Can a compact function spaces no contain an accumulation point?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of compact function spaces, specifically in the context of the Ascoli-Arzelà Theorem. The original poster questions whether a compact function space must be closed, citing a specific example involving a bounded subset of C[a,b] and a constructed sequence that converges outside the set.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definitions of compactness, particularly in relation to function spaces versus finite Euclidean spaces. The original poster raises concerns about the closure of compact sets and the implications of sequences converging outside the set.

Discussion Status

Several participants provide insights into the relationship between compactness and closed sets in different contexts, particularly in metric and Hausdorff spaces. There is a recognition of the nuances involved in function spaces, and some participants suggest that the original poster's example may indicate a misunderstanding of compactness in this setting.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing discussion about the necessity of a metric for discussing compactness, with some participants noting that compactness can be defined in terms of topology rather than metrics. The lack of a specified metric in the original problem is highlighted as a potential point of confusion.

Fractal20
Messages
71
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


So I had a homework problem which was to show that a certain function space was compact via Ascoli-Arzela Theorem. I was okay with doing this, accept, it appears the corresponding uniformly convergent sequence I found in any infinite set need not converge to something in the set. I brought this up with my professor and was told that outside of finite Euclidean space a compact set does not need to be closed.

So I tried to dig up different definitions of compact because I this seemed to be the opposite of what I remember and everything seemed to say that the convergent subsequence needs to converge to something in the set for it to be compact.

So my real question is, is this true? A compact function space need not be closed? If it helps the original question is:

Let M be a bounded subset of C[a,b] show the set {R(x) =∫ax f(t) dt | f is in M} is compact.

So I am fine with showing that this fits the criteria for Ascoli-Azela but again it seems like I can construct convergent sequences that don't converge to something in the set. For example, suppose M = {fn| fn = 1/n for n=1,2,3...}. Then the corresponding set {R} is equal to the series I will call Rn = (1/n)(x-a). This converges uniformly to the function f = 0, but this is not in {R}.

Again, my question is if compact spaces need not be closed. If so, when is this true? Thanks!


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
Usually it does, for example on Rn compact is equivalent to closed and bounded. More generally, a compact subset of a Hausdorff is closed.

This covers (no pun intended) most "normal" vector spaces that you will encounter. However, function spaces - and what open and closed mean - are a little less intuitive. The fact that you can construct a sequence that is not closed under convergence means that it is not Banach, which is a necessary condition for many theorems (though I don't recall one which says that in Banach spaces compact sets are closed).
 
In a metric space, a compact set is always closed. In particular, your space C[a,b] is a metric space and thus all compact sets are closed.

Spaces where compact sets are not closed arise in the more general theory of topological space. Specifically, it are non-Hausdorff spaces which behave badly. But your space is Hausdorff.

I guess that your version of Ascoli-Arzela says that your set should be uniformly bounded and equicontinuous. But that is not enough to ensure compactness. So the set you found is not compact. Ascoli-Arzela says which spaces are pre-compact. That is: which sets are such that its closure is compact!

If you want Ascoli-Arzela to ensure the space is actually compact, then you should demand equicontinuity, uniformly bounded and closed. The set you mention is not closed.

So the thing has nothing to do with compact sets not being closed, since every compact set in C[a,b] is always closed.
 
Thank you! That confirms my suspicions and clears a lot of things up.
 
Actually one more question. In the problem, a metric on F is never given. Without a metric, can we even discuss whether it is compact?
 
In general, compactness is defined in terms of open covers, for which all you need is a topology.

Often, for "standard" example like Rn and C([a,b]) the "usual" metric (Euclidean metric and d(f, g)^2 = \int_a^b |f(x) - g(x)|^2 \, dx, respectively) are silently assumed.
 
So then would my counter example show that {F} is not necessarily compact? I'm just wondering now if my teacher was mistaken.
 
Fractal20 said:
So then would my counter example show that {F} is not necessarily compact? I'm just wondering now if my teacher was mistaken.

Ascoli-Arzela usually works with C[a,b] and the norm \|f\|_\infty=sup_{x\in [a,b]} |f(x)|. A metric should have been given, but I guess that this is the one they look at.

In my opinion, your teacher was mistaken.
 
Thanks micromass, reading your answers I realized how far away this has sunk in my brain :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K