Closed subsets of compact sets are compact (original proof)












0












$begingroup$



Baby Rudin Theorem 2.35: Suppose $F subset K subset X$ where $X$ a metric space. Suppose $F$ closed relative to $K$ and $K$ compact. Then $F$ is compact.




This is my original attempt to prove this theorem.



Here, Rudin's definitions are :




  • $p$ is a limit point of a subset of a metric space iff every neighborhood(defined in terms of open balls) of $p$ contains a point in the subset which is not equal to $p$


  • Subsets of metric spaces are closed iff it contains all its limit points.


  • A point $p$ is an interior point of a subset of a metric space if there exists a neighborhood $N(p)$ of $p$ such that $N(p)$ is contained within the subset.


  • Subsets of metric spaces are open iff all its points are interior points.


  • Subsets of metric spaces are compact iff every open cover has a finite subcover.



Proof: Suppose $K$ compact and $F subset K$ closed but not compact. Then there is a cover of $F$ which has no finite subcover say $S$. Let $G=bigcup^{n}_{i=1}G_i$ be an open cover of $K$ which is finite. Define $M_i=G_icap F^c $ where $F^c$ complement of $F$. Then each $M_i$ is open since $G_i$ and $F^c$ are open. Now for any $x in K$, either $x in F$ or $x in F^c$. If $xin F$, then $x in S_alpha $ where $S_alpha$ is an element of $S$. If $x in F^c$ then $x in G_icap F^c $ for some $i in mathbb{N}$ since $K subset G$. So if $M=bigcup^{n}_{i=1} M_i$, then $M cup S$ is a cover of $K$. But then clearly, this cover has no finite subcover hence $K$ is not compact. $square$






general-topology proof-verification compactness







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    If $S$ is "a cover of $F$ which has no finite subcover", then the elements of $S$ are subsets of $X$. Later on, you write $xin S$ which does not make any sense because $x$ is an element of $X$, not a subset of it.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:17






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    As a more high-level comment, using an indirect proof here is a definite detour. You can prove that $F$ is compact directly, by letting someone give you an open cover of $F$ and showing how to find a finite subcover of it, using the compactness of $K$.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:19










  • $begingroup$
    I see. I believe Rudin's proof is something along that line but I always try to come up with an alternative proof and this was the first proof that came naturally to me. Regarding $x$ not being an element of $S$, is the new edit enough to fix the problem?
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:25












  • $begingroup$
    That is a very good point if $M={X}setminus F$, then $Mcup S$ is also a cover of $K$
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:46
















0












$begingroup$



Baby Rudin Theorem 2.35: Suppose $F subset K subset X$ where $X$ a metric space. Suppose $F$ closed relative to $K$ and $K$ compact. Then $F$ is compact.




This is my original attempt to prove this theorem.



Here, Rudin's definitions are :




  • $p$ is a limit point of a subset of a metric space iff every neighborhood(defined in terms of open balls) of $p$ contains a point in the subset which is not equal to $p$


  • Subsets of metric spaces are closed iff it contains all its limit points.


  • A point $p$ is an interior point of a subset of a metric space if there exists a neighborhood $N(p)$ of $p$ such that $N(p)$ is contained within the subset.


  • Subsets of metric spaces are open iff all its points are interior points.


  • Subsets of metric spaces are compact iff every open cover has a finite subcover.



Proof: Suppose $K$ compact and $F subset K$ closed but not compact. Then there is a cover of $F$ which has no finite subcover say $S$. Let $G=bigcup^{n}_{i=1}G_i$ be an open cover of $K$ which is finite. Define $M_i=G_icap F^c $ where $F^c$ complement of $F$. Then each $M_i$ is open since $G_i$ and $F^c$ are open. Now for any $x in K$, either $x in F$ or $x in F^c$. If $xin F$, then $x in S_alpha $ where $S_alpha$ is an element of $S$. If $x in F^c$ then $x in G_icap F^c $ for some $i in mathbb{N}$ since $K subset G$. So if $M=bigcup^{n}_{i=1} M_i$, then $M cup S$ is a cover of $K$. But then clearly, this cover has no finite subcover hence $K$ is not compact. $square$






general-topology proof-verification compactness







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    If $S$ is "a cover of $F$ which has no finite subcover", then the elements of $S$ are subsets of $X$. Later on, you write $xin S$ which does not make any sense because $x$ is an element of $X$, not a subset of it.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:17






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    As a more high-level comment, using an indirect proof here is a definite detour. You can prove that $F$ is compact directly, by letting someone give you an open cover of $F$ and showing how to find a finite subcover of it, using the compactness of $K$.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:19










  • $begingroup$
    I see. I believe Rudin's proof is something along that line but I always try to come up with an alternative proof and this was the first proof that came naturally to me. Regarding $x$ not being an element of $S$, is the new edit enough to fix the problem?
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:25












  • $begingroup$
    That is a very good point if $M={X}setminus F$, then $Mcup S$ is also a cover of $K$
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:46














0












0








0





$begingroup$



Baby Rudin Theorem 2.35: Suppose $F subset K subset X$ where $X$ a metric space. Suppose $F$ closed relative to $K$ and $K$ compact. Then $F$ is compact.




