(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Spivak's proof of "A closed bounded subset of R^n is compact"

Hi guys,

I'm currently taking a differential geometry course and decided I would read Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds, and then move on to his Differential Geometry series. There's a proof in here that feels unjustified to me, so I'm hoping you guys can point out what I'm missing. It's on p. 10 and it reads as follows:

1-7 Corollary.A closed bounded subset of ℝ(The converse is also true (Problem 1-20).)^{n}is compact.

If A[itex]\subset[/itex][itex]ℝ^{n}[/itex] is closed and bounded, then A[itex]\subset[/itex]B for some closed rectangle B. If [itex]\wp[/itex] is an open cover of A, then [itex]\wp[/itex] together with [itex]ℝ^{n}-A[/itex] is an open cover of B. Hence a finite number of [itex]U_1, ..., U_n[/itex] of sets in [itex]\wp[/itex], together with [itex]ℝ^{n}-A[/itex] perhaps, cover B. Then [itex]U_1, ..., U_n[/itex] cover A.Proof.

The part in red is the part that I don't understand. How can we jump to saying that a finite number of open sets cover B? Isn't that sort of assuming the result?

(I ask these questions not because I doubt the veracity of Spivak's proof, but because I don't understand it.)

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Spivak's proof of A closed bounded subset of R^n is compact

Loading...

Similar Threads for Spivak's proof closed | Date |
---|---|

I Proof that a sequence has two subsequential limits | Apr 12, 2018 |

I Proof that a quantity is greater than 1/2 | Apr 12, 2018 |

Spivak Exercice, Least Upper Bounds Chapter, Proof | Aug 26, 2012 |

Sloppy Proof in Spivak's Calculus? | Jun 11, 2012 |

Spivak correction? | Apr 26, 2012 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**