If all closed subsets of a set are compact, does it follow that this set is subset of a compact...

Is there any way to keep a player from killing an NPC?

Dealing with an extrovert co-worker

How to respectfully refuse to assist co-workers with IT issues?

Is it possible to get crispy, crunchy carrots from canned carrots?

Did a flight controller ever answer Flight with a no-go?

how do you harvest carrots in creative mode

If the first law of thermodynamics ensures conservation of energy, why does it allow systems to lose energy?

Can you feel passing through the sound barrier in an F-16?

Can I double-dip a flight and claim it for both United and Lufthansa status miles?

Singleton Design Pattern implementation in a not traditional way

Why is my Earth simulation slower than the reality?

C++20 constexpr std::copy optimizations for run-time

In an emergency, how do I find and share my position?

for loop not working in bash

Attaching a piece of wood to a necklace without drilling

Would it be possible to have a GMO that produces chocolate?

Numbers Decrease while Letters Increase

Avoiding racist tropes in fantasy

How would one country purchase another?

Accent on í misaligned in bibliography / citation

Which note goes on which side of the stem?

Is it safe to remove the bottom chords of a series of garage roof trusses?

Why were the crew so desperate to catch Truman and return him to Seahaven?

Why is Boris Johnson visiting only Paris & Berlin if every member of the EU needs to agree on a withdrawal deal?



If all closed subsets of a set are compact, does it follow that this set is subset of a compact set?


Topological spaces in which every proper closed subset is compactDescribe all the compact subsets of this spaceIntersection of Closed and Compact Set is ClosedCompact spaces where not all compact subsets are closedSpaces where all compact subsets are closedTopological spaces in which every proper closed subset is compactWhy all subsets of compact sets are not compact?Example of a compact subset that is not closedA set is compact in complement topology iff closed in standard topologyProof that a closed subset of a compact space is a compact space






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







8












$begingroup$


It is well known that closed subsets of compact sets are themselves compact. Now the reverse is not true: A set of which all closed subsets are compact needs not to be compact itself; for example, consider non-closed bounded sets in $mathbb R^n$.



However those sets are themselves subsets of compact sets (as bounded sets, they are subsets of closed balls, which are compact). And it is obvious that the initially quoted theorem also holds for arbitrary subsets of compact sets, since the subset relation is transitive.



However I wonder: Can there exist a set in some topological space, no matter how weird, such that all closed subsets of that set are compact, but the set itself is not the subset of a compact set?



There was a related question that asked about the case where all proper closed subsets of a topological space are compact, and the conclusion was that the space itself is compact. However if this helps with the subset case, then I don't see how.



Clarification: Since it seems to have caused a lot of confusion in the comments: In the context of my post, “closed” is to be understood in the topology of the full space, not in the subspace topology of the subset (those are very different notions of “closed”!)










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$










  • 2




    $begingroup$
    A set is one of its closed subset. So…
    $endgroup$
    – Bernard
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Bernard: I don't understand. An open ball certainly is not a closed subset of itself, is it?
    $endgroup$
    – celtschk
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes it is: $X$ is always closed in $X$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Any space is contained in its one-point compactification.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    2 days ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @KaviRamaMurthy: But the closed sets of the one-point compactification are not the same as the closed sets of the original space.
    $endgroup$
    – celtschk
    2 days ago


















8












$begingroup$


It is well known that closed subsets of compact sets are themselves compact. Now the reverse is not true: A set of which all closed subsets are compact needs not to be compact itself; for example, consider non-closed bounded sets in $mathbb R^n$.



However those sets are themselves subsets of compact sets (as bounded sets, they are subsets of closed balls, which are compact). And it is obvious that the initially quoted theorem also holds for arbitrary subsets of compact sets, since the subset relation is transitive.



However I wonder: Can there exist a set in some topological space, no matter how weird, such that all closed subsets of that set are compact, but the set itself is not the subset of a compact set?



There was a related question that asked about the case where all proper closed subsets of a topological space are compact, and the conclusion was that the space itself is compact. However if this helps with the subset case, then I don't see how.



Clarification: Since it seems to have caused a lot of confusion in the comments: In the context of my post, “closed” is to be understood in the topology of the full space, not in the subspace topology of the subset (those are very different notions of “closed”!)










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$










  • 2




    $begingroup$
    A set is one of its closed subset. So…
    $endgroup$
    – Bernard
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Bernard: I don't understand. An open ball certainly is not a closed subset of itself, is it?
    $endgroup$
    – celtschk
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes it is: $X$ is always closed in $X$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Any space is contained in its one-point compactification.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    2 days ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @KaviRamaMurthy: But the closed sets of the one-point compactification are not the same as the closed sets of the original space.
    $endgroup$
    – celtschk
    2 days ago














8












8








8


5



$begingroup$


It is well known that closed subsets of compact sets are themselves compact. Now the reverse is not true: A set of which all closed subsets are compact needs not to be compact itself; for example, consider non-closed bounded sets in $mathbb R^n$.



However those sets are themselves subsets of compact sets (as bounded sets, they are subsets of closed balls, which are compact). And it is obvious that the initially quoted theorem also holds for arbitrary subsets of compact sets, since the subset relation is transitive.