This is my original attempt to prove this theorem.



Here, Rudin's definitions are :




  • $p$ is a limit point of a subset of a metric space iff every neighborhood(defined in terms of open balls) of $p$ contains a point in the subset which is not equal to $p$


  • Subsets of metric spaces are closed iff it contains all its limit points.


  • A point $p$ is an interior point of a subset of a metric space if there exists a neighborhood $N(p)$ of $p$ such that $N(p)$ is contained within the subset.


  • Subsets of metric spaces are open iff all its points are interior points.


  • Subsets of metric spaces are compact iff every open cover has a finite subcover.



Proof: Suppose $K$ compact and $F subset K$ closed but not compact. Then there is a cover of $F$ which has no finite subcover say $S$. Let $G=bigcup^{n}_{i=1}G_i$ be an open cover of $K$ which is finite. Define $M_i=G_icap F^c $ where $F^c$ complement of $F$. Then each $M_i$ is open since $G_i$ and $F^c$ are open. Now for any $x in K$, either $x in F$ or $x in F^c$. If $xin F$, then $x in S_alpha $ where $S_alpha$ is an element of $S$. If $x in F^c$ then $x in G_icap F^c $ for some $i in mathbb{N}$ since $K subset G$. So if $M=bigcup^{n}_{i=1} M_i$, then $M cup S$ is a cover of $K$. But then clearly, this cover has no finite subcover hence $K$ is not compact. $square$






general-topology proof-verification compactness







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$





Baby Rudin Theorem 2.35: Suppose $F subset K subset X$ where $X$ a metric space. Suppose $F$ closed relative to $K$ and $K$ compact. Then $F$ is compact.




This is my original attempt to prove this theorem.



Here, Rudin's definitions are :




  • $p$ is a limit point of a subset of a metric space iff every neighborhood(defined in terms of open balls) of $p$ contains a point in the subset which is not equal to $p$


  • Subsets of metric spaces are closed iff it contains all its limit points.


  • A point $p$ is an interior point of a subset of a metric space if there exists a neighborhood $N(p)$ of $p$ such that $N(p)$ is contained within the subset.


  • Subsets of metric spaces are open iff all its points are interior points.


  • Subsets of metric spaces are compact iff every open cover has a finite subcover.



Proof: Suppose $K$ compact and $F subset K$ closed but not compact. Then there is a cover of $F$ which has no finite subcover say $S$. Let $G=bigcup^{n}_{i=1}G_i$ be an open cover of $K$ which is finite. Define $M_i=G_icap F^c $ where $F^c$ complement of $F$. Then each $M_i$ is open since $G_i$ and $F^c$ are open. Now for any $x in K$, either $x in F$ or $x in F^c$. If $xin F$, then $x in S_alpha $ where $S_alpha$ is an element of $S$. If $x in F^c$ then $x in G_icap F^c $ for some $i in mathbb{N}$ since $K subset G$. So if $M=bigcup^{n}_{i=1} M_i$, then $M cup S$ is a cover of $K$. But then clearly, this cover has no finite subcover hence $K$ is not compact. $square$






general-topology proof-verification compactness




general-topology proof-verification compactness






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 25 '18 at 16:23







Sei Sakata

















asked Dec 25 '18 at 16:02









Sei SakataSei Sakata

10810




10810












  • $begingroup$
    If $S$ is "a cover of $F$ which has no finite subcover", then the elements of $S$ are subsets of $X$. Later on, you write $xin S$ which does not make any sense because $x$ is an element of $X$, not a subset of it.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:17






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    As a more high-level comment, using an indirect proof here is a definite detour. You can prove that $F$ is compact directly, by letting someone give you an open cover of $F$ and showing how to find a finite subcover of it, using the compactness of $K$.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:19










  • $begingroup$
    I see. I believe Rudin's proof is something along that line but I always try to come up with an alternative proof and this was the first proof that came naturally to me. Regarding $x$ not being an element of $S$, is the new edit enough to fix the problem?
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:25












  • $begingroup$
    That is a very good point if $M={X}setminus F$, then $Mcup S$ is also a cover of $K$
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:46


















  • $begingroup$
    If $S$ is "a cover of $F$ which has no finite subcover", then the elements of $S$ are subsets of $X$. Later on, you write $xin S$ which does not make any sense because $x$ is an element of $X$, not a subset of it.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:17






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    As a more high-level comment, using an indirect proof here is a definite detour. You can prove that $F$ is compact directly, by letting someone give you an open cover of $F$ and showing how to find a finite subcover of it, using the compactness of $K$.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:19










  • $begingroup$
    I see. I believe Rudin's proof is something along that line but I always try to come up with an alternative proof and this was the first proof that came naturally to me. Regarding $x$ not being an element of $S$, is the new edit enough to fix the problem?
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:25












