Is $ A = left{ frac{1}{n} mid n in mathbb{N} right} $ as a subspace of $(0, +infty)$ closed?











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












Is $ A = left{ frac{1}{n} ,middle|, n in mathbb{N} right} $ as a subspace of $( 0, +infty) $ closed? Also is it compact? Can I use the definition that a set is compact if it is closed and bounded subset of $mathbb{R}$ in this case because I'm looking at a subspace of $mathbb{R}$?
I would say that it is closed because its complement in $(0, +infty)$ is open. Then it would alse be compact because it is bounded.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    I'm the langle rangle fairy, here to let you know that $langle, rangle$ plays nicer with TeX than $<, >$ does :)
    – Patrick Stevens
    Nov 18 at 15:53








  • 2




    What does $langle 0, +infty rangle$ denote? Is it $[0,+infty)$ or $(0,+infty)$?
    – Jimmy R.
    Nov 18 at 15:55










  • it's $(0, +infty)$
    – user15269
    Nov 18 at 15:57















up vote
3
down vote

favorite












Is $ A = left{ frac{1}{n} ,middle|, n in mathbb{N} right} $ as a subspace of $( 0, +infty) $ closed? Also is it compact? Can I use the definition that a set is compact if it is closed and bounded subset of $mathbb{R}$ in this case because I'm looking at a subspace of $mathbb{R}$?
I would say that it is closed because its complement in $(0, +infty)$ is open. Then it would alse be compact because it is bounded.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    I'm the langle rangle fairy, here to let you know that $langle, rangle$ plays nicer with TeX than $<, >$ does :)
    – Patrick Stevens
    Nov 18 at 15:53








  • 2




    What does $langle 0, +infty rangle$ denote? Is it $[0,+infty)$ or $(0,+infty)$?
    – Jimmy R.
    Nov 18 at 15:55










  • it's $(0, +infty)$
    – user15269
    Nov 18 at 15:57













up vote
3
down vote

favorite









up vote
3
down vote

favorite











Is $ A = left{ frac{1}{n} ,middle|, n in mathbb{N} right} $ as a subspace of $( 0, +infty) $ closed? Also is it compact? Can I use the definition that a set is compact if it is closed and bounded subset of $mathbb{R}$ in this case because I'm looking at a subspace of $mathbb{R}$?
I would say that it is closed because its complement in $(0, +infty)$ is open. Then it would alse be compact because it is bounded.










share|cite|improve this question















Is $ A = left{ frac{1}{n} ,middle|, n in mathbb{N} right} $ as a subspace of $( 0, +infty) $ closed? Also is it compact? Can I use the definition that a set is compact if it is closed and bounded subset of $mathbb{R}$ in this case because I'm looking at a subspace of $mathbb{R}$?
I would say that it is closed because its complement in $(0, +infty)$ is open. Then it would alse be compact because it is bounded.







general-topology






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 18 at 15:59









Jimmy R.

33k42157




33k42157










asked Nov 18 at 15:39









user15269

1608




1608








  • 1




    I'm the langle rangle fairy, here to let you know that $langle, rangle$ plays nicer with TeX than $<, >$ does :)
    – Patrick Stevens
    Nov 18 at 15:53








  • 2




    What does $langle 0, +infty rangle$ denote? Is it $[0,+infty)$ or $(0,+infty)$?
    – Jimmy R.
    Nov 18 at 15:55










  • it's $(0, +infty)$
    – user15269
    Nov 18 at 15:57














  • 1




    I'm the langle rangle fairy, here to let you know that $langle, rangle$ plays nicer with TeX than $<, >$ does :)
    – Patrick Stevens
    Nov 18 at 15:53








  • 2




    What does $langle 0, +infty rangle$ denote? Is it $[0,+infty)$ or $(0,+infty)$?
    – Jimmy R.
    Nov 18 at 15:55










  • it's $(0, +infty)$
    – user15269
    Nov 18 at 15:57








1




1




I'm the langle rangle fairy, here to let you know that $langle, rangle$ plays nicer with TeX than $<, >$ does :)
– Patrick Stevens
Nov 18 at 15:53






I'm the langle rangle fairy, here to let you know that $langle, rangle$ plays nicer with TeX than $<, >$ does :)
– Patrick Stevens
Nov 18 at 15:53






2




2




What does $langle 0, +infty rangle$ denote? Is it $[0,+infty)$ or $(0,+infty)$?
– Jimmy R.
Nov 18 at 15:55




What does $langle 0, +infty rangle$ denote? Is it $[0,+infty)$ or $(0,+infty)$?
– Jimmy R.
Nov 18 at 15:55












it's $(0, +infty)$
– user15269
Nov 18 at 15:57




it's $(0, +infty)$
– user15269
Nov 18 at 15:57










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Unfortunately, when we consider $(0,infty)$ as a topological space in its own right, as a subset of $mathbb R$ under the subspace topology, it is not true that if a set is bounded and closed, then it is compact.