However I wonder: Can there exist a set in some topological space, no matter how weird, such that all closed subsets of that set are compact, but the set itself is not the subset of a compact set?



There was a related question that asked about the case where all proper closed subsets of a topological space are compact, and the conclusion was that the space itself is compact. However if this helps with the subset case, then I don't see how.



Clarification: Since it seems to have caused a lot of confusion in the comments: In the context of my post, “closed” is to be understood in the topology of the full space, not in the subspace topology of the subset (those are very different notions of “closed”!)










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




It is well known that closed subsets of compact sets are themselves compact. Now the reverse is not true: A set of which all closed subsets are compact needs not to be compact itself; for example, consider non-closed bounded sets in $mathbb R^n$.



However those sets are themselves subsets of compact sets (as bounded sets, they are subsets of closed balls, which are compact). And it is obvious that the initially quoted theorem also holds for arbitrary subsets of compact sets, since the subset relation is transitive.



However I wonder: Can there exist a set in some topological space, no matter how weird, such that all closed subsets of that set are compact, but the set itself is not the subset of a compact set?



There was a related question that asked about the case where all proper closed subsets of a topological space are compact, and the conclusion was that the space itself is compact. However if this helps with the subset case, then I don't see how.



Clarification: Since it seems to have caused a lot of confusion in the comments: In the context of my post, “closed” is to be understood in the topology of the full space, not in the subspace topology of the subset (those are very different notions of “closed”!)







general-topology compactness






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago







celtschk

















asked 2 days ago









celtschkceltschk

31.4k7 gold badges58 silver badges107 bronze badges




31.4k7 gold badges58 silver badges107 bronze badges











  • 2




    $begingroup$
    A set is one of its closed subset. So…
    $endgroup$
    – Bernard
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Bernard: I don't understand. An open ball certainly is not a closed subset of itself, is it?
    $endgroup$
    – celtschk
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes it is: $X$ is always closed in $X$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Any space is contained in its one-point compactification.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    2 days ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @KaviRamaMurthy: But the closed sets of the one-point compactification are not the same as the closed sets of the original space.
    $endgroup$
    – celtschk
    2 days ago














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    A set is one of its closed subset. So…
    $endgroup$
    – Bernard
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Bernard: I don't understand. An open ball certainly is not a closed subset of itself, is it?
    $endgroup$
    – celtschk
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes it is: $X$ is always closed in $X$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Any space is contained in its one-point compactification.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    2 days ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @KaviRamaMurthy: But the closed sets of the one-point compactification are not the same as the closed sets of the original space.
    $endgroup$
    – celtschk
    2 days ago








2




2




$begingroup$
A set is one of its closed subset. So…
$endgroup$
– Bernard
2 days ago




$begingroup$
A set is one of its closed subset. So…
$endgroup$
– Bernard
2 days ago












$begingroup$
@Bernard: I don't understand. An open ball certainly is not a closed subset of itself, is it?
$endgroup$
– celtschk
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@Bernard: I don't understand. An open ball certainly is not a closed subset of itself, is it?
$endgroup$
– celtschk
2 days ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Yes it is: $X$ is always closed in $X$.
$endgroup$
– Mindlack
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Yes it is: $X$ is always closed in $X$.
$endgroup$
– Mindlack
2 days ago












$begingroup$
Any space is contained in its one-point compactification.
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
2 days ago






$begingroup$
Any space is contained in its one-point compactification.
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
2 days ago






1




1




$begingroup$
@KaviRamaMurthy: But the closed sets of the one-point compactification are not the same as the closed sets of the original space.
$endgroup$
– celtschk
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@KaviRamaMurthy: But the closed sets of the one-point compactification are not the same as the closed sets of the original space.
$endgroup$
– celtschk
2 days ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















8













$begingroup$

Let $X$ be the space of countable ordinals with the order topology (a locally compact Hausdorff space, not metrizable), and let $Y$ be the set of all isolated points of $X$.



Every subset of $Y$ which is closed in $X$ is finite, since every infinite subset of $X$ has a limit point in $X$. (An infinite set of ordinals contains an increasing sequence; the limit of an increasing sequence of countable ordinals is a countable ordinal, i.e., an element of $X$.



$Y$ is not contained in any compact subset of $X$ because no uncountable subset of $X$ is compact or even Lindelöf.




P.S. Here is another example, a first countable, separable, locally compact Hausdorff space $X$ with a dense open subset $Y$ such that: $Y$ is countable and discrete; the only subsets of $Y$ which are closed in $X$ are the finite sets; and the only closed set containing $Y$ is the whole space $X$, which is neither Lindelöf nor countably compact, since $Xsetminus Y$ is an uncountable discrete closed subspace.



