Date: Feb 2, 2013 12:10 AM Author: Achimota Subject: Re: looking for example of closed set that is *not* complete in a<br> metric space On Saturday, February 2, 2013 12:52:55 AM UTC+8, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

> ...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.

This is certainly good advice and many apologies for my sloppy original posting. Is the following any better?...

Let (X,d) be a metric space.

Let T be the topology induced by d and

(X,T) be the resulting topological space.

Let Y be a subset of X.

Then

(Y,d) is complete ==> Y is closed in (X,d).

Alternatively,

(Y,d) is complete ==> Y is closed in (X,T).

But what about the converse? That is, is this true?

Y is closed in (X,d) ?==>? (Y,d) is complete

One might guess that it is not true. So would someone happen to know of a counterexample in which the set Y is closed in (X,d), but yet (Y,d) is *not* complete?

References:

1. Kubrusly(2011) Theorem 3.40 page 129:

books.google.com.tw/books?vid=ISBN0817649980&pg=PA129

2. Haaser(1991) 6.10 Proposition page 75:

books.google.com.tw/books?vid=ISBN0486665097&pg=PA75

Many thanks in advance,

Dan

On Saturday, February 2, 2013 12:52:55 AM UTC+8, 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