Every compact metric space is complete
I need to prove that every compact metric space is complete. I think I need to use the following two facts:
- A set $K$ is compact if and only if every collection $mathcal{F}$ of closed subsets with finite intersection property has $bigcap{F:Finmathcal{F}}neqemptyset$.
- A metric space $(X,d)$ is complete if and only if for any sequence ${F_n}$ of non-empty closed sets with $F_1supset F_2supsetcdots$ and $text{diam}~F_nrightarrow0$, $bigcap_{n=1}^{infty}F_n$ contains a single point.
I do not know how to arrive at my result that every compact metric space is complete. Any help?
Thanks in advance.
general-topology analysis metric-spaces compactness
add a comment |
I need to prove that every compact metric space is complete. I think I need to use the following two facts:
- A set $K$ is compact if and only if every collection $mathcal{F}$ of closed subsets with finite intersection property has $bigcap{F:Finmathcal{F}}neqemptyset$.
- A metric space $(X,d)$ is complete if and only if for any sequence ${F_n}$ of non-empty closed sets with $F_1supset F_2supsetcdots$ and $text{diam}~F_nrightarrow0$, $bigcap_{n=1}^{infty}F_n$ contains a single point.
I do not know how to arrive at my result that every compact metric space is complete. Any help?
Thanks in advance.
general-topology analysis metric-spaces compactness
1
Closed subsets of compact spaces are compact. If $F={K_alpha}$ is a centered family of compact sets, $bigcap Fneq varnothing$. If, moreover, ${rm diam}K_nto 0$, it is easily seen $bigcap F$ must consist of only one point. Nested sets are centered. Hence the result.
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:26
As a side note, a metric space is compact iff it is complete and totally bounded. You have a part of the implication, so maybe you're interested in finishing things off. =)
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:30
add a comment |
I need to prove that every compact metric space is complete. I think I need to use the following two facts:
- A set $K$ is compact if and only if every collection $mathcal{F}$ of closed subsets with finite intersection property has $bigcap{F:Finmathcal{F}}neqemptyset$.
- A metric space $(X,d)$ is complete if and only if for any sequence ${F_n}$ of non-empty closed sets with $F_1supset F_2supsetcdots$ and $text{diam}~F_nrightarrow0$, $bigcap_{n=1}^{infty}F_n$ contains a single point.
I do not know how to arrive at my result that every compact metric space is complete. Any help?
Thanks in advance.
general-topology analysis metric-spaces compactness
I need to prove that every compact metric space is complete. I think I need to use the following two facts:
- A set $K$ is compact if and only if every collection $mathcal{F}$ of closed subsets with finite intersection property has $bigcap{F:Finmathcal{F}}neqemptyset$.
- A metric space $(X,d)$ is complete if and only if for any sequence ${F_n}$ of non-empty closed sets with $F_1supset F_2supsetcdots$ and $text{diam}~F_nrightarrow0$, $bigcap_{n=1}^{infty}F_n$ contains a single point.
I do not know how to arrive at my result that every compact metric space is complete. Any help?
Thanks in advance.
general-topology analysis metric-spaces compactness
general-topology analysis metric-spaces compactness
edited Apr 14 '15 at 19:07
Asaf Karagila♦
301k32423755
301k32423755
asked Jan 5 '14 at 5:06
Abishanka Saha
7,79011022
7,79011022
1
Closed subsets of compact spaces are compact. If $F={K_alpha}$ is a centered family of compact sets, $bigcap Fneq varnothing$. If, moreover, ${rm diam}K_nto 0$, it is easily seen $bigcap F$ must consist of only one point. Nested sets are centered. Hence the result.
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:26
As a side note, a metric space is compact iff it is complete and totally bounded. You have a part of the implication, so maybe you're interested in finishing things off. =)
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:30
add a comment |
1
Closed subsets of compact spaces are compact. If $F={K_alpha}$ is a centered family of compact sets, $bigcap Fneq varnothing$. If, moreover, ${rm diam}K_nto 0$, it is easily seen $bigcap F$ must consist of only one point. Nested sets are centered. Hence the result.
