This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: COMPACTNESS VS. SEQUENTIAL COMPACTNESS The aim of this handout is to provide a detailed proof of the equivalence between the two definitions of compactness: existence of a finite subcover of any open cover, and existence of a limit point of any infinite subset (also called in class sequentially compactness ). Definition 1. K is compact if every open cover of K contains a finite subcover. K is sequentially compact if every infinite subset of K has a limit point in K . Theorem 1. K is compact K is sequentially compact. The first half of this statement (compact = sequentially compact) is Theorem 2.37 in Rudin and is proved there. Our aim is to prove the converse implication (sequentially compact = compact), following the lines of Exercises 23, 24 and 26 in Rudin Chapter 2. The proof requires the introduction of two auxiliary notions: Definition 2. A space X is separable if it admits a countable dense subset. For example R is separable ( Q is countable, and it is dense since every real number is a limit of rationals); for the same reason R k is separable (consider all points with only rational coordinates). Definition 3. A collection { V } of open subsets of X is said to be a base for X if the following is true: for every x X and for every open set G X such that x G , there exists such that x V G . In other words, every open subset of X decomposes as a union of a subcollection of the V s the V s generate all open subsets. The family { V } almost always contains infinitely many members (the only exception is if X is finite). However, if X happens to be separable, then countably many open subsets are enough to form a base (the converse statement is also true and is an easy exercise):...
View
Full
Document
 Fall '10
 Prof.KatrinWehrheim

Click to edit the document details