
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 21:31
@Fakemistake The information that $D$ is a subspace of $mathbb{R}^2$ is essential because it tells us which topology on the set $D$ is considered.
– Paul Frost
Dec 1 '18 at 21:23
add a comment |
Prove that the open disc $D={(x,y):x^2+y^2<1}$ considered as a subspace of $mathbb{R}^2$.
I can find the following covering of the disc $B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0):ninmathbb{N}$.
$Dsubseteqbigcup_limits{i=1}^{infty}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)$.
This covering is infinite and there is no finite sub covering then $D$ is not compact.
Question:
Is this right? If not. What should I do to prove $D$ is not compact?
Thanks in advance!
real-analysis general-topology
Prove that the open disc $D={(x,y):x^2+y^2<1}$ considered as a subspace of $mathbb{R}^2$.
I can find the following covering of the disc $B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0):ninmathbb{N}$.
$Dsubseteqbigcup_limits{i=1}^{infty}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)$.
This covering is infinite and there is no finite sub covering then $D$ is not compact.
Question:
Is this right? If not. What should I do to prove $D$ is not compact?
Thanks in advance!
real-analysis general-topology
real-analysis general-topology
asked Nov 28 '18 at 16:04
Pedro Gomes
1,7262720
1,7262720
Your proof is correct.
– drhab
Nov 28 '18 at 16:07
Take this note to your hand. A disc is in that case not a subspace but a subset
– Fakemistake
Nov 28 '18 at 21:12
@Fakemistake It is not me that said that but the book.
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 21:31
@Fakemistake The information that $D$ is a subspace of $mathbb{R}^2$ is essential because it tells us which topology on the set $D$ is considered.
– Paul Frost
Dec 1 '18 at 21:23
add a comment |
Your proof is correct.
– drhab
Nov 28 '18 at 16:07
Take this note to your hand. A disc is in that case not a subspace but a subset
– Fakemistake
Nov 28 '18 at 21:12
@Fakemistake It is not me that said that but the book.
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 21:31
@Fakemistake The information that $D$ is a subspace of $mathbb{R}^2$ is essential because it tells us which topology on the set $D$ is considered.
– Paul Frost
Dec 1 '18 at 21:23
Your proof is correct.
– drhab
Nov 28 '18 at 16:07
Your proof is correct.
– drhab
Nov 28 '18 at 16:07
Take this note to your hand. A disc is in that case not a subspace but a subset
– Fakemistake
Nov 28 '18 at 21:12
Take this note to your hand. A disc is in that case not a subspace but a subset
– Fakemistake
Nov 28 '18 at 21:12
@Fakemistake It is not me that said that but the book.
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 21:31
@Fakemistake It is not me that said that but the book.
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 21:31
@Fakemistake The information that $D$ is a subspace of $mathbb{R}^2$ is essential because it tells us which topology on the set $D$ is considered.
– Paul Frost
Dec 1 '18 at 21:23
@Fakemistake The information that $D$ is a subspace of $mathbb{R}^2$ is essential because it tells us which topology on the set $D$ is considered.
– Paul Frost
Dec 1 '18 at 21:23
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
You are right. But you have to show, that each collection of finitely many of your discs do not cover the set $D $.
I am going to complete the proof in the present comment for you to check if this is right.
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 16:14
If there was a finite subcover then $exists minmathbb{N}$ such that $bigcup_{i=1}^{m}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)supseteq D$ However if $bigcup_{i=1}^{m}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)=B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ If $xin B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ then $d(x,0)<1-frac{1}{m}<1$ which implies $Dsupseteq B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 16:20
Now your proof is fine!
– Fred
Nov 28 '18 at 17:19
I disagree that this proof is fine. It should be shown that $Dnotsubset B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ but you showed that $B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)subseteq D$ which is not the same.
– FWE
Nov 29 '18 at 12:23
add a comment |
In $mathbb{R}^2$, a compact set is closed and bounded...
