Convergence of Compact Sets in Metric Spaces

  • Thread starter Thread starter sammycaps
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Compact Sequence
sammycaps
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
I was just googling around and I came across this problem.

Let (X,d) be a metric space.

Let (An)n \in N be a sequence of closed subsets of X with the property An \supseteq An+1 for all n \in N. Suppose it exists an m \in N such that Am is compact. Prove that \bigcapn\in NAn is not empty.



I'm wondering if there is a typo here. Take some metric space. The we can set Am = ∅, and this is compact and closed, so it satisfies the conditions but the intersection is empty. What am I missing, thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The result is true with the added restriction that An ≠ ∅ for each n in N.
 
jgens said:
The result is true with the added restriction that An ≠ ∅ for each n in N.

If this were the case, then why would we need compactness?
 
sammycaps said:
If this were the case, then why would we need compactness?

Just because each A_n is nonempty, doesn't mean that the intersection is.

For example, take A_n=[n,+\infty[, then the intersection \bigcap A_n = \emptyset<br />. We need a compactness hypothesis somewhere.
 
micromass said:
Just because each A_n is nonempty, doesn't mean that the intersection is.

For example, take A_n=[n,+\infty[, then the intersection \bigcap A_n = \emptyset<br />. We need a compactness hypothesis somewhere.

Oh I see, that was stupid. Thanks!
 
sammycaps said:
I was just googling around and I came across this problem.

Let (X,d) be a metric space.

Let (An)n \in N be a sequence of closed subsets of X with the property An \supseteq An+1 for all n \in N. Suppose it exists an m \in N such that Am is compact. Prove that \bigcapn\in NAn is not empty.



I'm wondering if there is a typo here. Take some metric space. The we can set Am = ∅, and this is compact and closed, so it satisfies the conditions but the intersection is empty. What am I missing, thanks.

Notice that since Am is assumed compact, X is metric ( so Hausdorff ), and

Am \supseteq Am+1 , all of which are closed, then

the Am+i ;i=1,2,... , can be seen as compact subspaces of

Am. This is a standard theorem in Analysis/Topology.
 
Bacle2 said:
Notice that since Am is assumed compact, X is metric ( so Hausdorff ), and

Am \supseteq Am+1 , all of which are closed, then

the Am+i ;i=1,2,... , can be seen as compact subspaces of

Am. This is a standard theorem in Analysis/Topology.

Yeah, I just had a momentarily lapse in brain function where I didn't realize closed and nested doesn't imply a non-empty intersection.
 
sammycaps said:
Yeah, I just had a momentarily lapse in brain function ...

Aah,.., welcome to the club :) .
 
Back
Top