Date: Feb 1, 2013 1:09 PM
Author: Paul
Subject: Re: looking for example of closed set that is *not* complete in a<br> metric space

On Friday, February 1, 2013 4:52:55 PM UTC, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 1, 2013 4:37:40 PM UTC, Daniel J. Greenhoe wrote:
>

> > Let (Y,d) be a subspace of a metric space (X,d).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If (Y,d) is complete, then Y is closed with respect to d. That is,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > complete==>closed.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Alternatively, if (Y,d) is complete, then Y contains all its limit
>
> >
>
> > points.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Would anyone happen to know of a counterexample for the converse? That
>
> >
>
> > is, does someone know of any example that demonstrates that
>
> >
>
> > closed --> complete
>
> >
>
> > is *not* true? I don't know for sure that it is not true, but I might
>
> >
>
> > guess that it is not true.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Many thanks in advance,
>
> >
>
> > Dan
>
>
>
> You need to understand that "closed" and "open" don't characterize topologies.
>
> Rather "X is open in Y" describes a relationship between X and Y.
>
> To say that a space is complete or compact or Hausdorff makes a statement about a topological space. To say that a space is "closed" (as in your statement "closed -> complete") doesn't really mean anything.
>
> To make progress replace "closed -> complete" by something more formal and rigorous and precise.
>
>
>
> Paul Epstein


To clarify, you did attempt more precision by saying "closed with respect to d" but you're misusing/misunderstanding the concept of "closed" here, and you need to review your notes. "closed with respect to d" is not correct.

Paul