Here, the set $D$ is not closed.
add a comment |
You should show that $$Dnotsubset B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$$
Therfore you should show that there is some $(x,y)in D$ where $(x,y)notin B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$.
For that you might just choose $(x,y)=(1-frac{1}{m},0)$.
alternatively
Use the theorem of Heine and Borel (sometimes referred to as Borel and Lebesgue) which says that in Euclidean space $mathbb{R}^n$ the compact subsets are identical to the ones that are closed and bounded.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3017320%2fproving-the-open-disc-is-not-compact%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You are right. But you have to show, that each collection of finitely many of your discs do not cover the set $D $.
I am going to complete the proof in the present comment for you to check if this is right.
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 16:14
If there was a finite subcover then $exists minmathbb{N}$ such that $bigcup_{i=1}^{m}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)supseteq D$ However if $bigcup_{i=1}^{m}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)=B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ If $xin B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ then $d(x,0)<1-frac{1}{m}<1$ which implies $Dsupseteq B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 16:20
Now your proof is fine!
– Fred
Nov 28 '18 at 17:19
I disagree that this proof is fine. It should be shown that $Dnotsubset B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ but you showed that $B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)subseteq D$ which is not the same.
– FWE
Nov 29 '18 at 12:23
add a comment |
You are right. But you have to show, that each collection of finitely many of your discs do not cover the set $D $.
I am going to complete the proof in the present comment for you to check if this is right.
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 16:14
If there was a finite subcover then $exists minmathbb{N}$ such that $bigcup_{i=1}^{m}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)supseteq D$ However if $bigcup_{i=1}^{m}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)=B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ If $xin B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ then $d(x,0)<1-frac{1}{m}<1$ which implies $Dsupseteq B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 16:20
Now your proof is fine!
– Fred
Nov 28 '18 at 17:19
I disagree that this proof is fine. It should be shown that $Dnotsubset B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ but you showed that $B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)subseteq D$ which is not the same.
– FWE
Nov 29 '18 at 12:23
add a comment |
You are right. But you have to show, that each collection of finitely many of your discs do not cover the set $D $.
You are right. But you have to show, that each collection of finitely many of your discs do not cover the set $D $.
answered Nov 28 '18 at 16:08
Fred
44.2k1845
44.2k1845
I am going to complete the proof in the present comment for you to check if this is right.
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 16:14
If there was a finite subcover then $exists minmathbb{N}$ such that $bigcup_{i=1}^{m}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)supseteq D$ However if $bigcup_{i=1}^{m}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)=B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ If $xin B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ then $d(x,0)<1-frac{1}{m}<1$ which implies $Dsupseteq B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 16:20
Now your proof is fine!
– Fred
Nov 28 '18 at 17:19
I disagree that this proof is fine. It should be shown that $Dnotsubset B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ but you showed that $B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)subseteq D$ which is not the same.
– FWE
Nov 29 '18 at 12:23
add a comment |
I am going to complete the proof in the present comment for you to check if this is right.
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 16:14
If there was a finite subcover then $exists minmathbb{N}$ such that $bigcup_{i=1}^{m}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)supseteq D$ However if $bigcup_{i=1}^{m}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)=B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ If $xin B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ then $d(x,0)<1-frac{1}{m}<1$ which implies $Dsupseteq B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 16:20
Now your proof is fine!
– Fred
Nov 28 '18 at 17:19
I disagree that this proof is fine. It should be shown that $Dnotsubset B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ but you showed that $B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)subseteq D$ which is not the same.
– FWE
Nov 29 '18 at 12:23
I am going to complete the proof in the present comment for you to check if this is right.
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 16:14
I am going to complete the proof in the present comment for you to check if this is right.
