Proving Sequential Compactness for Metric Spaces: Tips and Tricks

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ja4Coltrane
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
To prove that any sequentially compact metric space is totally bounded, one can use a proof by contradiction. Assume there exists an ε > 0 such that the space cannot be covered by finitely many ε-balls. By selecting points not covered by previous ε-balls, a sequence can be constructed that lacks a convergent subsequence, contradicting the definition of sequential compactness. The discussion emphasizes that total boundedness ensures every sequence has a Cauchy subsequence, which converges due to completeness. This approach avoids relying on the established implication that sequential compactness leads to compactness.
Ja4Coltrane
Messages
224
Reaction score
0
Hello.
I'm trying to prove that any sequentially compact metric space is totally bounded (where totally bounded means that for any epsilon > 0, there exists a finite open covering for the space consisting only of balls of radius epsilon.

Does anyone have any advice for proving this? I realize that one thing is that seq compactness => compactness => totally bounded, but I'd like to avoid this if possible...

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This result is in fact part of the proof that sequentially compact implies compact for a metrizable space X in Munkres' Topology (§28 in the second edition), so one better not use sequentially compact ⇒ compact to prove this!

The proof is one by contradiction that goes roughly like this: Suppose there is an ε > 0 such that X can't be covered by finitely many ε-balls. Let x1 be any point of X, and in general pick xn+1 in X that is not in any ε-ball centered at a previous point (since these ε-balls do not cover X). Argue that the sequence (xn) has no convergent subsequence. (Consider the distance between any pair of points in the sequence.)
 
Last edited:
compact is equivalent to complete and totally bounded. totally bounded means every sequence has a cauchy subsequence, which then converges by completeness.

so the previous post no doubt describes how, in the absence of total boundedness, to construct a sequence with no cauchy subsequence.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
9
Views
4K