- #1
Bachelier
- 376
- 0
We know [tex]\mathbb{R} \ or \ \mathbb{R}^1[/tex] is complete, hence every Cauchy seq. converges. Therefore every subsequence of them converges as well. (to the same pt)
My clarification is regarding the term Sequentially Compact (SC). In the definition, they only state a topological space X is SC if every sequence in X has a convergent subsequence.
I know there is the term compact in the name but it is never mentioned in the definition. Only later do we make the connection between compactness and SC via the theorem: X is SC iff it is compact. Which begs the question that the definition of sequentially compact has nothing to do with compactness in the first place.
So if it doesn't and the relationship between the two properties is only proven later after introducing both terms separately, then based on these definitions, [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] is sequentially compact. And therefore it is compact per theorem, which we know is not true because it is unbounded.
My clarification is regarding the term Sequentially Compact (SC). In the definition, they only state a topological space X is SC if every sequence in X has a convergent subsequence.
I know there is the term compact in the name but it is never mentioned in the definition. Only later do we make the connection between compactness and SC via the theorem: X is SC iff it is compact. Which begs the question that the definition of sequentially compact has nothing to do with compactness in the first place.
So if it doesn't and the relationship between the two properties is only proven later after introducing both terms separately, then based on these definitions, [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] is sequentially compact. And therefore it is compact per theorem, which we know is not true because it is unbounded.