Let $mathcal A$ be an infinite maximal almost disjoint family of infinite subsets of $omega$. $mathcal A$ must be uncountable, as there is no maximal almost disjoint family of cardinality $aleph_0$. Let $X$ be the corresponding $Psi$-space, that is, $X=Ycupmathcal A$ where $Y=omega$, and a set $Usubseteq X$ is open if $Asetminus U$ is finite for each $Ain Ucapmathcal A$. All the properties claimed above are easily verified; the fact that every infinite subset of $Y=omega$ has a limit point in $Xsetminus Y=mathcal A$ follows from the maximality of the almost disjoint family $mathcal A$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$











  • 1




    $begingroup$
    hmm, why does every infinite subset of $X$ contain a limit point in $X$?
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Probably a good idea. And thanks again :) I'm trying to come up with a metric example/a proof it can't happen. I think that perhaps one can prove such a set $A$ is totally bounded and hence so is its closure, which means its closure is incomplete, which means one can find a Cauchy sequence in $A$ which is not convergent, so its set of points is closed in the whole space but not compact.
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Cronus: that’s pretty much it for your proof if $S$ is metric and $A$ is as required. Indeed, $overline{A}$ can’t be compact, so there is a sequence $a_n in overline{A}$ without a limit point. Take $b_n in A$ at distance $<1/n$ of $a_n$ and consider $B={b_n,,n}$. $B subset A$ is closed in $S$ and is not compact.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @mindlack yes, I just wanted to work out the details. Perhaps I overcomplicated things a bit.
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @bof Do you think it's possible to find a separable (Hausdorff) example, or even second countable?
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    yesterday



















5













$begingroup$

Here's a proof this can't happen in a metric space. Suppose $X$ is a metric space and that $Asubseteq X$ is a subset such that every $Bsubseteq A$ which is closed in $X$ is compact.



Lemma. $A$ is totally bounded.
proof. Assume it is not. Then there is $varepsilon>0$ such that no finite collection of $varepsilon$-balls cover $X$. Therefore we can define recursively a sequence of points $a_1,a_2,...$ each two of which are at distance at least $varepsilon$ from one another. This is a subset of $A$ which is closed (if $x$ is in its closure then by taking an $varepsilon/2$ neighbourhood of it we see we must have $x=a_n$ for some $n$) but clearly not compact (it's discrete and infinite).



Corollary. The closure of $A$ is totally bounded as well.



By assumption the closure of $A$ is not compact. Therefore, it's not complete, so it contains a Cauchy sequence which is not convergent. Therefore $A$ contains such a sequence as well. The set of points of this sequence is closed, but not compact. Contradiction.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$















  • $begingroup$
    Or, more directly, given a sequence in $overline{A}$ with no convergent subsequence, you can pick a sequence in $A$ that approximates it in the limit and so has the same convergence subsequences. So that sequence in $A$ forms a closed set which is not compact.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey Yeah, this was pointed out to me already. When I was trying to come up with a proof it just seemed to me like a good idea to first try to prove total boundedness (since I think this is essentially what's going on here), and then when I was done I didn't realise it wasn't really necessary.
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DanielWainfleet No, I just showed that the closure of $A$ contains such a sequence and then deduced $A$ itself does too.
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    yesterday



















5













$begingroup$

If you don't mind abandoning all separation axioms, then it's really easy to find an example, because you can easily make there be very few closed subsets of your set. For instance, let $Y$ be any non-compact topological space, let $X=Ytimes{0,1}$ where ${0,1}$ has the indiscrete topology, and let $A=Ytimes{0}$. Then no nonempty subset of $A$ is closed in $X$, but $A$ is not contained in any compact subset of $X$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$























    -1













    $begingroup$

    Let the space S = (-r,r) $cup$ Q where r is an irrational.

    Let the set A = (-r,r).

    Every closed subset of A is compact.

    I dare you to find a compact subset of S that contains A.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$











    • 4




      $begingroup$
      $A$ is closed in the space $S$, but not compact.
      $endgroup$
      – bof
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @bof How about instead $A = (0, r)$ in the same space?
      $endgroup$
      – Brian Moehring
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @BrianMoehring $[r/2,r)$ is a subset of $(0,r)$ which is closed in $S$ but is not compact.
      $endgroup$
      – bof
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You don't want to delete this wrong answer?
      $endgroup$
      – bof
      yesterday














    Your Answer








    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%2f3328771%2fif-all-closed-subsets-of-a-set-are-compact-does-it-follow-that-this-set-is-subs%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









    8













    $begingroup$

    Let $X$ be the space of countable ordinals with the order topology (a locally compact Hausdorff space, not metrizable), and let $Y$ be the set of all isolated points of $X$.



    Every subset of $Y$ which is closed in $X$ is finite, since every infinite subset of $X$ has a limit point in $X$. (An infinite set of ordinals contains an increasing sequence; the limit of an increasing sequence of countable ordinals is a countable ordinal, i.e., an element of $X$.



    $Y$ is not contained in any compact subset of $X$ because no uncountable subset of $X$ is compact or even Lindelöf.




    P.S. Here is another example, a first countable, separable, locally compact Hausdorff space $X$ with a dense open subset $Y$ such that: $Y$ is countable and discrete; the only subsets of $Y$ which are closed in $X$ are the finite sets; and the only closed set containing $Y$ is the whole space $X$, which is neither Lindelöf nor countably compact, since $Xsetminus Y$ is an uncountable discrete closed subspace.