You may want to go back to the proof of the Heine-Borel theorem (which states that the above is true for $mathbb R$), and see where it fails for the above case.



Therefore, compactness may be checked/negated either via definition (open cover) or using the fact that in a metric space, this is equivalent to the notion of "sequential compactness". Let us put these definitions side by side :



Usual : Every open cover has a finite subcover.



Sequential compactness : Every sequence has a convergent subsequence, with limit inside the set.



To check if a set in a metric space is compact, any one of the above criteria may be used.





With this in mind, sequential compactness is readily seen to not hold for the given set, since ${frac 1n}$ is a sequence in $A$, which has no convergent subsequence in $A$, since the sequence, and therefore every subsequence, converges to $0$ in the metric space topology , but $0 notin (0,infty)$, so the fact is that no subsequence of $A$ is convergent. Therefore, $A$ is not compact.



For using the other definition, we note that open sets in $(0,infty)$ are the intersection of $(0,infty)$ with usual open sets in $mathbb R$. So, since $A$ is not compact in $mathbb R$ (it does not contain the limit point $0$, so is not closed), so there is an open(in $mathbb R$) cover of $A$ having no finite subcover. Taking the intersection of all these open sets with $(0,infty)$ gives us an open (in $(0,infty)$) cover of $A$ which has no finite subcover. Thus, even via a direct means of attack we can contradict compactness of $A$.





Note that $A$ is closed in $(0,infty)$, since it has no limit points, and $A$ is bounded. However, $A$ is not compact.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    A pleasure to read!
    – Peter Szilas
    Nov 18 at 16:54










  • @PeterSzilas Thank you!
    – астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Nov 18 at 23:34


















up vote
3
down vote













As you have correctly observed, $A$ is closed (as a subspace of $(0,infty)$) since its complement is an open subset of $(0,infty)$.



On the other hand, $A$ is not compact. In particular, the sequence $(frac 1n)_{n in Bbb N}$ is a sequence in $A$ that has no convergent subsequence (since $0$, the sequence's limit in $Bbb R$, is not in $A$).






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I get your answer but as A is bounded and closed why doesn't it follow that it is compact? That's the thing that confuses me .
    – user15269
    Nov 18 at 16:09






  • 3




    @user15269 Because the "bounded and closed" criterium applies to subsets of $mathbb{R}^n$, not subsets of $(0,infty)$.
    – freakish
    Nov 18 at 16:09










  • @freakish quick heads up: the word you're looking for is "criterion" rather than criterium. Thanks for the comment though
    – Omnomnomnom
    Nov 18 at 20:08










  • @Omnomnomnom of course, thanks for noticing the mistake.
    – freakish
    Nov 18 at 20:10


















up vote
2
down vote













It's closed as its complement is just
$$bigcup_{nin mathbb{N}}left(frac1{n+1},frac1nright)cup(1,+infty)$$
which is a union of open sets.



For compactness, see @Omnomnomnom's answer.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    One of the other answers has already used the sequential definition of compactness, so here is a way to think about why $A$ not compact using the open cover definition. For each $frac{1}{n}$, we can consider the open ball of radius $epsilon = min big{ frac{1}{n} - frac{1}{n+1}, frac{1}{n-1} - frac{1}{n}big}$. The collection of these open balls forms an open cover of $A = big{ frac{1}{n} : n in mathbb{N}big}$, yet each open ball contains only one element of $A$. Therefore, this (infinite) open cover does not admit a finite subcover, so $A$ is not compact.






    share|cite|improve this answer























      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',
      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%2f3003688%2fis-a-left-frac1n-mid-n-in-mathbbn-right-as-a-subspace-of%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      2
      down vote



      accepted










      Unfortunately, when we consider $(0,infty)$ as a topological space in its own right, as a subset of $mathbb R$ under the subspace topology, it is not true that if a set is bounded and closed, then it is compact.