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:26
As a side note, a metric space is compact iff it is complete and totally bounded. You have a part of the implication, so maybe you're interested in finishing things off. =)
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:30
1
1
Closed subsets of compact spaces are compact. If $F={K_alpha}$ is a centered family of compact sets, $bigcap Fneq varnothing$. If, moreover, ${rm diam}K_nto 0$, it is easily seen $bigcap F$ must consist of only one point. Nested sets are centered. Hence the result.
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:26
Closed subsets of compact spaces are compact. If $F={K_alpha}$ is a centered family of compact sets, $bigcap Fneq varnothing$. If, moreover, ${rm diam}K_nto 0$, it is easily seen $bigcap F$ must consist of only one point. Nested sets are centered. Hence the result.
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:26
As a side note, a metric space is compact iff it is complete and totally bounded. You have a part of the implication, so maybe you're interested in finishing things off. =)
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:30
As a side note, a metric space is compact iff it is complete and totally bounded. You have a part of the implication, so maybe you're interested in finishing things off. =)
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:30
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
Let $langle F_nrangle_{ninBbb{N}}$ be a descending sequence of nonempty closed sets satisfy that $operatorname{diam} F_nto 0$ as $ntoinfty$. You can easily check that if $m_1<m_2<cdots<m_k$ then
$$
F_{m_1}cap F_{m_2}capcdotscap F_{m_k} =F_{m_k}neq varnothing
$$
so $langle F_nrangle_{ninBbb{N}}$ satisfies finite intersection property. Since $(X,d)$ is a compact metric space, $bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n$ is not empty. Since
$$
operatorname{diam} bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n le operatorname{diam} F_mto 0qquad text{as }> mtoinfty
$$
so $bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n$ contains at most one point. So $bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n$ is singleton.
add a comment |
If you do not wish to use the Heine-Borel theorem for metric spaces (as suggested in the answer by Igor Rivin) then here is another way of proving that a compact metric space is complete:
Note that in metric spaces the notions of compactness and sequential compactness coincide. Let $x_n$ be a Cauchy sequence in the metric space $X$. Since $X$ is sequentially compact there is a convergent subsequence $x_{n_k}to x in X$.
All that now remains to be shown is that $x_n to x$. Since $x_{n_k}to x$ there is $N_1$ with $n_k ge N_1$ implies $|x_{n_k}-x|<{varepsilonover 2}$. Let $N_2$ be such that $n,mge N_2$ implies $|x_n-x_m|<{varepsilon over 2}$.
Then $n>N=max(N_1,N_2)$ implies
$$ |x_n-x|le |x_n-x_N|+|x_N-x|<varepsilon$$
Hence $X$ is complete.
2
This is not yet correct, since you haven't yet shown that the original sequence converges. The result which you need to establish first is that if a Cauchy sequence has a convergent subsequence, then the original sequence converges.
– Santiago Canez
Apr 23 '14 at 13:00
@SantiagoCanez I believe this is a misunderstanding due to my clumsy writing. I will rewrite and improve the answer. Thank you for your comments.
– Student
Apr 23 '14 at 13:39
@SantiagoCanez I now included the proof of what I assumed and consider a triviality.
– Student
Apr 24 '14 at 10:10
@SantiagoCanez Do you find the edited answer more palatable?
– Student
Apr 24 '14 at 15:46
Yes, this looks great, thanks.
– Santiago Canez
Apr 24 '14 at 16:21
|
show 3 more comments
Here's a not-so-fancy way:
Let ${a_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence.
If the set of values in the (image of the) sequence is finite, then use the Cauchy criterion to show that the sequence is eventually constant (and so converges).
If the set of values of the sequence is infinite, then use compactness to finite a limit point of this set. Use this limit point to construct a convergent subsequence of the original sequence. Then use the Cauchy criterion to show the original sequence converges to the same limit as the subsequence.
add a comment |
This follows from Heine-Borel (see the wiki page for the relevant proofs).
2
How does this follow from Heine-Borel's theorem? Were you trying to answer another question?
