Hello. In my analysis book, it says that "Any closed bounded subset of E^n is compact" where E is an arbitrary metric space. I looked over the proof and it used that fact that E^n was complete, but it does not say that in the original condition so I was wondering if the book made a mistake in not adding that.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

For my counter example, consider the metric space (0,1), with the usual distance metric. The subset of itself is closed by definition, and it is bounded. However, it is not compact, since (1/n, 1-1/n) covers it as n→∞. Is there something wrong with my logic or did the book screw up by not mentioning complete in the conditional?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Compactness of (0,1) when that is the whole metric space

Loading...

Similar Threads for Compactness whole metric |
---|

I Problem with countably compact space |

I Compact subspace in metric space |

A Questions about Covering maps, manifolds, compactness |

I Compact Disk |

I Noncompact locally compact Hausdorff continuous mapping |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**