MHB Compact Set Question: Counterexample Proved

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sudharaka
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Compact Set
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the question of whether a sequence converging to a limit in a metric space implies that the set of points in the sequence is compact. A counterexample is provided using the sequence \(\{\frac{1}{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}\), which converges to 0 but is not compact since 0 is not included in the set. Participants debate the implications of the indexing of the sequence, with one suggesting a potential printing error in the original question. Ultimately, the conclusion is reached that the sequence defined does not meet the criteria for compactness despite convergence. The conversation highlights the nuances of compactness in metric spaces.
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. :)
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · 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
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K