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:29
1
@PedroTamaroff The Heine-Borel for metric spaces says that a set is compact iff it is complete and totally bounded. So there is nothing to prove as the desired claim is an immediate consequence.
– Student
Apr 23 '14 at 12:10
add a comment |
Let $X$ be a compact metric space and let ${p_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence in $X$. Then define $E_N$ as ${p_N, p_{N+1}, p_{N+2}, ldots}$. Let $overline{E_N}$ be the closure of $E_N$. Since it is a closed subset of compact metric space, it is compact as well.
By definition of Cauchy sequence, we have $lim_{Ntoinfty} text{diam } E_N = lim_{Ntoinfty} text{diam } overline{E_N} = 0$. Let $E = cap_{n=1}^infty overline{E_n}$. Because $E_N supset E_{N+1}$ and $overline{E_N} supset overline{E_{N+1}}$ for all $N$, we have that $E$ is not empty. $E$ cannot have more than $1$ point because otherwise, $lim_{Ntoinfty} text{diam } overline{E_N} > 0$, which is a contradiction. Therefore $E$ contains exactly one point $p in overline{E_N}$ for all $N$. Therefore $p in X$.
For all $epsilon > 0$, there exists an $N$ such that $text{diam } overline{E_n} < epsilon$ for all $n > N$. Thus, $d(p,q) < epsilon$ for all $q in overline{E_n}$. Since $E_n subset overline{E_n}$, we have $d(p,q) < epsilon$ for all $q in E_n$. Therefore, ${p_n}$ converges to $p in X$.
add a comment |
Hint: If you have a sequence wherein $d(a_{N},a_{k})<r$ for all $kgeq N$, then the limit of that sequence, if exist, must be in the closure of the open ball radius $r$ around $a_{N}$.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f627667%2fevery-compact-metric-space-is-complete%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Let $langle F_nrangle_{ninBbb{N}}$ be a descending sequence of nonempty closed sets satisfy that $operatorname{diam} F_nto 0$ as $ntoinfty$. You can easily check that if $m_1<m_2<cdots<m_k$ then
$$
F_{m_1}cap F_{m_2}capcdotscap F_{m_k} =F_{m_k}neq varnothing
$$
so $langle F_nrangle_{ninBbb{N}}$ satisfies finite intersection property. Since $(X,d)$ is a compact metric space, $bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n$ is not empty. Since
$$
operatorname{diam} bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n le operatorname{diam} F_mto 0qquad text{as }> mtoinfty
$$
so $bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n$ contains at most one point. So $bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n$ is singleton.
add a comment |
Let $langle F_nrangle_{ninBbb{N}}$ be a descending sequence of nonempty closed sets satisfy that $operatorname{diam} F_nto 0$ as $ntoinfty$. You can easily check that if $m_1<m_2<cdots<m_k$ then
$$
F_{m_1}cap F_{m_2}capcdotscap F_{m_k} =F_{m_k}neq varnothing
$$
so $langle F_nrangle_{ninBbb{N}}$ satisfies finite intersection property. Since $(X,d)$ is a compact metric space, $bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n$ is not empty. Since
$$
operatorname{diam} bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n le operatorname{diam} F_mto 0qquad text{as }> mtoinfty
$$
so $bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n$ contains at most one point. So $bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n$ is singleton.
add a comment |
Let $langle F_nrangle_{ninBbb{N}}$ be a descending sequence of nonempty closed sets satisfy that $operatorname{diam} F_nto 0$ as $ntoinfty$. You can easily check that if $m_1<m_2<cdots<m_k$ then
$$
F_{m_1}cap F_{m_2}capcdotscap F_{m_k} =F_{m_k}neq varnothing
$$
so $langle F_nrangle_{ninBbb{N}}$ satisfies finite intersection property. Since $(X,d)$ is a compact metric space, $bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n$ is not empty. Since
$$
operatorname{diam} bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n le operatorname{diam} F_mto 0qquad text{as }> mtoinfty
$$
so $bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n$ contains at most one point. So $bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n$ is singleton.