  • $begingroup$
    That is a very good point if $M={X}setminus F$, then $Mcup S$ is also a cover of $K$
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:46
















$begingroup$
If $S$ is "a cover of $F$ which has no finite subcover", then the elements of $S$ are subsets of $X$. Later on, you write $xin S$ which does not make any sense because $x$ is an element of $X$, not a subset of it.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Dec 25 '18 at 16:17




$begingroup$
If $S$ is "a cover of $F$ which has no finite subcover", then the elements of $S$ are subsets of $X$. Later on, you write $xin S$ which does not make any sense because $x$ is an element of $X$, not a subset of it.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Dec 25 '18 at 16:17




2




2




$begingroup$
As a more high-level comment, using an indirect proof here is a definite detour. You can prove that $F$ is compact directly, by letting someone give you an open cover of $F$ and showing how to find a finite subcover of it, using the compactness of $K$.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Dec 25 '18 at 16:19




$begingroup$
As a more high-level comment, using an indirect proof here is a definite detour. You can prove that $F$ is compact directly, by letting someone give you an open cover of $F$ and showing how to find a finite subcover of it, using the compactness of $K$.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Dec 25 '18 at 16:19












$begingroup$
I see. I believe Rudin's proof is something along that line but I always try to come up with an alternative proof and this was the first proof that came naturally to me. Regarding $x$ not being an element of $S$, is the new edit enough to fix the problem?
$endgroup$
– Sei Sakata
Dec 25 '18 at 16:25






$begingroup$
I see. I believe Rudin's proof is something along that line but I always try to come up with an alternative proof and this was the first proof that came naturally to me. Regarding $x$ not being an element of $S$, is the new edit enough to fix the problem?
$endgroup$
– Sei Sakata
Dec 25 '18 at 16:25














$begingroup$
That is a very good point if $M={X}setminus F$, then $Mcup S$ is also a cover of $K$
$endgroup$
– Sei Sakata
Dec 25 '18 at 16:46




$begingroup$
That is a very good point if $M={X}setminus F$, then $Mcup S$ is also a cover of $K$
$endgroup$
– Sei Sakata
Dec 25 '18 at 16:46










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

You're phrasing your proof as:




Suppose $K$ is compact, bla bla bla bla hence $K$ is not compact.




This is the structure of a proof by contradiction, but your underlying idea is not really a proof by contradiction. In particular you're never using the assumption that $K$ is compact anywhere in the "bla bla bla bla" part. So what you really have is an argument that




Assume $F$ is not compact. Then $K$ is not compact.




This is the contrapositive of the implication you wanted to show. Since every implication is logically equivalent to its contrapositive, this gives rise to a formally valid proof -- but pretending it is a proof-by-contradiction by tacking on a never-used assumption that $K$ is compact just makes it confusing and hard to follow. The reader keeps waiting for a place where the assumption is used, but it never comes.



Another point where your proof is needlessly complex is when you say "Let $G$ be an open cover of $K$ which is finite". There's no reason for you to parameterize your proof over an arbitrary open cover when instead you can just decide on a particular finite open cover of $K$ to use, namely setting $G={X}$. Doing so would allow you to avoid a level of indices in the entire rest of the proof.



Actually I suspect these two points are connected: You may have thought that you need to assume that $K$ is compact before you can assert that it has a finite open cover. But that's not what compactness means -- everything has a finite open cover, namely ${X}$. Compactness means that the set has finite open covers with special properties (namely being subcovers of an infinite open cover you have thought up somehow), but you don't actually need those special properties in the argument you present.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I believe the reason I defied $G$ to be finite was that I was trying to lay out the definitions before tackling the problem and I failed to realise that it was a redundant condition. But I think in this case I'm not sure if I have to use the property that $K$ is compact. Because what I essentially wanted to show was that if $F$ is not compact, then $K$ cannot be compact either which contradicts the assumption that $K$ was compact.
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:58










  • $begingroup$
    This is a fantastic answer. It dives right in to the student's work and details all the misplaced assumptions and confused arguments, and explains how to fix them. It's a lot more work to write this up than to just give a corrected version of the argument. Nicely done.
    $endgroup$
    – JonathanZ
    Dec 25 '18 at 18:09










  • $begingroup$
    This link math.stackexchange.com/questions/262828/… addresses the confusion with surrounding the difference between proof by contradiction and contrapositive with some very good answers.
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 20:02



















1












$begingroup$

Your proof is hard to read, has deficiencies (see comment of Henning) and is needlessly complicated.



Here a way that is not contrapositive.




Let $mathcal G$ be a collection of open sets that cover $F$.



Then $mathcal Gcup{F^{complement}}$ is a collection of open sets that covers $K$.



Since $K$ is compact there is a finite subcollection ${G_1,dots,G_n}cup{F^{complement}}$.



