User Tools

Site Tools


math104-s22:notes:lecture_15

Lecture 15

\gdef\ucal{\mathcal U}

Last time we discussed two versions of compactness: the sequential compactness and the open cover compactness.

Theorem: let XX be a metric space. Then, XX is sequentially compact, if and only if XX is open cover compact.

Last time we have shown open cover compactness implies sequential compactness, today we show the converse.

Suppose a metric space (X,d)(X,d) is sequentially compact, namely, any sequence (pn)(p_n) in XX has a convergent subsequence. How to show that any open cover U\ucal of XX has a finite sub-cover? We first introduce

Definition (A Lebesgue number of a cover U\ucal) we say λ\lambda is a Lebesgue number of the covering U\ucal, if for any pXp \in X, there is some UUU \in \ucal, such that Bλ(p)UB_\lambda(p) \In U.

Lemma Every open cover U\ucal of a sequentially compact space XX has a Lebesgue number λ>0\lambda>0.
Proof: suppose not, then for every λ\lambda, there exists a point pp, such that Bλ(p)B_\lambda(p) is not contained in any UUU \in \ucal. Let λ\lambda take values 1/n1/n for n=1,2,n=1,2,\cdots, and we get a sequence pnp_n for λ=1/n\lambda=1/n. By sequential compactness, this sequence has a convergent subsequence, say converge to pXp \in X. However, pp is contained in some open set U0UU_0 \in \ucal, thus there is r>0r>0 that Br(p)U0B_r(p) \In U_0. Thus, let ϵ=r/3\epsilon = r/3, and NN large enough such that 1/N<r/31/N < r/3, since pnp_n sub-converge to pp, there exists n>Nn > N with d(pn,p)<ϵd(p_n, p) < \epsilon. Thus, we have B1/n(pn)Br/3(pn)Br(p)U0 B_{1/n}(p_n) \In B_{r/3}(p_n) \In B_r(p) \In U_0 which contradict with B1/n(pn)B_{1/n}(p_n) is not contained in any UUU \in \ucal. This proves the lemma.

Lemma If XX is a sequentially compact space, then for any r>0r>0, XX can be covered by finitely many open balls of radius rr. Proof: We claim that XX can only contain finitely many disjoint open balls with radius r/2r/2. Then, take such a maximal r/2r/2-radius ball packing, and replace the radius r/2r/2 balls by radius rr balls, claim the bigger balls cover XX. (Discussion: prove the two claims)

Given the above two lemma, one can prove that any open cover of a sequentially compact space XX admits a finite subcover. (Discussion: prove it)


1. Compactness is an absolute (or intrinsic) property of a metric space. If XX is a metric space, and KXK \In X is a subset, when we say KK is compact, we mean KK as a 'stand-alone' metric space (totally forgetting about XX, but only using the distance function inherited from XX) is compact.

2. We proved last time: If KXK \In X is (open cover) compact, then KK is closed and bounded. (Discussion: if you replace open cover compact by sequential compactness, can you prove the two conclusions directly (without using the equivalence of the two definitions)?)

3. We know that [0,1][0,1] is sequentially compact (by Heine-Borel theorem), can you show that [0,1]2[0,1]^2 is sequentially compact? (Hint: given a sequence (pn)(p_n) in [0,1]2[0,1]^2, first show that you can pass to subsequence to make the sequence of the first coordinate converge, then …)

math104-s22/notes/lecture_15.txt · Last modified: 2022/03/09 22:37 by pzhou