Let $langle F_nrangle_{ninBbb{N}}$ be a descending sequence of nonempty closed sets satisfy that $operatorname{diam} F_nto 0$ as $ntoinfty$. You can easily check that if $m_1<m_2<cdots<m_k$ then
$$
F_{m_1}cap F_{m_2}capcdotscap F_{m_k} =F_{m_k}neq varnothing
$$
so $langle F_nrangle_{ninBbb{N}}$ satisfies finite intersection property. Since $(X,d)$ is a compact metric space, $bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n$ is not empty. Since
$$
operatorname{diam} bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n le operatorname{diam} F_mto 0qquad text{as }> mtoinfty
$$
so $bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n$ contains at most one point. So $bigcap_{ninBbb{N}} F_n$ is singleton.
edited Nov 26 at 0:29
Robson
771221
771221
answered Jan 5 '14 at 5:19
Hanul Jeon
17.5k42780
17.5k42780
add a comment |
add a comment |
If you do not wish to use the Heine-Borel theorem for metric spaces (as suggested in the answer by Igor Rivin) then here is another way of proving that a compact metric space is complete:
Note that in metric spaces the notions of compactness and sequential compactness coincide. Let $x_n$ be a Cauchy sequence in the metric space $X$. Since $X$ is sequentially compact there is a convergent subsequence $x_{n_k}to x in X$.
All that now remains to be shown is that $x_n to x$. Since $x_{n_k}to x$ there is $N_1$ with $n_k ge N_1$ implies $|x_{n_k}-x|<{varepsilonover 2}$. Let $N_2$ be such that $n,mge N_2$ implies $|x_n-x_m|<{varepsilon over 2}$.
Then $n>N=max(N_1,N_2)$ implies
$$ |x_n-x|le |x_n-x_N|+|x_N-x|<varepsilon$$
Hence $X$ is complete.
2
This is not yet correct, since you haven't yet shown that the original sequence converges. The result which you need to establish first is that if a Cauchy sequence has a convergent subsequence, then the original sequence converges.
– Santiago Canez
Apr 23 '14 at 13:00
@SantiagoCanez I believe this is a misunderstanding due to my clumsy writing. I will rewrite and improve the answer. Thank you for your comments.
– Student
Apr 23 '14 at 13:39
@SantiagoCanez I now included the proof of what I assumed and consider a triviality.
– Student
Apr 24 '14 at 10:10
@SantiagoCanez Do you find the edited answer more palatable?
– Student
Apr 24 '14 at 15:46
Yes, this looks great, thanks.
– Santiago Canez
Apr 24 '14 at 16:21
|
show 3 more comments
If you do not wish to use the Heine-Borel theorem for metric spaces (as suggested in the answer by Igor Rivin) then here is another way of proving that a compact metric space is complete:
Note that in metric spaces the notions of compactness and sequential compactness coincide. Let $x_n$ be a Cauchy sequence in the metric space $X$. Since $X$ is sequentially compact there is a convergent subsequence $x_{n_k}to x in X$.
All that now remains to be shown is that $x_n to x$. Since $x_{n_k}to x$ there is $N_1$ with $n_k ge N_1$ implies $|x_{n_k}-x|<{varepsilonover 2}$. Let $N_2$ be such that $n,mge N_2$ implies $|x_n-x_m|<{varepsilon over 2}$.
Then $n>N=max(N_1,N_2)$ implies
$$ |x_n-x|le |x_n-x_N|+|x_N-x|<varepsilon$$
Hence $X$ is complete.
2
This is not yet correct, since you haven't yet shown that the original sequence converges. The result which you need to establish first is that if a Cauchy sequence has a convergent subsequence, then the original sequence converges.
– Santiago Canez
Apr 23 '14 at 13:00
@SantiagoCanez I believe this is a misunderstanding due to my clumsy writing. I will rewrite and improve the answer. Thank you for your comments.
– Student
Apr 23 '14 at 13:39
@SantiagoCanez I now included the proof of what I assumed and consider a triviality.