From $Fsubseteq K=left(bigcup_{i=1}^nG_iright)cup F^{complement}$ it follows that $Fsubseteqbigcup_{i=1}^nG_i$ so apparantly ${G_1,dots,G_n}$ is a finite subcollection of $mathcal G$ that covers $F$.



Proved is now that every collection of open sets that cover $F$ has a finite subcollection that covers $F$.



That comes to the same as: $F$ is compact.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This is verbatim the proof given by Rudin(although more readable) and I DO indeed like its simplicity but I believe its always useful to come up with an original proof without first having to look at the "perfect example".
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:33










  • $begingroup$
    That can never harm, and it is indeed useful on its own to try things out yourself. So I share in that belief :-).
    $endgroup$
    – drhab
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:38



















0












$begingroup$

Refined proof:



Suppose $F$ not compact. Then there is a cover of $F$ which has no finite subcover say $S$. Define $M={X}setminus F$. Then $M cup S$ is a cover of $K$. But then clearly, this cover has no finite subcover hence $K$ is not compact. $square$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    this is fine -- however i would argue little is gained in re-writing this. its very similar to rudin's proof in terms of using many of the same ideas/relationships. but writing a proof is still an exercise in itself i suppose!
    $endgroup$
    – H_1317
    Dec 27 '18 at 1:44












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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3052228%2fclosed-subsets-of-compact-sets-are-compact-original-proof%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









2












$begingroup$

You're phrasing your proof as:




Suppose $K$ is compact, bla bla bla bla hence $K$ is not compact.




This is the structure of a proof by contradiction, but your underlying idea is not really a proof by contradiction. In particular you're never using the assumption that $K$ is compact anywhere in the "bla bla bla bla" part. So what you really have is an argument that




Assume $F$ is not compact. Then $K$ is not compact.




This is the contrapositive of the implication you wanted to show. Since every implication is logically equivalent to its contrapositive, this gives rise to a formally valid proof -- but pretending it is a proof-by-contradiction by tacking on a never-used assumption that $K$ is compact just makes it confusing and hard to follow. The reader keeps waiting for a place where the assumption is used, but it never comes.



Another point where your proof is needlessly complex is when you say "Let $G$ be an open cover of $K$ which is finite". There's no reason for you to parameterize your proof over an arbitrary open cover when instead you can just decide on a particular finite open cover of $K$ to use, namely setting $G={X}$. Doing so would allow you to avoid a level of indices in the entire rest of the proof.



Actually I suspect these two points are connected: You may have thought that you need to assume that $K$ is compact before you can assert that it has a finite open cover. But that's not what compactness means -- everything has a finite open cover, namely ${X}$. Compactness means that the set has finite open covers with special properties (namely being subcovers of an infinite open cover you have thought up somehow), but you don't actually need those special properties in the argument you present.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I believe the reason I defied $G$ to be finite was that I was trying to lay out the definitions before tackling the problem and I failed to realise that it was a redundant condition. But I think in this case I'm not sure if I have to use the property that $K$ is compact. Because what I essentially wanted to show was that if $F$ is not compact, then $K$ cannot be compact either which contradicts the assumption that $K$ was compact.
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:58










  • $begingroup$
    This is a fantastic answer. It dives right in to the student's work and details all the misplaced assumptions and confused arguments, and explains how to fix them. It's a lot more work to write this up than to just give a corrected version of the argument. Nicely done.
    $endgroup$
    – JonathanZ
    Dec 25 '18 at 18:09










  • $begingroup$
    This link math.stackexchange.com/questions/262828/… addresses the confusion with surrounding the difference between proof by contradiction and contrapositive with some very good answers.
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 20:02
















2












$begingroup$

You're phrasing your proof as:




Suppose $K$ is compact, bla bla bla bla hence $K$ is not compact.




This is the structure of a proof by contradiction, but your underlying idea is not really a proof by contradiction. In particular you're never using the assumption that $K$ is compact anywhere in the "bla bla bla bla" part. So what you really have is an argument that




Assume $F$ is not compact. Then $K$ is not compact.




This is the contrapositive of the implication you wanted to show. Since every implication is logically equivalent to its contrapositive, this gives rise to a formally valid proof -- but pretending it is a proof-by-contradiction by tacking on a never-used assumption that $K$ is compact just makes it confusing and hard to follow. The reader keeps waiting for a place where the assumption is used, but it never comes.



Another point where your proof is needlessly complex is when you say "Let $G$ be an open cover of $K$ which is finite". There's no reason for you to parameterize your proof over an arbitrary open cover when instead you can just decide on a particular finite open cover of $K$ to use, namely setting $G={X}$. Doing so would allow you to avoid a level of indices in the entire rest of the proof.