      You may want to go back to the proof of the Heine-Borel theorem (which states that the above is true for $mathbb R$), and see where it fails for the above case.



      Therefore, compactness may be checked/negated either via definition (open cover) or using the fact that in a metric space, this is equivalent to the notion of "sequential compactness". Let us put these definitions side by side :



      Usual : Every open cover has a finite subcover.



      Sequential compactness : Every sequence has a convergent subsequence, with limit inside the set.



      To check if a set in a metric space is compact, any one of the above criteria may be used.





      With this in mind, sequential compactness is readily seen to not hold for the given set, since ${frac 1n}$ is a sequence in $A$, which has no convergent subsequence in $A$, since the sequence, and therefore every subsequence, converges to $0$ in the metric space topology , but $0 notin (0,infty)$, so the fact is that no subsequence of $A$ is convergent. Therefore, $A$ is not compact.



      For using the other definition, we note that open sets in $(0,infty)$ are the intersection of $(0,infty)$ with usual open sets in $mathbb R$. So, since $A$ is not compact in $mathbb R$ (it does not contain the limit point $0$, so is not closed), so there is an open(in $mathbb R$) cover of $A$ having no finite subcover. Taking the intersection of all these open sets with $(0,infty)$ gives us an open (in $(0,infty)$) cover of $A$ which has no finite subcover. Thus, even via a direct means of attack we can contradict compactness of $A$.





      Note that $A$ is closed in $(0,infty)$, since it has no limit points, and $A$ is bounded. However, $A$ is not compact.






      share|cite|improve this answer

















      • 1




        A pleasure to read!
        – Peter Szilas
        Nov 18 at 16:54










      • @PeterSzilas Thank you!
        – астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
        Nov 18 at 23:34















      up vote
      2
      down vote



      accepted










      Unfortunately, when we consider $(0,infty)$ as a topological space in its own right, as a subset of $mathbb R$ under the subspace topology, it is not true that if a set is bounded and closed, then it is compact.



      You may want to go back to the proof of the Heine-Borel theorem (which states that the above is true for $mathbb R$), and see where it fails for the above case.



      Therefore, compactness may be checked/negated either via definition (open cover) or using the fact that in a metric space, this is equivalent to the notion of "sequential compactness". Let us put these definitions side by side :



      Usual : Every open cover has a finite subcover.



      Sequential compactness : Every sequence has a convergent subsequence, with limit inside the set.



      To check if a set in a metric space is compact, any one of the above criteria may be used.





      With this in mind, sequential compactness is readily seen to not hold for the given set, since ${frac 1n}$ is a sequence in $A$, which has no convergent subsequence in $A$, since the sequence, and therefore every subsequence, converges to $0$ in the metric space topology , but $0 notin (0,infty)$, so the fact is that no subsequence of $A$ is convergent. Therefore, $A$ is not compact.



      For using the other definition, we note that open sets in $(0,infty)$ are the intersection of $(0,infty)$ with usual open sets in $mathbb R$. So, since $A$ is not compact in $mathbb R$ (it does not contain the limit point $0$, so is not closed), so there is an open(in $mathbb R$) cover of $A$ having no finite subcover. Taking the intersection of all these open sets with $(0,infty)$ gives us an open (in $(0,infty)$) cover of $A$ which has no finite subcover. Thus, even via a direct means of attack we can contradict compactness of $A$.





      Note that $A$ is closed in $(0,infty)$, since it has no limit points, and $A$ is bounded. However, $A$ is not compact.






      share|cite|improve this answer

















      • 1




        A pleasure to read!
        – Peter Szilas
        Nov 18 at 16:54










      • @PeterSzilas Thank you!
        – астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
        Nov 18 at 23:34













      up vote
      2
      down vote



      accepted







      up vote
      2
      down vote



      accepted






      Unfortunately, when we consider $(0,infty)$ as a topological space in its own right, as a subset of $mathbb R$ under the subspace topology, it is not true that if a set is bounded and closed, then it is compact.



      You may want to go back to the proof of the Heine-Borel theorem (which states that the above is true for $mathbb R$), and see where it fails for the above case.



      Therefore, compactness may be checked/negated either via definition (open cover) or using the fact that in a metric space, this is equivalent to the notion of "sequential compactness". Let us put these definitions side by side :



      Usual : Every open cover has a finite subcover.