– Student
Apr 24 '14 at 10:10
@SantiagoCanez Do you find the edited answer more palatable?
– Student
Apr 24 '14 at 15:46
Yes, this looks great, thanks.
– Santiago Canez
Apr 24 '14 at 16:21
|
show 3 more comments
If you do not wish to use the Heine-Borel theorem for metric spaces (as suggested in the answer by Igor Rivin) then here is another way of proving that a compact metric space is complete:
Note that in metric spaces the notions of compactness and sequential compactness coincide. Let $x_n$ be a Cauchy sequence in the metric space $X$. Since $X$ is sequentially compact there is a convergent subsequence $x_{n_k}to x in X$.
All that now remains to be shown is that $x_n to x$. Since $x_{n_k}to x$ there is $N_1$ with $n_k ge N_1$ implies $|x_{n_k}-x|<{varepsilonover 2}$. Let $N_2$ be such that $n,mge N_2$ implies $|x_n-x_m|<{varepsilon over 2}$.
Then $n>N=max(N_1,N_2)$ implies
$$ |x_n-x|le |x_n-x_N|+|x_N-x|<varepsilon$$
Hence $X$ is complete.
If you do not wish to use the Heine-Borel theorem for metric spaces (as suggested in the answer by Igor Rivin) then here is another way of proving that a compact metric space is complete:
Note that in metric spaces the notions of compactness and sequential compactness coincide. Let $x_n$ be a Cauchy sequence in the metric space $X$. Since $X$ is sequentially compact there is a convergent subsequence $x_{n_k}to x in X$.
All that now remains to be shown is that $x_n to x$. Since $x_{n_k}to x$ there is $N_1$ with $n_k ge N_1$ implies $|x_{n_k}-x|<{varepsilonover 2}$. Let $N_2$ be such that $n,mge N_2$ implies $|x_n-x_m|<{varepsilon over 2}$.
Then $n>N=max(N_1,N_2)$ implies
$$ |x_n-x|le |x_n-x_N|+|x_N-x|<varepsilon$$
Hence $X$ is complete.
edited Apr 24 '14 at 10:09
answered Apr 23 '14 at 12:15
Student
664518
664518
2
This is not yet correct, since you haven't yet shown that the original sequence converges. The result which you need to establish first is that if a Cauchy sequence has a convergent subsequence, then the original sequence converges.
– Santiago Canez
Apr 23 '14 at 13:00
@SantiagoCanez I believe this is a misunderstanding due to my clumsy writing. I will rewrite and improve the answer. Thank you for your comments.
– Student
Apr 23 '14 at 13:39
@SantiagoCanez I now included the proof of what I assumed and consider a triviality.
– Student
Apr 24 '14 at 10:10
@SantiagoCanez Do you find the edited answer more palatable?
– Student
Apr 24 '14 at 15:46
Yes, this looks great, thanks.
– Santiago Canez
Apr 24 '14 at 16:21
|
show 3 more comments
2
This is not yet correct, since you haven't yet shown that the original sequence converges. The result which you need to establish first is that if a Cauchy sequence has a convergent subsequence, then the original sequence converges.
– Santiago Canez
Apr 23 '14 at 13:00
@SantiagoCanez I believe this is a misunderstanding due to my clumsy writing. I will rewrite and improve the answer. Thank you for your comments.
– Student
Apr 23 '14 at 13:39
@SantiagoCanez I now included the proof of what I assumed and consider a triviality.
– Student
Apr 24 '14 at 10:10
@SantiagoCanez Do you find the edited answer more palatable?
– Student
Apr 24 '14 at 15:46
Yes, this looks great, thanks.
– Santiago Canez
Apr 24 '14 at 16:21
2
2
This is not yet correct, since you haven't yet shown that the original sequence converges. The result which you need to establish first is that if a Cauchy sequence has a convergent subsequence, then the original sequence converges.
– Santiago Canez
Apr 23 '14 at 13:00
This is not yet correct, since you haven't yet shown that the original sequence converges. The result which you need to establish first is that if a Cauchy sequence has a convergent subsequence, then the original sequence converges.