    Let $mathcal A$ be an infinite maximal almost disjoint family of infinite subsets of $omega$. $mathcal A$ must be uncountable, as there is no maximal almost disjoint family of cardinality $aleph_0$. Let $X$ be the corresponding $Psi$-space, that is, $X=Ycupmathcal A$ where $Y=omega$, and a set $Usubseteq X$ is open if $Asetminus U$ is finite for each $Ain Ucapmathcal A$. All the properties claimed above are easily verified; the fact that every infinite subset of $Y=omega$ has a limit point in $Xsetminus Y=mathcal A$ follows from the maximality of the almost disjoint family $mathcal A$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$











    • 1




      $begingroup$
      hmm, why does every infinite subset of $X$ contain a limit point in $X$?
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Probably a good idea. And thanks again :) I'm trying to come up with a metric example/a proof it can't happen. I think that perhaps one can prove such a set $A$ is totally bounded and hence so is its closure, which means its closure is incomplete, which means one can find a Cauchy sequence in $A$ which is not convergent, so its set of points is closed in the whole space but not compact.
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Cronus: that’s pretty much it for your proof if $S$ is metric and $A$ is as required. Indeed, $overline{A}$ can’t be compact, so there is a sequence $a_n in overline{A}$ without a limit point. Take $b_n in A$ at distance $<1/n$ of $a_n$ and consider $B={b_n,,n}$. $B subset A$ is closed in $S$ and is not compact.
      $endgroup$
      – Mindlack
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @mindlack yes, I just wanted to work out the details. Perhaps I overcomplicated things a bit.
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @bof Do you think it's possible to find a separable (Hausdorff) example, or even second countable?
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      yesterday
















    8













    $begingroup$

    Let $X$ be the space of countable ordinals with the order topology (a locally compact Hausdorff space, not metrizable), and let $Y$ be the set of all isolated points of $X$.



    Every subset of $Y$ which is closed in $X$ is finite, since every infinite subset of $X$ has a limit point in $X$. (An infinite set of ordinals contains an increasing sequence; the limit of an increasing sequence of countable ordinals is a countable ordinal, i.e., an element of $X$.



    $Y$ is not contained in any compact subset of $X$ because no uncountable subset of $X$ is compact or even Lindelöf.




    P.S. Here is another example, a first countable, separable, locally compact Hausdorff space $X$ with a dense open subset $Y$ such that: $Y$ is countable and discrete; the only subsets of $Y$ which are closed in $X$ are the finite sets; and the only closed set containing $Y$ is the whole space $X$, which is neither Lindelöf nor countably compact, since $Xsetminus Y$ is an uncountable discrete closed subspace.



    Let $mathcal A$ be an infinite maximal almost disjoint family of infinite subsets of $omega$. $mathcal A$ must be uncountable, as there is no maximal almost disjoint family of cardinality $aleph_0$. Let $X$ be the corresponding $Psi$-space, that is, $X=Ycupmathcal A$ where $Y=omega$, and a set $Usubseteq X$ is open if $Asetminus U$ is finite for each $Ain Ucapmathcal A$. All the properties claimed above are easily verified; the fact that every infinite subset of $Y=omega$ has a limit point in $Xsetminus Y=mathcal A$ follows from the maximality of the almost disjoint family $mathcal A$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$











    • 1




      $begingroup$
      hmm, why does every infinite subset of $X$ contain a limit point in $X$?
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Probably a good idea. And thanks again :) I'm trying to come up with a metric example/a proof it can't happen. I think that perhaps one can prove such a set $A$ is totally bounded and hence so is its closure, which means its closure is incomplete, which means one can find a Cauchy sequence in $A$ which is not convergent, so its set of points is closed in the whole space but not compact.
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Cronus: that’s pretty much it for your proof if $S$ is metric and $A$ is as required. Indeed, $overline{A}$ can’t be compact, so there is a sequence $a_n in overline{A}$ without a limit point. Take $b_n in A$ at distance $<1/n$ of $a_n$ and consider $B={b_n,,n}$. $B subset A$ is closed in $S$ and is not compact.
      $endgroup$
      – Mindlack
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @mindlack yes, I just wanted to work out the details. Perhaps I overcomplicated things a bit.
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @bof Do you think it's possible to find a separable (Hausdorff) example, or even second countable?
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      yesterday














    8














    8










    8







    $begingroup$

    Let $X$ be the space of countable ordinals with the order topology (a locally compact Hausdorff space, not metrizable), and let $Y$ be the set of all isolated points of $X$.



    Every subset of $Y$ which is closed in $X$ is finite, since every infinite subset of $X$ has a limit point in $X$. (An infinite set of ordinals contains an increasing sequence; the limit of an increasing sequence of countable ordinals is a countable ordinal, i.e., an element of $X$.



    $Y$ is not contained in any compact subset of $X$ because no uncountable subset of $X$ is compact or even Lindelöf.




    P.S. Here is another example, a first countable, separable, locally compact Hausdorff space $X$ with a dense open subset $Y$ such that: $Y$ is countable and discrete; the only subsets of $Y$ which are closed in $X$ are the finite sets; and the only closed set containing $Y$ is the whole space $X$, which is neither Lindelöf nor countably compact, since $Xsetminus Y$ is an uncountable discrete closed subspace.