      Sequential compactness : Every sequence has a convergent subsequence, with limit inside the set.



      To check if a set in a metric space is compact, any one of the above criteria may be used.





      With this in mind, sequential compactness is readily seen to not hold for the given set, since ${frac 1n}$ is a sequence in $A$, which has no convergent subsequence in $A$, since the sequence, and therefore every subsequence, converges to $0$ in the metric space topology , but $0 notin (0,infty)$, so the fact is that no subsequence of $A$ is convergent. Therefore, $A$ is not compact.



      For using the other definition, we note that open sets in $(0,infty)$ are the intersection of $(0,infty)$ with usual open sets in $mathbb R$. So, since $A$ is not compact in $mathbb R$ (it does not contain the limit point $0$, so is not closed), so there is an open(in $mathbb R$) cover of $A$ having no finite subcover. Taking the intersection of all these open sets with $(0,infty)$ gives us an open (in $(0,infty)$) cover of $A$ which has no finite subcover. Thus, even via a direct means of attack we can contradict compactness of $A$.





      Note that $A$ is closed in $(0,infty)$, since it has no limit points, and $A$ is bounded. However, $A$ is not compact.






      share|cite|improve this answer












      Unfortunately, when we consider $(0,infty)$ as a topological space in its own right, as a subset of $mathbb R$ under the subspace topology, it is not true that if a set is bounded and closed, then it is compact.



      You may want to go back to the proof of the Heine-Borel theorem (which states that the above is true for $mathbb R$), and see where it fails for the above case.



      Therefore, compactness may be checked/negated either via definition (open cover) or using the fact that in a metric space, this is equivalent to the notion of "sequential compactness". Let us put these definitions side by side :



      Usual : Every open cover has a finite subcover.



      Sequential compactness : Every sequence has a convergent subsequence, with limit inside the set.



      To check if a set in a metric space is compact, any one of the above criteria may be used.





      With this in mind, sequential compactness is readily seen to not hold for the given set, since ${frac 1n}$ is a sequence in $A$, which has no convergent subsequence in $A$, since the sequence, and therefore every subsequence, converges to $0$ in the metric space topology , but $0 notin (0,infty)$, so the fact is that no subsequence of $A$ is convergent. Therefore, $A$ is not compact.



      For using the other definition, we note that open sets in $(0,infty)$ are the intersection of $(0,infty)$ with usual open sets in $mathbb R$. So, since $A$ is not compact in $mathbb R$ (it does not contain the limit point $0$, so is not closed), so there is an open(in $mathbb R$) cover of $A$ having no finite subcover. Taking the intersection of all these open sets with $(0,infty)$ gives us an open (in $(0,infty)$) cover of $A$ which has no finite subcover. Thus, even via a direct means of attack we can contradict compactness of $A$.





      Note that $A$ is closed in $(0,infty)$, since it has no limit points, and $A$ is bounded. However, $A$ is not compact.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered Nov 18 at 16:18









      астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг

      36.8k33376




      36.8k33376








      • 1




        A pleasure to read!
        – Peter Szilas
        Nov 18 at 16:54










      • @PeterSzilas Thank you!
        – астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
        Nov 18 at 23:34














      • 1




        A pleasure to read!
        – Peter Szilas
        Nov 18 at 16:54










      • @PeterSzilas Thank you!
        – астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
        Nov 18 at 23:34








      1




      1




      A pleasure to read!
      – Peter Szilas
      Nov 18 at 16:54




      A pleasure to read!
      – Peter Szilas
      Nov 18 at 16:54












      @PeterSzilas Thank you!
      – астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
      Nov 18 at 23:34




      @PeterSzilas Thank you!
      – астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
      Nov 18 at 23:34










      up vote
      3
      down vote













      As you have correctly observed, $A$ is closed (as a subspace of $(0,infty)$) since its complement is an open subset of $(0,infty)$.