– Santiago Canez
Apr 23 '14 at 13:00
@SantiagoCanez I believe this is a misunderstanding due to my clumsy writing. I will rewrite and improve the answer. Thank you for your comments.
– Student
Apr 23 '14 at 13:39
@SantiagoCanez I believe this is a misunderstanding due to my clumsy writing. I will rewrite and improve the answer. Thank you for your comments.
– Student
Apr 23 '14 at 13:39
@SantiagoCanez I now included the proof of what I assumed and consider a triviality.
– Student
Apr 24 '14 at 10:10
@SantiagoCanez I now included the proof of what I assumed and consider a triviality.
– Student
Apr 24 '14 at 10:10
@SantiagoCanez Do you find the edited answer more palatable?
– Student
Apr 24 '14 at 15:46
@SantiagoCanez Do you find the edited answer more palatable?
– Student
Apr 24 '14 at 15:46
Yes, this looks great, thanks.
– Santiago Canez
Apr 24 '14 at 16:21
Yes, this looks great, thanks.
– Santiago Canez
Apr 24 '14 at 16:21
|
show 3 more comments
Here's a not-so-fancy way:
Let ${a_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence.
If the set of values in the (image of the) sequence is finite, then use the Cauchy criterion to show that the sequence is eventually constant (and so converges).
If the set of values of the sequence is infinite, then use compactness to finite a limit point of this set. Use this limit point to construct a convergent subsequence of the original sequence. Then use the Cauchy criterion to show the original sequence converges to the same limit as the subsequence.
add a comment |
Here's a not-so-fancy way:
Let ${a_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence.
If the set of values in the (image of the) sequence is finite, then use the Cauchy criterion to show that the sequence is eventually constant (and so converges).
If the set of values of the sequence is infinite, then use compactness to finite a limit point of this set. Use this limit point to construct a convergent subsequence of the original sequence. Then use the Cauchy criterion to show the original sequence converges to the same limit as the subsequence.
add a comment |
Here's a not-so-fancy way:
Let ${a_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence.
If the set of values in the (image of the) sequence is finite, then use the Cauchy criterion to show that the sequence is eventually constant (and so converges).
If the set of values of the sequence is infinite, then use compactness to finite a limit point of this set. Use this limit point to construct a convergent subsequence of the original sequence. Then use the Cauchy criterion to show the original sequence converges to the same limit as the subsequence.
Here's a not-so-fancy way:
Let ${a_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence.
If the set of values in the (image of the) sequence is finite, then use the Cauchy criterion to show that the sequence is eventually constant (and so converges).
If the set of values of the sequence is infinite, then use compactness to finite a limit point of this set. Use this limit point to construct a convergent subsequence of the original sequence. Then use the Cauchy criterion to show the original sequence converges to the same limit as the subsequence.
edited Jan 5 '14 at 5:40
answered Jan 5 '14 at 5:34
bryanj
2,4731027
2,4731027
add a comment |
add a comment |
This follows from Heine-Borel (see the wiki page for the relevant proofs).
2
How does this follow from Heine-Borel's theorem? Were you trying to answer another question?
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:29
1
@PedroTamaroff The Heine-Borel for metric spaces says that a set is compact iff it is complete and totally bounded. So there is nothing to prove as the desired claim is an immediate consequence.
– Student
Apr 23 '14 at 12:10
add a comment |
This follows from Heine-Borel (see the wiki page for the relevant proofs).
2
How does this follow from Heine-Borel's theorem? Were you trying to answer another question?
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:29
1
@PedroTamaroff The Heine-Borel for metric spaces says that a set is compact iff it is complete and totally bounded. So there is nothing to prove as the desired claim is an immediate consequence.
– Student
Apr 23 '14 at 12:10
add a comment |
This follows from Heine-Borel (see the wiki page for the relevant proofs).
This follows from Heine-Borel (see the wiki page for the relevant proofs).
answered Jan 5 '14 at 5:10
Igor Rivin
15.9k11234
15.9k11234
2
How does this follow from Heine-Borel's theorem? Were you trying to answer another question?