    Let $mathcal A$ be an infinite maximal almost disjoint family of infinite subsets of $omega$. $mathcal A$ must be uncountable, as there is no maximal almost disjoint family of cardinality $aleph_0$. Let $X$ be the corresponding $Psi$-space, that is, $X=Ycupmathcal A$ where $Y=omega$, and a set $Usubseteq X$ is open if $Asetminus U$ is finite for each $Ain Ucapmathcal A$. All the properties claimed above are easily verified; the fact that every infinite subset of $Y=omega$ has a limit point in $Xsetminus Y=mathcal A$ follows from the maximality of the almost disjoint family $mathcal A$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Let $X$ be the space of countable ordinals with the order topology (a locally compact Hausdorff space, not metrizable), and let $Y$ be the set of all isolated points of $X$.



    Every subset of $Y$ which is closed in $X$ is finite, since every infinite subset of $X$ has a limit point in $X$. (An infinite set of ordinals contains an increasing sequence; the limit of an increasing sequence of countable ordinals is a countable ordinal, i.e., an element of $X$.



    $Y$ is not contained in any compact subset of $X$ because no uncountable subset of $X$ is compact or even Lindelöf.




    P.S. Here is another example, a first countable, separable, locally compact Hausdorff space $X$ with a dense open subset $Y$ such that: $Y$ is countable and discrete; the only subsets of $Y$ which are closed in $X$ are the finite sets; and the only closed set containing $Y$ is the whole space $X$, which is neither Lindelöf nor countably compact, since $Xsetminus Y$ is an uncountable discrete closed subspace.



    Let $mathcal A$ be an infinite maximal almost disjoint family of infinite subsets of $omega$. $mathcal A$ must be uncountable, as there is no maximal almost disjoint family of cardinality $aleph_0$. Let $X$ be the corresponding $Psi$-space, that is, $X=Ycupmathcal A$ where $Y=omega$, and a set $Usubseteq X$ is open if $Asetminus U$ is finite for each $Ain Ucapmathcal A$. All the properties claimed above are easily verified; the fact that every infinite subset of $Y=omega$ has a limit point in $Xsetminus Y=mathcal A$ follows from the maximality of the almost disjoint family $mathcal A$.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 16 hours ago

























    answered 2 days ago









    bofbof

    54.7k5 gold badges60 silver badges124 bronze badges




    54.7k5 gold badges60 silver badges124 bronze badges











    • 1




      $begingroup$
      hmm, why does every infinite subset of $X$ contain a limit point in $X$?
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Probably a good idea. And thanks again :) I'm trying to come up with a metric example/a proof it can't happen. I think that perhaps one can prove such a set $A$ is totally bounded and hence so is its closure, which means its closure is incomplete, which means one can find a Cauchy sequence in $A$ which is not convergent, so its set of points is closed in the whole space but not compact.
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Cronus: that’s pretty much it for your proof if $S$ is metric and $A$ is as required. Indeed, $overline{A}$ can’t be compact, so there is a sequence $a_n in overline{A}$ without a limit point. Take $b_n in A$ at distance $<1/n$ of $a_n$ and consider $B={b_n,,n}$. $B subset A$ is closed in $S$ and is not compact.
      $endgroup$
      – Mindlack
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @mindlack yes, I just wanted to work out the details. Perhaps I overcomplicated things a bit.
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @bof Do you think it's possible to find a separable (Hausdorff) example, or even second countable?
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      yesterday














    • 1




      $begingroup$
      hmm, why does every infinite subset of $X$ contain a limit point in $X$?
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Probably a good idea. And thanks again :) I'm trying to come up with a metric example/a proof it can't happen. I think that perhaps one can prove such a set $A$ is totally bounded and hence so is its closure, which means its closure is incomplete, which means one can find a Cauchy sequence in $A$ which is not convergent, so its set of points is closed in the whole space but not compact.
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Cronus: that’s pretty much it for your proof if $S$ is metric and $A$ is as required. Indeed, $overline{A}$ can’t be compact, so there is a sequence $a_n in overline{A}$ without a limit point. Take $b_n in A$ at distance $<1/n$ of $a_n$ and consider $B={b_n,,n}$. $B subset A$ is closed in $S$ and is not compact.
      $endgroup$
      – Mindlack
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @mindlack yes, I just wanted to work out the details. Perhaps I overcomplicated things a bit.
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @bof Do you think it's possible to find a separable (Hausdorff) example, or even second countable?
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      yesterday








    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    hmm, why does every infinite subset of $X$ contain a limit point in $X$?
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    hmm, why does every infinite subset of $X$ contain a limit point in $X$?
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    2 days ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Probably a good idea. And thanks again :) I'm trying to come up with a metric example/a proof it can't happen. I think that perhaps one can prove such a set $A$ is totally bounded and hence so is its closure, which means its closure is incomplete, which means one can find a Cauchy sequence in $A$ which is not convergent, so its set of points is closed in the whole space but not compact.
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    Probably a good idea. And thanks again :) I'm trying to come up with a metric example/a proof it can't happen. I think that perhaps one can prove such a set $A$ is totally bounded and hence so is its closure, which means its closure is incomplete, which means one can find a Cauchy sequence in $A$ which is not convergent, so its set of points is closed in the whole space but not compact.
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    2 days ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @Cronus: that’s pretty much it for your proof if $S$ is metric and $A$ is as required. Indeed, $overline{A}$ can’t be compact, so there is a sequence $a_n in overline{A}$ without a limit point. Take $b_n in A$ at distance $<1/n$ of $a_n$ and consider $B={b_n,,n}$. $B subset A$ is closed in $S$ and is not compact.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @Cronus: that’s pretty much it for your proof if $S$ is metric and $A$ is as required. Indeed, $overline{A}$ can’t be compact, so there is a sequence $a_n in overline{A}$ without a limit point. Take $b_n in A$ at distance $<1/n$ of $a_n$ and consider $B={b_n,,n}$. $B subset A$ is closed in $S$ and is not compact.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    2 days ago












