Compact Set Question: Counterexample Proved

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sudharaka
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Compact Set
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the compactness of the set \(\{x_j\}_{j=1}^{\infty}\) in a metric space, specifically when \(\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}d(x_n,\, x_0)=0\). A counterexample using the sequence \(\{\frac{1}{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}\) demonstrates that this set is not compact, as its limit point, zero, does not belong to the set itself. Participants debate whether a potential printing error exists in the indexing of the sequence, but the core argument remains that convergence does not guarantee compactness.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of metric spaces and their properties
  • Familiarity with convergence and limit points in sequences
  • Knowledge of compact sets and their definitions in topology
  • Experience with the Euclidean metric in real numbers
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the definition and properties of compact sets in topology
  • Explore examples of sequences in metric spaces that are convergent but not compact
  • Learn about the Heine-Borel theorem and its implications for compactness in Euclidean spaces
  • Investigate the role of limit points in determining the compactness of sets
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of topology, and anyone interested in the properties of metric spaces and compactness in mathematical analysis.

Sudharaka
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1
Hi everyone, :)

I encountered the following question recently. :)

Let \((X,\,d)\) be a metric space and \(\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}d(x_n,\, x_0)=0\). Prove that the set \(\{x_{j}\}_{j=1}^{\infty}\) is compact.

Now I think this question is wrong. Let me give a counterexample. Take the set of real numbers with the usual Euclidean metric. Then take for example the sequence, \(\{\frac{1}{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}\). Then,

\[\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}d(x_n,\, x_0)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left|\frac{1}{n}-0\right|=0\]

All subsequences of \(\{\frac{1}{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}\) should converge to the same limit, which in this case is zero. Hence \(\{\frac{1}{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}\) is not compact as the limiting value of the sequence (and hence all subsequences) does not belong to \(\{\frac{1}{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}\). Let me know if I am wrong. :)

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I agree with you. However, the set \{x_j\}_{j= 0}^\infty is compact. Could that "j= 1" be a printing error?
 
HallsofIvy said:
I agree with you. However, the set \{x_j\}_{j= 0}^\infty is compact. Could that "j= 1" be a printing error?

Hi HallsofIvy, :)

Thanks for replying. But how can that make a difference? For example I can define a sequence in the real numbers like,

\[x_{0}=1\mbox{ and }x_n=\frac{1}{n}\mbox{ for }n\geq 1\]

which is again convergent to \(0\) but not compact.
 
Sudharaka said:
HallsofIvy said:
I agree with you. However, the set \{x_j\}_{j= 0}^\infty is compact. Could that "j= 1" be a printing error?
But how can that make a difference? For example I can define a sequence in the real numbers like,
\[x_{0}=1\mbox{ and }x_n=\frac{1}{n}\mbox{ for }n\geq 1\]
which is again convergent to \(0\) but not compact.

But now {\lim _{n \to \infty }}d({a_n},{a_0}) \ne 0
 
Plato said:
Sudharaka said:
But how can that make a difference? For example I can define a sequence in the real numbers like,
\[x_{0}=1\mbox{ and }x_n=\frac{1}{n}\mbox{ for }n\geq 1\]
which is again convergent to \(0\) but not compact.

But now {\lim _{n \to \infty }}d({a_n},{a_0}) \ne 0

Arghaaaaaa... How could I missed that... (Angry) (Headbang)

Thanks for pointing that out. :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
7K