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:29
1
@PedroTamaroff The Heine-Borel for metric spaces says that a set is compact iff it is complete and totally bounded. So there is nothing to prove as the desired claim is an immediate consequence.
– Student
Apr 23 '14 at 12:10
add a comment |
2
How does this follow from Heine-Borel's theorem? Were you trying to answer another question?
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:29
1
@PedroTamaroff The Heine-Borel for metric spaces says that a set is compact iff it is complete and totally bounded. So there is nothing to prove as the desired claim is an immediate consequence.
– Student
Apr 23 '14 at 12:10
2
2
How does this follow from Heine-Borel's theorem? Were you trying to answer another question?
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:29
How does this follow from Heine-Borel's theorem? Were you trying to answer another question?
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:29
1
1
@PedroTamaroff The Heine-Borel for metric spaces says that a set is compact iff it is complete and totally bounded. So there is nothing to prove as the desired claim is an immediate consequence.
– Student
Apr 23 '14 at 12:10
@PedroTamaroff The Heine-Borel for metric spaces says that a set is compact iff it is complete and totally bounded. So there is nothing to prove as the desired claim is an immediate consequence.
– Student
Apr 23 '14 at 12:10
add a comment |
Let $X$ be a compact metric space and let ${p_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence in $X$. Then define $E_N$ as ${p_N, p_{N+1}, p_{N+2}, ldots}$. Let $overline{E_N}$ be the closure of $E_N$. Since it is a closed subset of compact metric space, it is compact as well.
By definition of Cauchy sequence, we have $lim_{Ntoinfty} text{diam } E_N = lim_{Ntoinfty} text{diam } overline{E_N} = 0$. Let $E = cap_{n=1}^infty overline{E_n}$. Because $E_N supset E_{N+1}$ and $overline{E_N} supset overline{E_{N+1}}$ for all $N$, we have that $E$ is not empty. $E$ cannot have more than $1$ point because otherwise, $lim_{Ntoinfty} text{diam } overline{E_N} > 0$, which is a contradiction. Therefore $E$ contains exactly one point $p in overline{E_N}$ for all $N$. Therefore $p in X$.
For all $epsilon > 0$, there exists an $N$ such that $text{diam } overline{E_n} < epsilon$ for all $n > N$. Thus, $d(p,q) < epsilon$ for all $q in overline{E_n}$. Since $E_n subset overline{E_n}$, we have $d(p,q) < epsilon$ for all $q in E_n$. Therefore, ${p_n}$ converges to $p in X$.
add a comment |
Let $X$ be a compact metric space and let ${p_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence in $X$. Then define $E_N$ as ${p_N, p_{N+1}, p_{N+2}, ldots}$. Let $overline{E_N}$ be the closure of $E_N$. Since it is a closed subset of compact metric space, it is compact as well.
By definition of Cauchy sequence, we have $lim_{Ntoinfty} text{diam } E_N = lim_{Ntoinfty} text{diam } overline{E_N} = 0$. Let $E = cap_{n=1}^infty overline{E_n}$. Because $E_N supset E_{N+1}$ and $overline{E_N} supset overline{E_{N+1}}$ for all $N$, we have that $E$ is not empty. $E$ cannot have more than $1$ point because otherwise, $lim_{Ntoinfty} text{diam } overline{E_N} > 0$, which is a contradiction. Therefore $E$ contains exactly one point $p in overline{E_N}$ for all $N$. Therefore $p in X$.
For all $epsilon > 0$, there exists an $N$ such that $text{diam } overline{E_n} < epsilon$ for all $n > N$. Thus, $d(p,q) < epsilon$ for all $q in overline{E_n}$. Since $E_n subset overline{E_n}$, we have $d(p,q) < epsilon$ for all $q in E_n$. Therefore, ${p_n}$ converges to $p in X$.
add a comment |
Let $X$ be a compact metric space and let ${p_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence in $X$. Then define $E_N$ as ${p_N, p_{N+1}, p_{N+2}, ldots}$. Let $overline{E_N}$ be the closure of $E_N$. Since it is a closed subset of compact metric space, it is compact as well.