Actually I suspect these two points are connected: You may have thought that you need to assume that $K$ is compact before you can assert that it has a finite open cover. But that's not what compactness means -- everything has a finite open cover, namely ${X}$. Compactness means that the set has finite open covers with special properties (namely being subcovers of an infinite open cover you have thought up somehow), but you don't actually need those special properties in the argument you present.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I believe the reason I defied $G$ to be finite was that I was trying to lay out the definitions before tackling the problem and I failed to realise that it was a redundant condition. But I think in this case I'm not sure if I have to use the property that $K$ is compact. Because what I essentially wanted to show was that if $F$ is not compact, then $K$ cannot be compact either which contradicts the assumption that $K$ was compact.
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:58










  • $begingroup$
    This is a fantastic answer. It dives right in to the student's work and details all the misplaced assumptions and confused arguments, and explains how to fix them. It's a lot more work to write this up than to just give a corrected version of the argument. Nicely done.
    $endgroup$
    – JonathanZ
    Dec 25 '18 at 18:09










  • $begingroup$
    This link math.stackexchange.com/questions/262828/… addresses the confusion with surrounding the difference between proof by contradiction and contrapositive with some very good answers.
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 20:02














2












2








2





$begingroup$

You're phrasing your proof as:




Suppose $K$ is compact, bla bla bla bla hence $K$ is not compact.




This is the structure of a proof by contradiction, but your underlying idea is not really a proof by contradiction. In particular you're never using the assumption that $K$ is compact anywhere in the "bla bla bla bla" part. So what you really have is an argument that




Assume $F$ is not compact. Then $K$ is not compact.




This is the contrapositive of the implication you wanted to show. Since every implication is logically equivalent to its contrapositive, this gives rise to a formally valid proof -- but pretending it is a proof-by-contradiction by tacking on a never-used assumption that $K$ is compact just makes it confusing and hard to follow. The reader keeps waiting for a place where the assumption is used, but it never comes.



Another point where your proof is needlessly complex is when you say "Let $G$ be an open cover of $K$ which is finite". There's no reason for you to parameterize your proof over an arbitrary open cover when instead you can just decide on a particular finite open cover of $K$ to use, namely setting $G={X}$. Doing so would allow you to avoid a level of indices in the entire rest of the proof.



Actually I suspect these two points are connected: You may have thought that you need to assume that $K$ is compact before you can assert that it has a finite open cover. But that's not what compactness means -- everything has a finite open cover, namely ${X}$. Compactness means that the set has finite open covers with special properties (namely being subcovers of an infinite open cover you have thought up somehow), but you don't actually need those special properties in the argument you present.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



You're phrasing your proof as:




Suppose $K$ is compact, bla bla bla bla hence $K$ is not compact.




This is the structure of a proof by contradiction, but your underlying idea is not really a proof by contradiction. In particular you're never using the assumption that $K$ is compact anywhere in the "bla bla bla bla" part. So what you really have is an argument that




Assume $F$ is not compact. Then $K$ is not compact.




This is the contrapositive of the implication you wanted to show. Since every implication is logically equivalent to its contrapositive, this gives rise to a formally valid proof -- but pretending it is a proof-by-contradiction by tacking on a never-used assumption that $K$ is compact just makes it confusing and hard to follow. The reader keeps waiting for a place where the assumption is used, but it never comes.



Another point where your proof is needlessly complex is when you say "Let $G$ be an open cover of $K$ which is finite". There's no reason for you to parameterize your proof over an arbitrary open cover when instead you can just decide on a particular finite open cover of $K$ to use, namely setting $G={X}$. Doing so would allow you to avoid a level of indices in the entire rest of the proof.



Actually I suspect these two points are connected: You may have thought that you need to assume that $K$ is compact before you can assert that it has a finite open cover. But that's not what compactness means -- everything has a finite open cover, namely ${X}$. Compactness means that the set has finite open covers with special properties (namely being subcovers of an infinite open cover you have thought up somehow), but you don't actually need those special properties in the argument you present.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 25 '18 at 18:34

























answered Dec 25 '18 at 16:45









Henning MakholmHenning Makholm

243k17310554




243k17310554












  • $begingroup$
    I believe the reason I defied $G$ to be finite was that I was trying to lay out the definitions before tackling the problem and I failed to realise that it was a redundant condition. But I think in this case I'm not sure if I have to use the property that $K$ is compact. Because what I essentially wanted to show was that if $F$ is not compact, then $K$ cannot be compact either which contradicts the assumption that $K$ was compact.
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:58










  • $begingroup$
    This is a fantastic answer. It dives right in to the student's work and details all the misplaced assumptions and confused arguments, and explains how to fix them. It's a lot more work to write this up than to just give a corrected version of the argument. Nicely done.
    $endgroup$
    – JonathanZ
    Dec 25 '18 at 18:09










  • $begingroup$
    This link math.stackexchange.com/questions/262828/… addresses the confusion with surrounding the difference between proof by contradiction and contrapositive with some very good answers.
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 20:02


















  • $begingroup$
    I believe the reason I defied $G$ to be finite was that I was trying to lay out the definitions before tackling the problem and I failed to realise that it was a redundant condition. But I think in this case I'm not sure if I have to use the property that $K$ is compact. Because what I essentially wanted to show was that if $F$ is not compact, then $K$ cannot be compact either which contradicts the assumption that $K$ was compact.
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:58