      On the other hand, $A$ is not compact. In particular, the sequence $(frac 1n)_{n in Bbb N}$ is a sequence in $A$ that has no convergent subsequence (since $0$, the sequence's limit in $Bbb R$, is not in $A$).






      share|cite|improve this answer





















      • I get your answer but as A is bounded and closed why doesn't it follow that it is compact? That's the thing that confuses me .
        – user15269
        Nov 18 at 16:09






      • 3




        @user15269 Because the "bounded and closed" criterium applies to subsets of $mathbb{R}^n$, not subsets of $(0,infty)$.
        – freakish
        Nov 18 at 16:09










      • @freakish quick heads up: the word you're looking for is "criterion" rather than criterium. Thanks for the comment though
        – Omnomnomnom
        Nov 18 at 20:08










      • @Omnomnomnom of course, thanks for noticing the mistake.
        – freakish
        Nov 18 at 20:10















      up vote
      3
      down vote













      As you have correctly observed, $A$ is closed (as a subspace of $(0,infty)$) since its complement is an open subset of $(0,infty)$.



      On the other hand, $A$ is not compact. In particular, the sequence $(frac 1n)_{n in Bbb N}$ is a sequence in $A$ that has no convergent subsequence (since $0$, the sequence's limit in $Bbb R$, is not in $A$).






      share|cite|improve this answer





















      • I get your answer but as A is bounded and closed why doesn't it follow that it is compact? That's the thing that confuses me .
        – user15269
        Nov 18 at 16:09






      • 3




        @user15269 Because the "bounded and closed" criterium applies to subsets of $mathbb{R}^n$, not subsets of $(0,infty)$.
        – freakish
        Nov 18 at 16:09










      • @freakish quick heads up: the word you're looking for is "criterion" rather than criterium. Thanks for the comment though
        – Omnomnomnom
        Nov 18 at 20:08










      • @Omnomnomnom of course, thanks for noticing the mistake.
        – freakish
        Nov 18 at 20:10













      up vote
      3
      down vote










      up vote
      3
      down vote









      As you have correctly observed, $A$ is closed (as a subspace of $(0,infty)$) since its complement is an open subset of $(0,infty)$.



      On the other hand, $A$ is not compact. In particular, the sequence $(frac 1n)_{n in Bbb N}$ is a sequence in $A$ that has no convergent subsequence (since $0$, the sequence's limit in $Bbb R$, is not in $A$).






      share|cite|improve this answer












      As you have correctly observed, $A$ is closed (as a subspace of $(0,infty)$) since its complement is an open subset of $(0,infty)$.



      On the other hand, $A$ is not compact. In particular, the sequence $(frac 1n)_{n in Bbb N}$ is a sequence in $A$ that has no convergent subsequence (since $0$, the sequence's limit in $Bbb R$, is not in $A$).







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered Nov 18 at 16:00









      Omnomnomnom

      125k788176




      125k788176












      • I get your answer but as A is bounded and closed why doesn't it follow that it is compact? That's the thing that confuses me .
        – user15269
        Nov 18 at 16:09






      • 3




        @user15269 Because the "bounded and closed" criterium applies to subsets of $mathbb{R}^n$, not subsets of $(0,infty)$.
        – freakish
        Nov 18 at 16:09










      • @freakish quick heads up: the word you're looking for is "criterion" rather than criterium. Thanks for the comment though
        – Omnomnomnom
        Nov 18 at 20:08










      • @Omnomnomnom of course, thanks for noticing the mistake.
        – freakish
        Nov 18 at 20:10


















      • I get your answer but as A is bounded and closed why doesn't it follow that it is compact? That's the thing that confuses me .
        – user15269
        Nov 18 at 16:09






      • 3




        @user15269 Because the "bounded and closed" criterium applies to subsets of $mathbb{R}^n$, not subsets of $(0,infty)$.
        – freakish
        Nov 18 at 16:09










      • @freakish quick heads up: the word you're looking for is "criterion" rather than criterium. Thanks for the comment though
        – Omnomnomnom
        Nov 18 at 20:08










      • @Omnomnomnom of course, thanks for noticing the mistake.
        – freakish
        Nov 18 at 20:10
















      I get your answer but as A is bounded and closed why doesn't it follow that it is compact? That's the thing that confuses me .
      – user15269
      Nov 18 at 16:09




      I get your answer but as A is bounded and closed why doesn't it follow that it is compact? That's the thing that confuses me .
      – user15269
      Nov 18 at 16:09




      3




      3




      @user15269 Because the "bounded and closed" criterium applies to subsets of $mathbb{R}^n$, not subsets of $(0,infty)$.
      – freakish
      Nov 18 at 16:09




      @user15269 Because the "bounded and closed" criterium applies to subsets of $mathbb{R}^n$, not subsets of $(0,infty)$.
      – freakish
      Nov 18 at 16:09












