Proof about compact metric spaces.

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a proof concerning compact metric spaces, specifically focusing on the existence of a finite set within a compact metric space such that every point in the space is within a certain distance from this set. The participants are exploring concepts related to compactness, coverings, and sequential compactness.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Exploratory

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning the definitions of coverings and compactness, particularly how they relate to the problem at hand. There is an attempt to understand whether to use the sequential definition or the covering definition of compactness. One participant expresses uncertainty about the implications of a subset being compact.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants seeking clarification on definitions and exploring the implications of compactness. Some guidance has been offered regarding the relationship between closed subsets and compactness, but there is no explicit consensus on the approach to the proof.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted uncertainty regarding the concept of coverings and how they apply to the proof. Additionally, the discussion includes a counterexample to the assumption that a subset of a compact space is necessarily compact.

Demon117
Messages
162
Reaction score
1
1. Let M be a compact metric space. If r>0, show that there is a finite set S in M such that every point of M is within r units of some point in S.



2. Relevant theorems & Definitions:

-Every compact set is closed and bounded.

-A subset S of a metric space M is sequentially compact if every sequence in S has a subsequence that converges to a limit in S.

-If every open covering of S reduces to a finite subcovering then we say that S is covering compact.




3. Attempt at the solution

To begin with I don't completely understand coverings. So I am unsure whether I should use the sequential definition or the covering definition. Could someone please explain coverings?

I also wondered if S is a subset of a compact metric space, does it follow that S is compact?

INFORMAL PROOF: Since M is compact, it follows that every sequence in M has a convergent subsequence in M. Need to show that for any point in M is within some distance from a point in S. Let m_{k_{j}} be such a subsequence. So for \epsilon>0 there exists N such that m_{k_{j}} is within \epsilon units of some point, call it m.

Not sure where to go from here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What's the definition of compactness? Consider the collection {B(x, r) : x is in M and r > 0}.
 
Regarding your second question, this is not true. But it is true that a closed subspace of a compact space is itself compact.

Edit: a simple counterexample is the closed unit interval [0, 1] which is compact, but <0, 1> is a subset of [0, 1] which is not compact.
 
radou said:
What's the definition of compactness? Consider the collection {B(x, r) : x is in M and r > 0}.

The definition for sequential compactness is that for any sequence in M there is a subsequence which converges to some point in M.

If the collection {B(x,r)|x in M and r>0} is contained in M, could we construct some sequence which converges to the collection? I am not sure what you mean by this collection entirely.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
558
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K