By definition of Cauchy sequence, we have $lim_{Ntoinfty} text{diam } E_N = lim_{Ntoinfty} text{diam } overline{E_N} = 0$. Let $E = cap_{n=1}^infty overline{E_n}$. Because $E_N supset E_{N+1}$ and $overline{E_N} supset overline{E_{N+1}}$ for all $N$, we have that $E$ is not empty. $E$ cannot have more than $1$ point because otherwise, $lim_{Ntoinfty} text{diam } overline{E_N} > 0$, which is a contradiction. Therefore $E$ contains exactly one point $p in overline{E_N}$ for all $N$. Therefore $p in X$.
For all $epsilon > 0$, there exists an $N$ such that $text{diam } overline{E_n} < epsilon$ for all $n > N$. Thus, $d(p,q) < epsilon$ for all $q in overline{E_n}$. Since $E_n subset overline{E_n}$, we have $d(p,q) < epsilon$ for all $q in E_n$. Therefore, ${p_n}$ converges to $p in X$.
Let $X$ be a compact metric space and let ${p_n}$ be a Cauchy sequence in $X$. Then define $E_N$ as ${p_N, p_{N+1}, p_{N+2}, ldots}$. Let $overline{E_N}$ be the closure of $E_N$. Since it is a closed subset of compact metric space, it is compact as well.
By definition of Cauchy sequence, we have $lim_{Ntoinfty} text{diam } E_N = lim_{Ntoinfty} text{diam } overline{E_N} = 0$. Let $E = cap_{n=1}^infty overline{E_n}$. Because $E_N supset E_{N+1}$ and $overline{E_N} supset overline{E_{N+1}}$ for all $N$, we have that $E$ is not empty. $E$ cannot have more than $1$ point because otherwise, $lim_{Ntoinfty} text{diam } overline{E_N} > 0$, which is a contradiction. Therefore $E$ contains exactly one point $p in overline{E_N}$ for all $N$. Therefore $p in X$.
For all $epsilon > 0$, there exists an $N$ such that $text{diam } overline{E_n} < epsilon$ for all $n > N$. Thus, $d(p,q) < epsilon$ for all $q in overline{E_n}$. Since $E_n subset overline{E_n}$, we have $d(p,q) < epsilon$ for all $q in E_n$. Therefore, ${p_n}$ converges to $p in X$.
answered Apr 14 '15 at 19:05
Andy
11317
11317
add a comment |
add a comment |
Hint: If you have a sequence wherein $d(a_{N},a_{k})<r$ for all $kgeq N$, then the limit of that sequence, if exist, must be in the closure of the open ball radius $r$ around $a_{N}$.
add a comment |
Hint: If you have a sequence wherein $d(a_{N},a_{k})<r$ for all $kgeq N$, then the limit of that sequence, if exist, must be in the closure of the open ball radius $r$ around $a_{N}$.
add a comment |
Hint: If you have a sequence wherein $d(a_{N},a_{k})<r$ for all $kgeq N$, then the limit of that sequence, if exist, must be in the closure of the open ball radius $r$ around $a_{N}$.
Hint: If you have a sequence wherein $d(a_{N},a_{k})<r$ for all $kgeq N$, then the limit of that sequence, if exist, must be in the closure of the open ball radius $r$ around $a_{N}$.
answered Jan 5 '14 at 5:12
Gina
4,6071133
4,6071133
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f627667%2fevery-compact-metric-space-is-complete%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Closed subsets of compact spaces are compact. If $F={K_alpha}$ is a centered family of compact sets, $bigcap Fneq varnothing$. If, moreover, ${rm diam}K_nto 0$, it is easily seen $bigcap F$ must consist of only one point. Nested sets are centered. Hence the result.
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:26
As a side note, a metric space is compact iff it is complete and totally bounded. You have a part of the implication, so maybe you're interested in finishing things off. =)
– Pedro Tamaroff♦
Jan 5 '14 at 5:30