    $begingroup$
    @mindlack yes, I just wanted to work out the details. Perhaps I overcomplicated things a bit.
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @mindlack yes, I just wanted to work out the details. Perhaps I overcomplicated things a bit.
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    2 days ago












    $begingroup$
    @bof Do you think it's possible to find a separable (Hausdorff) example, or even second countable?
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    @bof Do you think it's possible to find a separable (Hausdorff) example, or even second countable?
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    yesterday













    5













    $begingroup$

    Here's a proof this can't happen in a metric space. Suppose $X$ is a metric space and that $Asubseteq X$ is a subset such that every $Bsubseteq A$ which is closed in $X$ is compact.



    Lemma. $A$ is totally bounded.
    proof. Assume it is not. Then there is $varepsilon>0$ such that no finite collection of $varepsilon$-balls cover $X$. Therefore we can define recursively a sequence of points $a_1,a_2,...$ each two of which are at distance at least $varepsilon$ from one another. This is a subset of $A$ which is closed (if $x$ is in its closure then by taking an $varepsilon/2$ neighbourhood of it we see we must have $x=a_n$ for some $n$) but clearly not compact (it's discrete and infinite).



    Corollary. The closure of $A$ is totally bounded as well.



    By assumption the closure of $A$ is not compact. Therefore, it's not complete, so it contains a Cauchy sequence which is not convergent. Therefore $A$ contains such a sequence as well. The set of points of this sequence is closed, but not compact. Contradiction.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$















    • $begingroup$
      Or, more directly, given a sequence in $overline{A}$ with no convergent subsequence, you can pick a sequence in $A$ that approximates it in the limit and so has the same convergence subsequences. So that sequence in $A$ forms a closed set which is not compact.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Wofsey
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @EricWofsey Yeah, this was pointed out to me already. When I was trying to come up with a proof it just seemed to me like a good idea to first try to prove total boundedness (since I think this is essentially what's going on here), and then when I was done I didn't realise it wasn't really necessary.
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @DanielWainfleet No, I just showed that the closure of $A$ contains such a sequence and then deduced $A$ itself does too.
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      yesterday
















    5













    $begingroup$

    Here's a proof this can't happen in a metric space. Suppose $X$ is a metric space and that $Asubseteq X$ is a subset such that every $Bsubseteq A$ which is closed in $X$ is compact.



    Lemma. $A$ is totally bounded.
    proof. Assume it is not. Then there is $varepsilon>0$ such that no finite collection of $varepsilon$-balls cover $X$. Therefore we can define recursively a sequence of points $a_1,a_2,...$ each two of which are at distance at least $varepsilon$ from one another. This is a subset of $A$ which is closed (if $x$ is in its closure then by taking an $varepsilon/2$ neighbourhood of it we see we must have $x=a_n$ for some $n$) but clearly not compact (it's discrete and infinite).



    Corollary. The closure of $A$ is totally bounded as well.



    By assumption the closure of $A$ is not compact. Therefore, it's not complete, so it contains a Cauchy sequence which is not convergent. Therefore $A$ contains such a sequence as well. The set of points of this sequence is closed, but not compact. Contradiction.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$















    • $begingroup$
      Or, more directly, given a sequence in $overline{A}$ with no convergent subsequence, you can pick a sequence in $A$ that approximates it in the limit and so has the same convergence subsequences. So that sequence in $A$ forms a closed set which is not compact.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Wofsey
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @EricWofsey Yeah, this was pointed out to me already. When I was trying to come up with a proof it just seemed to me like a good idea to first try to prove total boundedness (since I think this is essentially what's going on here), and then when I was done I didn't realise it wasn't really necessary.
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @DanielWainfleet No, I just showed that the closure of $A$ contains such a sequence and then deduced $A$ itself does too.
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      yesterday














    5














    5










    5







    $begingroup$

    Here's a proof this can't happen in a metric space. Suppose $X$ is a metric space and that $Asubseteq X$ is a subset such that every $Bsubseteq A$ which is closed in $X$ is compact.



    Lemma. $A$ is totally bounded.
    proof. Assume it is not. Then there is $varepsilon>0$ such that no finite collection of $varepsilon$-balls cover $X$. Therefore we can define recursively a sequence of points $a_1,a_2,...$ each two of which are at distance at least $varepsilon$ from one another. This is a subset of $A$ which is closed (if $x$ is in its closure then by taking an $varepsilon/2$ neighbourhood of it we see we must have $x=a_n$ for some $n$) but clearly not compact (it's discrete and infinite).



    Corollary. The closure of $A$ is totally bounded as well.



