Compactness and Nested Sequences: A Proof Dilemma

  • Thread starter Thread starter qinglong.1397
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a property of compact subsets in R^n, specifically that a subset A is compact if and only if every nested sequence of relatively closed, non-empty subsets of A has a non-empty intersection. Participants are exploring the implications of this property and discussing various approaches to the proof.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to prove the "if" direction of the compactness property, with some providing hints involving open covers and contradiction. There are questions about the construction of specific sequences and the nature of the open cover.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of ideas, with some participants suggesting specific sequences and questioning the assumptions made in the proof. Hints have been offered, but no consensus or complete solution has emerged yet.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the existence of the required sequence without additional structure on A, highlighting the abstract nature of the subset in R^n. There is also mention of the challenge in constructing the sequence needed for the proof.

qinglong.1397
Messages
108
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Prove that a subset A of R^{n} is compact if and only if every nested sequence \{A_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty} of relatively closed , non-empty subsets of A has non-empty intersection

The Attempt at a Solution



I can prove \rightarrow, but not \leftarrow. Would you please give me a hint? Thank you very much!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Take an open cover (G_i)_{i\in I} which does not have an open subcover (so indeed, we are proving things by contradiction).
Take G_0 in this open cover such that this set is not entire A.
Take G_1 in this open cover such that \{G_0,G_1\} does not cover A.
...

We end up with a sequence of sets (G_n)_n.

For the rest of the proof, I'll give a hint. Take a look at the complements of the sequence G_0,G_0\cup G_1, G_0\cup G_1\cup G_2, ...
 
micromass said:
Take an open cover (G_i)_{i\in I} which does not have an open subcover (so indeed, we are proving things by contradiction).
Take G_0 in this open cover such that this set is not entire A.
Take G_1 in this open cover such that \{G_0,G_1\} does not cover A.
...

We end up with a sequence of sets (G_n)_n.

For the rest of the proof, I'll give a hint. Take a look at the complements of the sequence G_0,G_0\cup G_1, G_0\cup G_1\cup G_2, ...

You mean (G_i)_{i\in I} does not have a finite subcover, don't you? I am sorry that I do not agree with you. I cannot see any contradiction from your hint. Since the union of any family of finitely many elements of (G_i)_{i\in I} does not equal A, then the intersection of the collection of the complements of the sequence G_0,G_0\cup G_1, G_0\cup G_1\cup G_2, ... is not empty, naturally.
 
Yes, but this was only a sketch of the proof. The point is that we can take the sequence (G_n)_n such that its union does cover A.
I agree that if you take the sequence like I said, thaen there is no contradiction. But you have to the sequence kinda special...
 
micromass said:
Yes, but this was only a sketch of the proof. The point is that we can take the sequence (G_n)_n such that its union does cover A.
I agree that if you take the sequence like I said, thaen there is no contradiction. But you have to the sequence kinda special...

Yeah, maybe there is such kind of sequence, but how could you prove that? I think, unless A has some special structure, it does not have the sequence we want. Remember that A is an abstract subset of R^n. I really do not know how to construct the sequence.
 
Well, the construction of the sequence is the hardest part of the problem. Let (G_i)_i be our open cover. Then we know that

A\subseteq \bigcup_{i\in I}{G_i}

For every rational number q in \bigcup_{i\in I}{G_i}, we take an element G_q in our open cover. If we do that for every rational, then we have obtained a sequence (G_q)_q which still covers A.
 
In my opinion, it makes no difference. I am so stupid. Maybe you can give me more definite hint. Or, complete proof!
 
Take (G_i)_{i\in I} be an open cover without finite subcover. Like in my post 6, I can assume that I is countable. Thus without loss of generality, I take it that I=N.

Then G_0\cup...\cup G_n does not cover A, although \bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}{G_n} does cover A.

With complementation, this yields a contradiction.
 
I see, finally. Thank you very much!
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K