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 16:14
If there was a finite subcover then $exists minmathbb{N}$ such that $bigcup_{i=1}^{m}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)supseteq D$ However if $bigcup_{i=1}^{m}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)=B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ If $xin B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ then $d(x,0)<1-frac{1}{m}<1$ which implies $Dsupseteq B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 16:20
If there was a finite subcover then $exists minmathbb{N}$ such that $bigcup_{i=1}^{m}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)supseteq D$ However if $bigcup_{i=1}^{m}B_{1-frac{1}{n}}(0,0)=B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ If $xin B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ then $d(x,0)<1-frac{1}{m}<1$ which implies $Dsupseteq B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 16:20
Now your proof is fine!
– Fred
Nov 28 '18 at 17:19
Now your proof is fine!
– Fred
Nov 28 '18 at 17:19
I disagree that this proof is fine. It should be shown that $Dnotsubset B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ but you showed that $B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)subseteq D$ which is not the same.
– FWE
Nov 29 '18 at 12:23
I disagree that this proof is fine. It should be shown that $Dnotsubset B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$ but you showed that $B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)subseteq D$ which is not the same.
– FWE
Nov 29 '18 at 12:23
add a comment |
In $mathbb{R}^2$, a compact set is closed and bounded...
Here, the set $D$ is not closed.
add a comment |
In $mathbb{R}^2$, a compact set is closed and bounded...
Here, the set $D$ is not closed.
add a comment |
In $mathbb{R}^2$, a compact set is closed and bounded...
Here, the set $D$ is not closed.
In $mathbb{R}^2$, a compact set is closed and bounded...
Here, the set $D$ is not closed.
answered Nov 28 '18 at 16:47
Goldy
42414
42414
add a comment |
add a comment |
You should show that $$Dnotsubset B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$$
Therfore you should show that there is some $(x,y)in D$ where $(x,y)notin B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$.
For that you might just choose $(x,y)=(1-frac{1}{m},0)$.
alternatively
Use the theorem of Heine and Borel (sometimes referred to as Borel and Lebesgue) which says that in Euclidean space $mathbb{R}^n$ the compact subsets are identical to the ones that are closed and bounded.
add a comment |
You should show that $$Dnotsubset B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$$
Therfore you should show that there is some $(x,y)in D$ where $(x,y)notin B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$.
For that you might just choose $(x,y)=(1-frac{1}{m},0)$.
alternatively
Use the theorem of Heine and Borel (sometimes referred to as Borel and Lebesgue) which says that in Euclidean space $mathbb{R}^n$ the compact subsets are identical to the ones that are closed and bounded.
add a comment |
You should show that $$Dnotsubset B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$$
Therfore you should show that there is some $(x,y)in D$ where $(x,y)notin B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$.
For that you might just choose $(x,y)=(1-frac{1}{m},0)$.
alternatively
Use the theorem of Heine and Borel (sometimes referred to as Borel and Lebesgue) which says that in Euclidean space $mathbb{R}^n$ the compact subsets are identical to the ones that are closed and bounded.
You should show that $$Dnotsubset B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$$
Therfore you should show that there is some $(x,y)in D$ where $(x,y)notin B_{1-frac{1}{m}}(0,0)$.
For that you might just choose $(x,y)=(1-frac{1}{m},0)$.
alternatively
Use the theorem of Heine and Borel (sometimes referred to as Borel and Lebesgue) which says that in Euclidean space $mathbb{R}^n$ the compact subsets are identical to the ones that are closed and bounded.
edited Dec 1 '18 at 19:38
answered Nov 28 '18 at 16:42
FWE
1,039616
1,039616
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3017320%2fproving-the-open-disc-is-not-compact%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Your proof is correct.
– drhab
Nov 28 '18 at 16:07
Take this note to your hand. A disc is in that case not a subspace but a subset
– Fakemistake
Nov 28 '18 at 21:12
@Fakemistake It is not me that said that but the book.
– Pedro Gomes
Nov 28 '18 at 21:31
@Fakemistake The information that $D$ is a subspace of $mathbb{R}^2$ is essential because it tells us which topology on the set $D$ is considered.
– Paul Frost
Dec 1 '18 at 21:23