I have a little doubt about compactness in metric spaces. I have this homework where I have to prove that $[0,1]^\omega$ with the uniform topology is not countably compact. As a consequence of Thychonoff's theorem $[0,1]^\omega$ is compact and it is also metrizable for being the topology induced by the uniform metric. My problem is that, as far as I know, compactness and countably compactness are equivalent in metric spaces. The latter means that $[0,1]^\omega$ should be countably compact (but it is not). I know this might be a silly question but I really don't understand. Can someone tell me were am I wrong? Thanks in advance
2026-03-25 07:41:01.1774424461
Compactness and countably compactness in metric spaces
104 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in GENERAL-TOPOLOGY
- Is every non-locally compact metric space totally disconnected?
- Let X be a topological space and let A be a subset of X
- Continuity, preimage of an open set of $\mathbb R^2$
- Question on minimizing the infimum distance of a point from a non compact set
- Is hedgehog of countable spininess separable space?
- Nonclosed set in $ \mathbb{R}^2 $
- I cannot understand that $\mathfrak{O} := \{\{\}, \{1\}, \{1, 2\}, \{3\}, \{1, 3\}, \{1, 2, 3\}\}$ is a topology on the set $\{1, 2, 3\}$.
- If for every continuous function $\phi$, the function $\phi \circ f$ is continuous, then $f$ is continuous.
- Defining a homotopy on an annulus
- Triangle inequality for metric space where the metric is angles between vectors
Related Questions in COMPACTNESS
- Every nonempty perfect set in $\mathbb R^k$ is uncountable: Rudin's argument
- Help in understanding proof of Heine-Borel Theorem from Simmons
- Is the distance between those compact sets equal to $0$?
- Are compact groups acting on Polish spaces essentially Polish?
- Set of Positive Sequences that Sum to 1 is Compact under Product Topology?
- The space $D(A^\infty)$
- Proving the one-point compactification of a topological space is a topology
- Never Used Compact Closure...
- Continuity of the maximal element of a multi-valued function
- Consider the metric space of infinite sequences of 0s and 1s under this metric.
Related Questions in PRODUCT-SPACE
- Open Set in Product Space Takes a Certain Form
- Set of Positive Sequences that Sum to 1 is Compact under Product Topology?
- $ \prod_{j \in J} X_{j} $ is locally connected if, and only if, each $ X_{j} $ is locally connected ...
- Dense subspaces of $L^\infty(\Omega\times\Omega)$
- $\{0,1\}^{\mathbb{N}}$ homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}$?
- Understanding product topology
- The topology generated by the metric is the product topology of discrete space {0,1}
- Show that $(X,d)$ is compact
- For a discrete topological space $X$, is Perm$(X)$ a topological group as a subspace of product topological space $X^X$?
- Uniform distribution Measure
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
Tychonoff's theorem says that $[0,1]^\omega$ is compact in the product topology, which is in this case also induced by a metric (e.g. $d(x,y) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{2^n} |x_n -y_n|$ will do; this topology is thus also countably compact, as this is equivalent to compactness in metrisable spaces) but this topology is different from the topology induced by the uniform metric (what Munkres calls (confusingly, IMHO) the uniform topology), so Tychonoff's theorem has no bearing on this.
The fact that the uniform topology is strictly finer than the (compact Hausdorff) product topology already implies it's not compact (and thus not countably compact), but a more direct argument is available too: the set $$A = \{x\in [0,1]^\omega: \forall n: x_n \in \{0,1\}\}$$ is (uncountable and) closed and discrete in the uniform metric. This implies that $[0,1]^\omega$ in that topology also is not (countably) compact. It is true that countable compactness and compactness are equivalent in metrisable spaces (so in the uniform topology too) but both are easy to disprove in this case, so it doesn't help nor hinder.