    By assumption the closure of $A$ is not compact. Therefore, it's not complete, so it contains a Cauchy sequence which is not convergent. Therefore $A$ contains such a sequence as well. The set of points of this sequence is closed, but not compact. Contradiction.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Here's a proof this can't happen in a metric space. Suppose $X$ is a metric space and that $Asubseteq X$ is a subset such that every $Bsubseteq A$ which is closed in $X$ is compact.



    Lemma. $A$ is totally bounded.
    proof. Assume it is not. Then there is $varepsilon>0$ such that no finite collection of $varepsilon$-balls cover $X$. Therefore we can define recursively a sequence of points $a_1,a_2,...$ each two of which are at distance at least $varepsilon$ from one another. This is a subset of $A$ which is closed (if $x$ is in its closure then by taking an $varepsilon/2$ neighbourhood of it we see we must have $x=a_n$ for some $n$) but clearly not compact (it's discrete and infinite).



    Corollary. The closure of $A$ is totally bounded as well.



    By assumption the closure of $A$ is not compact. Therefore, it's not complete, so it contains a Cauchy sequence which is not convergent. Therefore $A$ contains such a sequence as well. The set of points of this sequence is closed, but not compact. Contradiction.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    CronusCronus

    1,1776 silver badges18 bronze badges




    1,1776 silver badges18 bronze badges















    • $begingroup$
      Or, more directly, given a sequence in $overline{A}$ with no convergent subsequence, you can pick a sequence in $A$ that approximates it in the limit and so has the same convergence subsequences. So that sequence in $A$ forms a closed set which is not compact.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Wofsey
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @EricWofsey Yeah, this was pointed out to me already. When I was trying to come up with a proof it just seemed to me like a good idea to first try to prove total boundedness (since I think this is essentially what's going on here), and then when I was done I didn't realise it wasn't really necessary.
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @DanielWainfleet No, I just showed that the closure of $A$ contains such a sequence and then deduced $A$ itself does too.
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      yesterday


















    • $begingroup$
      Or, more directly, given a sequence in $overline{A}$ with no convergent subsequence, you can pick a sequence in $A$ that approximates it in the limit and so has the same convergence subsequences. So that sequence in $A$ forms a closed set which is not compact.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Wofsey
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @EricWofsey Yeah, this was pointed out to me already. When I was trying to come up with a proof it just seemed to me like a good idea to first try to prove total boundedness (since I think this is essentially what's going on here), and then when I was done I didn't realise it wasn't really necessary.
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @DanielWainfleet No, I just showed that the closure of $A$ contains such a sequence and then deduced $A$ itself does too.
      $endgroup$
      – Cronus
      yesterday
















    $begingroup$
    Or, more directly, given a sequence in $overline{A}$ with no convergent subsequence, you can pick a sequence in $A$ that approximates it in the limit and so has the same convergence subsequences. So that sequence in $A$ forms a closed set which is not compact.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    Or, more directly, given a sequence in $overline{A}$ with no convergent subsequence, you can pick a sequence in $A$ that approximates it in the limit and so has the same convergence subsequences. So that sequence in $A$ forms a closed set which is not compact.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    yesterday












    $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey Yeah, this was pointed out to me already. When I was trying to come up with a proof it just seemed to me like a good idea to first try to prove total boundedness (since I think this is essentially what's going on here), and then when I was done I didn't realise it wasn't really necessary.
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey Yeah, this was pointed out to me already. When I was trying to come up with a proof it just seemed to me like a good idea to first try to prove total boundedness (since I think this is essentially what's going on here), and then when I was done I didn't realise it wasn't really necessary.
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    yesterday




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @DanielWainfleet No, I just showed that the closure of $A$ contains such a sequence and then deduced $A$ itself does too.
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    @DanielWainfleet No, I just showed that the closure of $A$ contains such a sequence and then deduced $A$ itself does too.
    $endgroup$
    – Cronus
    yesterday











    5













    $begingroup$

    If you don't mind abandoning all separation axioms, then it's really easy to find an example, because you can easily make there be very few closed subsets of your set. For instance, let $Y$ be any non-compact topological space, let $X=Ytimes{0,1}$ where ${0,1}$ has the indiscrete topology, and let $A=Ytimes{0}$. Then no nonempty subset of $A$ is closed in $X$, but $A$ is not contained in any compact subset of $X$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$




















      5













      $begingroup$

      If you don't mind abandoning all separation axioms, then it's really easy to find an example, because you can easily make there be very few closed subsets of your set. For instance, let $Y$ be any non-compact topological space, let $X=Ytimes{0,1}$ where ${0,1}$ has the indiscrete topology, and let $A=Ytimes{0}$. Then no nonempty subset of $A$ is closed in $X$, but $A$ is not contained in any compact subset of $X$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        5














        5










        5







        $begingroup$

        If you don't mind abandoning all separation axioms, then it's really easy to find an example, because you can easily make there be very few closed subsets of your set. For instance, let $Y$ be any non-compact topological space, let $X=Ytimes{0,1}$ where ${0,1}$ has the indiscrete topology, and let $A=Ytimes{0}$. Then no nonempty subset of $A$ is closed in $X$, but $A$ is not contained in any compact subset of $X$.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        If you don't mind abandoning all separation axioms, then it's really easy to find an example, because you can easily make there be very few closed subsets of your set. For instance, let $Y$ be any non-compact topological space, let $X=Ytimes{0,1}$ where ${0,1}$ has the indiscrete topology, and let $A=Ytimes{0}$. Then no nonempty subset of $A$ is closed in $X$, but $A$ is not contained in any compact subset of $X$.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited yesterday

























        answered yesterday









        Eric WofseyEric Wofsey

        210k15 gold badges246 silver badges378 bronze badges




        210k15 gold badges246 silver badges378 bronze badges


























            -1













            $begingroup$

            Let the space S = (-r,r) $cup$ Q where r is an irrational.