  • $begingroup$
    This is a fantastic answer. It dives right in to the student's work and details all the misplaced assumptions and confused arguments, and explains how to fix them. It's a lot more work to write this up than to just give a corrected version of the argument. Nicely done.
    $endgroup$
    – JonathanZ
    Dec 25 '18 at 18:09










  • $begingroup$
    This link math.stackexchange.com/questions/262828/… addresses the confusion with surrounding the difference between proof by contradiction and contrapositive with some very good answers.
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 20:02
















$begingroup$
I believe the reason I defied $G$ to be finite was that I was trying to lay out the definitions before tackling the problem and I failed to realise that it was a redundant condition. But I think in this case I'm not sure if I have to use the property that $K$ is compact. Because what I essentially wanted to show was that if $F$ is not compact, then $K$ cannot be compact either which contradicts the assumption that $K$ was compact.
$endgroup$
– Sei Sakata
Dec 25 '18 at 16:58




$begingroup$
I believe the reason I defied $G$ to be finite was that I was trying to lay out the definitions before tackling the problem and I failed to realise that it was a redundant condition. But I think in this case I'm not sure if I have to use the property that $K$ is compact. Because what I essentially wanted to show was that if $F$ is not compact, then $K$ cannot be compact either which contradicts the assumption that $K$ was compact.
$endgroup$
– Sei Sakata
Dec 25 '18 at 16:58












$begingroup$
This is a fantastic answer. It dives right in to the student's work and details all the misplaced assumptions and confused arguments, and explains how to fix them. It's a lot more work to write this up than to just give a corrected version of the argument. Nicely done.
$endgroup$
– JonathanZ
Dec 25 '18 at 18:09




$begingroup$
This is a fantastic answer. It dives right in to the student's work and details all the misplaced assumptions and confused arguments, and explains how to fix them. It's a lot more work to write this up than to just give a corrected version of the argument. Nicely done.
$endgroup$
– JonathanZ
Dec 25 '18 at 18:09












$begingroup$
This link math.stackexchange.com/questions/262828/… addresses the confusion with surrounding the difference between proof by contradiction and contrapositive with some very good answers.
$endgroup$
– Sei Sakata
Dec 25 '18 at 20:02




$begingroup$
This link math.stackexchange.com/questions/262828/… addresses the confusion with surrounding the difference between proof by contradiction and contrapositive with some very good answers.
$endgroup$
– Sei Sakata
Dec 25 '18 at 20:02











1












$begingroup$

Your proof is hard to read, has deficiencies (see comment of Henning) and is needlessly complicated.



Here a way that is not contrapositive.




Let $mathcal G$ be a collection of open sets that cover $F$.



Then $mathcal Gcup{F^{complement}}$ is a collection of open sets that covers $K$.



Since $K$ is compact there is a finite subcollection ${G_1,dots,G_n}cup{F^{complement}}$.



From $Fsubseteq K=left(bigcup_{i=1}^nG_iright)cup F^{complement}$ it follows that $Fsubseteqbigcup_{i=1}^nG_i$ so apparantly ${G_1,dots,G_n}$ is a finite subcollection of $mathcal G$ that covers $F$.



Proved is now that every collection of open sets that cover $F$ has a finite subcollection that covers $F$.



That comes to the same as: $F$ is compact.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This is verbatim the proof given by Rudin(although more readable) and I DO indeed like its simplicity but I believe its always useful to come up with an original proof without first having to look at the "perfect example".
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:33










  • $begingroup$
    That can never harm, and it is indeed useful on its own to try things out yourself. So I share in that belief :-).
    $endgroup$
    – drhab
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:38
















1












$begingroup$

Your proof is hard to read, has deficiencies (see comment of Henning) and is needlessly complicated.



Here a way that is not contrapositive.




Let $mathcal G$ be a collection of open sets that cover $F$.



Then $mathcal Gcup{F^{complement}}$ is a collection of open sets that covers $K$.



Since $K$ is compact there is a finite subcollection ${G_1,dots,G_n}cup{F^{complement}}$.



From $Fsubseteq K=left(bigcup_{i=1}^nG_iright)cup F^{complement}$ it follows that $Fsubseteqbigcup_{i=1}^nG_i$ so apparantly ${G_1,dots,G_n}$ is a finite subcollection of $mathcal G$ that covers $F$.



Proved is now that every collection of open sets that cover $F$ has a finite subcollection that covers $F$.



That comes to the same as: $F$ is compact.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This is verbatim the proof given by Rudin(although more readable) and I DO indeed like its simplicity but I believe its always useful to come up with an original proof without first having to look at the "perfect example".
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:33










  • $begingroup$
    That can never harm, and it is indeed useful on its own to try things out yourself. So I share in that belief :-).
    $endgroup$
    – drhab
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:38














1












1








1





$begingroup$

Your proof is hard to read, has deficiencies (see comment of Henning) and is needlessly complicated.