      @freakish quick heads up: the word you're looking for is "criterion" rather than criterium. Thanks for the comment though
      – Omnomnomnom
      Nov 18 at 20:08




      @freakish quick heads up: the word you're looking for is "criterion" rather than criterium. Thanks for the comment though
      – Omnomnomnom
      Nov 18 at 20:08












      @Omnomnomnom of course, thanks for noticing the mistake.
      – freakish
      Nov 18 at 20:10




      @Omnomnomnom of course, thanks for noticing the mistake.
      – freakish
      Nov 18 at 20:10










      up vote
      2
      down vote













      It's closed as its complement is just
      $$bigcup_{nin mathbb{N}}left(frac1{n+1},frac1nright)cup(1,+infty)$$
      which is a union of open sets.



      For compactness, see @Omnomnomnom's answer.






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        2
        down vote













        It's closed as its complement is just
        $$bigcup_{nin mathbb{N}}left(frac1{n+1},frac1nright)cup(1,+infty)$$
        which is a union of open sets.



        For compactness, see @Omnomnomnom's answer.






        share|cite|improve this answer























          up vote
          2
          down vote










          up vote
          2
          down vote









          It's closed as its complement is just
          $$bigcup_{nin mathbb{N}}left(frac1{n+1},frac1nright)cup(1,+infty)$$
          which is a union of open sets.



          For compactness, see @Omnomnomnom's answer.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          It's closed as its complement is just
          $$bigcup_{nin mathbb{N}}left(frac1{n+1},frac1nright)cup(1,+infty)$$
          which is a union of open sets.



          For compactness, see @Omnomnomnom's answer.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 18 at 16:03









          b00n heT

          10.2k12134




          10.2k12134






















              up vote
              2
              down vote













              One of the other answers has already used the sequential definition of compactness, so here is a way to think about why $A$ not compact using the open cover definition. For each $frac{1}{n}$, we can consider the open ball of radius $epsilon = min big{ frac{1}{n} - frac{1}{n+1}, frac{1}{n-1} - frac{1}{n}big}$. The collection of these open balls forms an open cover of $A = big{ frac{1}{n} : n in mathbb{N}big}$, yet each open ball contains only one element of $A$. Therefore, this (infinite) open cover does not admit a finite subcover, so $A$ is not compact.






              share|cite|improve this answer



























                up vote
                2
                down vote













                One of the other answers has already used the sequential definition of compactness, so here is a way to think about why $A$ not compact using the open cover definition. For each $frac{1}{n}$, we can consider the open ball of radius $epsilon = min big{ frac{1}{n} - frac{1}{n+1}, frac{1}{n-1} - frac{1}{n}big}$. The collection of these open balls forms an open cover of $A = big{ frac{1}{n} : n in mathbb{N}big}$, yet each open ball contains only one element of $A$. Therefore, this (infinite) open cover does not admit a finite subcover, so $A$ is not compact.






                share|cite|improve this answer

























                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote









                  One of the other answers has already used the sequential definition of compactness, so here is a way to think about why $A$ not compact using the open cover definition. For each $frac{1}{n}$, we can consider the open ball of radius $epsilon = min big{ frac{1}{n} - frac{1}{n+1}, frac{1}{n-1} - frac{1}{n}big}$. The collection of these open balls forms an open cover of $A = big{ frac{1}{n} : n in mathbb{N}big}$, yet each open ball contains only one element of $A$. Therefore, this (infinite) open cover does not admit a finite subcover, so $A$ is not compact.






                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  One of the other answers has already used the sequential definition of compactness, so here is a way to think about why $A$ not compact using the open cover definition. For each $frac{1}{n}$, we can consider the open ball of radius $epsilon = min big{ frac{1}{n} - frac{1}{n+1}, frac{1}{n-1} - frac{1}{n}big}$. The collection of these open balls forms an open cover of $A = big{ frac{1}{n} : n in mathbb{N}big}$, yet each open ball contains only one element of $A$. Therefore, this (infinite) open cover does not admit a finite subcover, so $A$ is not compact.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Nov 18 at 17:42

























                  answered Nov 18 at 16:09









                  Eric Chuu

                  566




                  566






























                      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.





                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003688%2fis-a-left-frac1n-mid-n-in-mathbbn-right-as-a-subspace-of%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

                      Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

                      Aardman Animations

                      Are they similar matrix