Proving Sequential Compactness for Metric Spaces: Tips and Tricks

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ja4Coltrane
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on proving that any sequentially compact metric space is totally bounded, specifically avoiding the direct implication from sequential compactness to compactness. The proof strategy involves contradiction, assuming there exists an ε > 0 such that the space cannot be covered by finitely many ε-balls. By constructing a sequence of points that cannot have a convergent subsequence, the discussion highlights the relationship between total boundedness and the existence of Cauchy subsequences, as outlined in Munkres' Topology.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of metric spaces and their properties
  • Familiarity with the concepts of sequential compactness and total boundedness
  • Knowledge of Cauchy sequences and convergence in metric spaces
  • Basic comprehension of Munkres' Topology, specifically §28 in the second edition
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof of the equivalence between compactness and sequential compactness in metric spaces
  • Learn about the construction of sequences in metric spaces that lack Cauchy subsequences
  • Explore the implications of total boundedness in the context of complete metric spaces
  • Review examples of sequentially compact spaces and their properties
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of topology, and anyone interested in the properties of metric spaces and their compactness characteristics.

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