Here a way that is not contrapositive.




Let $mathcal G$ be a collection of open sets that cover $F$.



Then $mathcal Gcup{F^{complement}}$ is a collection of open sets that covers $K$.



Since $K$ is compact there is a finite subcollection ${G_1,dots,G_n}cup{F^{complement}}$.



From $Fsubseteq K=left(bigcup_{i=1}^nG_iright)cup F^{complement}$ it follows that $Fsubseteqbigcup_{i=1}^nG_i$ so apparantly ${G_1,dots,G_n}$ is a finite subcollection of $mathcal G$ that covers $F$.



Proved is now that every collection of open sets that cover $F$ has a finite subcollection that covers $F$.



That comes to the same as: $F$ is compact.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Your proof is hard to read, has deficiencies (see comment of Henning) and is needlessly complicated.



Here a way that is not contrapositive.




Let $mathcal G$ be a collection of open sets that cover $F$.



Then $mathcal Gcup{F^{complement}}$ is a collection of open sets that covers $K$.



Since $K$ is compact there is a finite subcollection ${G_1,dots,G_n}cup{F^{complement}}$.



From $Fsubseteq K=left(bigcup_{i=1}^nG_iright)cup F^{complement}$ it follows that $Fsubseteqbigcup_{i=1}^nG_i$ so apparantly ${G_1,dots,G_n}$ is a finite subcollection of $mathcal G$ that covers $F$.



Proved is now that every collection of open sets that cover $F$ has a finite subcollection that covers $F$.



That comes to the same as: $F$ is compact.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 25 '18 at 16:25









drhabdrhab

104k545136




104k545136












  • $begingroup$
    This is verbatim the proof given by Rudin(although more readable) and I DO indeed like its simplicity but I believe its always useful to come up with an original proof without first having to look at the "perfect example".
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:33










  • $begingroup$
    That can never harm, and it is indeed useful on its own to try things out yourself. So I share in that belief :-).
    $endgroup$
    – drhab
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:38


















  • $begingroup$
    This is verbatim the proof given by Rudin(although more readable) and I DO indeed like its simplicity but I believe its always useful to come up with an original proof without first having to look at the "perfect example".
    $endgroup$
    – Sei Sakata
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:33










  • $begingroup$
    That can never harm, and it is indeed useful on its own to try things out yourself. So I share in that belief :-).
    $endgroup$
    – drhab
    Dec 25 '18 at 16:38
















$begingroup$
This is verbatim the proof given by Rudin(although more readable) and I DO indeed like its simplicity but I believe its always useful to come up with an original proof without first having to look at the "perfect example".
$endgroup$
– Sei Sakata
Dec 25 '18 at 16:33




$begingroup$
This is verbatim the proof given by Rudin(although more readable) and I DO indeed like its simplicity but I believe its always useful to come up with an original proof without first having to look at the "perfect example".
$endgroup$
– Sei Sakata
Dec 25 '18 at 16:33












$begingroup$
That can never harm, and it is indeed useful on its own to try things out yourself. So I share in that belief :-).
$endgroup$
– drhab
Dec 25 '18 at 16:38




$begingroup$
That can never harm, and it is indeed useful on its own to try things out yourself. So I share in that belief :-).
$endgroup$
– drhab
Dec 25 '18 at 16:38











0












$begingroup$

Refined proof:



Suppose $F$ not compact. Then there is a cover of $F$ which has no finite subcover say $S$. Define $M={X}setminus F$. Then $M cup S$ is a cover of $K$. But then clearly, this cover has no finite subcover hence $K$ is not compact. $square$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    this is fine -- however i would argue little is gained in re-writing this. its very similar to rudin's proof in terms of using many of the same ideas/relationships. but writing a proof is still an exercise in itself i suppose!
    $endgroup$
    – H_1317
    Dec 27 '18 at 1:44
















0












$begingroup$

Refined proof:



Suppose $F$ not compact. Then there is a cover of $F$ which has no finite subcover say $S$. Define $M={X}setminus F$. Then $M cup S$ is a cover of $K$. But then clearly, this cover has no finite subcover hence $K$ is not compact. $square$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    this is fine -- however i would argue little is gained in re-writing this. its very similar to rudin's proof in terms of using many of the same ideas/relationships. but writing a proof is still an exercise in itself i suppose!
    $endgroup$
    – H_1317
    Dec 27 '18 at 1:44














0












0








0





$begingroup$

Refined proof:



Suppose $F$ not compact. Then there is a cover of $F$ which has no finite subcover say $S$. Define $M={X}setminus F$. Then $M cup S$ is a cover of $K$. But then clearly, this cover has no finite subcover hence $K$ is not compact. $square$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Refined proof:



Suppose $F$ not compact. Then there is a cover of $F$ which has no finite subcover say $S$. Define $M={X}setminus F$. Then $M cup S$ is a cover of $K$. But then clearly, this cover has no finite subcover hence $K$ is not compact. $square$







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 25 '18 at 22:44

























answered Dec 25 '18 at 17:08









Sei SakataSei Sakata

10810




10810












  • $begingroup$
    this is fine -- however i would argue little is gained in re-writing this. its very similar to rudin's proof in terms of using many of the same ideas/relationships. but writing a proof is still an exercise in itself i suppose!
    $endgroup$
    – H_1317
    Dec 27 '18 at 1:44


















  • $begingroup$
    this is fine -- however i would argue little is gained in re-writing this. its very similar to rudin's proof in terms of using many of the same ideas/relationships. but writing a proof is still an exercise in itself i suppose!
    $endgroup$
    – H_1317
    Dec 27 '18 at 1:44
















$begingroup$
this is fine -- however i would argue little is gained in re-writing this. its very similar to rudin's proof in terms of using many of the same ideas/relationships. but writing a proof is still an exercise in itself i suppose!
$endgroup$
– H_1317
Dec 27 '18 at 1:44




$begingroup$
this is fine -- however i would argue little is gained in re-writing this. its very similar to rudin's proof in terms of using many of the same ideas/relationships. but writing a proof is still an exercise in itself i suppose!
$endgroup$
– H_1317
Dec 27 '18 at 1:44


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3052228%2fclosed-subsets-of-compact-sets-are-compact-original-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







-

Popular posts from this blog

Bundesstraße 106

Image
Dieser Artikel beschreibt die Bundesstraße 106 in Deutschland. Zur gleichnamigen Straße in Österreich siehe Mölltal Straße. Vorlage:Infobox hochrangige Straße/Wartung/DE-B Bundesstraße 106 in Deutschland Karte Basisdaten Betreiber: Deutschland  Bundesrepublik Deutschland Straßenbeginn: Wismar ( 53° 54′  N , 11° 24′  O 53.900536 11.396875 ) Straßenende: Schwerin ( 53° 36′  N , 11° 24′  O 53.592785 11.404892 ) Gesamtlänge: 40,7 km Bundesland: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Ausbauzustand: zweistreifig [1] Bundesstraße 106 in Schwerin (Umgehungsstraße) Straßenverlauf Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Landkreis Nordwestmecklenburg Ortsumgehung Wismar Wallensteingraben über   Dorf Mecklenburg Wallensteingraben Groß Stieten Bad Kleinen OT Niendorf Bahnstrecke Lübeck–Bad Kleinen Zickhusen Lübstorf Klein Trebbow OT Kirch Stück ...
Read more

Verónica Boquete

Image
Verónica Boquete im Trikot der Nationalmannschaft (2013) Personalia Name Verónica Boquete Giadans Geburtstag 9. April 1987 Geburtsort Santiago de Compostela, Spanien Größe 159 cm Position Mittelfeld / Sturm Juniorinnen Jahre Station 2001–2005 Xuventú Aguiño Frauen Jahre Station Spiele (Tore) 1 2005–2008 Prainsa Zaragoza 83 (40) 2008–2010 Espanyol Barcelona 53 (30) 2010 Buffalo Flash 9 0 (9) 2010 Chicago Red Stars 3 0 (1) 2010–2011 Espanyol Barcelona 26 (41) 2011 Philadelphia Independence 13 0 (5) 2011 Energija Woronesch 5 0 (1) 2012–2014 Tyresö FF 39 (14) 2014 Portland Thorns FC 15 0 (4) 2014–2015 1. FFC Frankfurt 23 0 (7) 2015–2016 FC Bayern München 9 0 (0) 2016–2018 Paris Saint-Germain 31 0 (8) 2018 Peking BG Phoenix 2019– Utah Royals FC 0 0 (0) Nationalmannschaft Jahre Auswahl ...
Read more

Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten

Image
Die Lage des Ida-Boy-Ed-Gartens, rot markiert Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten, Blick von der Wakenitzmauer durch das Tor in der Stadtmauer Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten ist eine Straße der Lübecker Altstadt. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Lage 2 Geschichte 3 Literatur 4 Weblinks Lage | Der etwa 90 Meter lange Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten befindet sich an der nördlichen Spitze der Altstadtinsel, vor dem Burgtor. Die in einem Bogen durch eine Grünanlage hangaufwärts führende Straße verbindet die Wakenitzmauer mit der Burgtorbrücke. Geschichte | Der heutige Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten wurde ursprünglich als Verlängerung der Wakenitzmauer angelegt. 1903 wurde in den erhaltenen Teil der mittelalterlichen Stadtmauer, an dem die Wakenitzmauer bei der Einmündung der Kaiserstraße begann, ein Tor mit einem großen Bogen für die Durchführung der Straße und zwei kleineren seitlichen Öffnungen für Fußgänger gebrochen, um für die neu errichteten Wohnhäuser in diesem Bereich ...
Read more