Rudin's proof of Arzela-Ascoli teorem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Epsilon36819
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Epsilon36819
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
This is little Rudin's proof 7.25: If K is compact, f_n complex and continuous functions and if {f_n} is pointwise bounded and equicontinuous on K, then {f_n} contains a uniformly convergent subsequence.

The proof requires a countable dense subset of K, called E. Then by compactness (and density?), there exists finitely many x_i elements of E s.t K is covered by U V(x_i, delta). Then the usual triangle inequality applies.

I don't see why a countable dense subset of K is needed. Why can we not directly invoke compactness and choose the x_i's elements of K, instead? U V(x, delta), x elements of K, is an infinite cover of K, so why can we not directly choose the x_i's? The only requirement in the proof is that d(x,x_i)<delta be valid for some i from 1 to m and for all x elements of K.

What am I completely missing?

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need the set because you want to use theorem 7.23, to insure the subsequences there exist to be pointwise convergent.
 
Sorry if I'm being a little dense (:rolleyes:), but thm 7.23 only requires that {f_n} be pointwise bounded (which we have). Why can the countable set used in 7.23 not be the set of all x_i's taken directly from K such that U V(x_i, delta) covers K? I don't see the need for density...
 
It is becase the convergent subsequence g_i, need to be independent of the given epsilon. You see the delta choosen depent on epsilon, and the there for the set E you want to consruct from U V(x,delta), depends on epsilon, and because that E depends on epsilon, when you use theorem 7.23 on that g_i depends on epsilon.

By doing it the way rudin does it, g_i is independent of epsilon. If g_i depends on epsilon, that is when I give you an epsilon you need to choose a new equence you are in trouble because, then you haven't proved that g_i converges, becase for every epsilon you choose a new sequence, you see?

It is a very subtle point, I missed it my self the first time I learned the proof, good catch.
 
HA! It's all clear now. Thanks a lot!
 
no problem. Glad to help.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
10K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top