            Let the set A = (-r,r).

            Every closed subset of A is compact.

            I dare you to find a compact subset of S that contains A.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$











            • 4




              $begingroup$
              $A$ is closed in the space $S$, but not compact.
              $endgroup$
              – bof
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              @bof How about instead $A = (0, r)$ in the same space?
              $endgroup$
              – Brian Moehring
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              @BrianMoehring $[r/2,r)$ is a subset of $(0,r)$ which is closed in $S$ but is not compact.
              $endgroup$
              – bof
              2 days ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              You don't want to delete this wrong answer?
              $endgroup$
              – bof
              yesterday
















            -1













            $begingroup$

            Let the space S = (-r,r) $cup$ Q where r is an irrational.

            Let the set A = (-r,r).

            Every closed subset of A is compact.

            I dare you to find a compact subset of S that contains A.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$











            • 4




              $begingroup$
              $A$ is closed in the space $S$, but not compact.
              $endgroup$
              – bof
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              @bof How about instead $A = (0, r)$ in the same space?
              $endgroup$
              – Brian Moehring
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              @BrianMoehring $[r/2,r)$ is a subset of $(0,r)$ which is closed in $S$ but is not compact.
              $endgroup$
              – bof
              2 days ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              You don't want to delete this wrong answer?
              $endgroup$
              – bof
              yesterday














            -1














            -1










            -1







            $begingroup$

            Let the space S = (-r,r) $cup$ Q where r is an irrational.

            Let the set A = (-r,r).

            Every closed subset of A is compact.

            I dare you to find a compact subset of S that contains A.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            Let the space S = (-r,r) $cup$ Q where r is an irrational.

            Let the set A = (-r,r).

            Every closed subset of A is compact.

            I dare you to find a compact subset of S that contains A.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 2 days ago









            William ElliotWilliam Elliot

            10.9k2 gold badges8 silver badges21 bronze badges




            10.9k2 gold badges8 silver badges21 bronze badges











            • 4




              $begingroup$
              $A$ is closed in the space $S$, but not compact.
              $endgroup$
              – bof
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              @bof How about instead $A = (0, r)$ in the same space?
              $endgroup$
              – Brian Moehring
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              @BrianMoehring $[r/2,r)$ is a subset of $(0,r)$ which is closed in $S$ but is not compact.
              $endgroup$
              – bof
              2 days ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              You don't want to delete this wrong answer?
              $endgroup$
              – bof
              yesterday














            • 4




              $begingroup$
              $A$ is closed in the space $S$, but not compact.
              $endgroup$
              – bof
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              @bof How about instead $A = (0, r)$ in the same space?
              $endgroup$
              – Brian Moehring
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              @BrianMoehring $[r/2,r)$ is a subset of $(0,r)$ which is closed in $S$ but is not compact.
              $endgroup$
              – bof
              2 days ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              You don't want to delete this wrong answer?
              $endgroup$
              – bof
              yesterday








            4




            4




            $begingroup$
            $A$ is closed in the space $S$, but not compact.
            $endgroup$
            – bof
            2 days ago




            $begingroup$
            $A$ is closed in the space $S$, but not compact.
            $endgroup$
            – bof
            2 days ago












            $begingroup$
            @bof How about instead $A = (0, r)$ in the same space?
            $endgroup$
            – Brian Moehring
            2 days ago




            $begingroup$
            @bof How about instead $A = (0, r)$ in the same space?
            $endgroup$
            – Brian Moehring
            2 days ago












            $begingroup$
            @BrianMoehring $[r/2,r)$ is a subset of $(0,r)$ which is closed in $S$ but is not compact.
            $endgroup$
            – bof
            2 days ago




            $begingroup$
            @BrianMoehring $[r/2,r)$ is a subset of $(0,r)$ which is closed in $S$ but is not compact.
            $endgroup$
            – bof
            2 days ago




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            You don't want to delete this wrong answer?
            $endgroup$
            – bof
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            You don't want to delete this wrong answer?
            $endgroup$
            – bof
            yesterday


















            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%2f3328771%2fif-all-closed-subsets-of-a-set-are-compact-does-it-follow-that-this-set-is-subs%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

            Taj Mahal Inhaltsverzeichnis Aufbau | Geschichte | 350-Jahr-Feier | Heutige Bedeutung | Siehe auch |...

            Baia Sprie Cuprins Etimologie | Istorie | Demografie | Politică și administrație | Arii naturale...

            Nicolae Petrescu-Găină Cuprins Biografie | Opera | In memoriam | Varia | Controverse, incertitudini...