Closed & boundedness, sequentially compactness and Completeness
Let $(X,||·||)$ be a normed vector space and S be a non-empty subset
of $X$. Which of the following conditions always implies the other two
conditions? Prove one of the two implications. Also, give one example
illustrating that one condition does not imply some other.
- S is closed and bounded.
- S is sequentially compact
- S is complete.
My Answer:
- (2) implies both (1) and (3):
Proof:
$(2)rightarrow(1)$ Suppose $S$ is sequentially compact. Then we have shown that compactness will imply both closed and bounded properties for any metric space (Converse of the Heine Borel theorem is true for any metric space).
$quadquad(2)rightarrow(3)$
begin{align*}
S text{ is Sequentially Compact} &Rightarrow text{ Any Cauchy Sequence in S has a convergent subsequence}\
&Rightarrow text{Cauchy Seqence converges [*]}\
&Rightarrow text{ S is complete}
end{align*}
[Proof of *: Cauchy sequence is convergent iff it has a convergent subsequence ]
- (1) does not imply (2)
Proof: Consider the metric space $X=(0,1)$ with the Euclidean. That is the open interval. Since this is the metric space, it is closed. (Any metric space is clopen). Also it is bounded because it is a bounded interval.
Now consider the sequence $(frac{1}{n})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ from $X$. And as we have shown that in the set of real numbers with the Euclidean metric, this sequence converges to 0. Thus all sub sequences should also converge to 0. And as we haven't change the metric for $X$, now we have a sequence from $X$ which does not have a subsequence converging to a point in $X$. Thus it is not sequentially compact. (And also similar argument can be used to say that (1) doesnot imply (3))
I would like some suggestions and feedback on my proposed answer. Moreover I'm wondering whether there is any possible proper subset of a metric space which can be used to say that (1) doesnot imply (2)
real-analysis general-topology metric-spaces
asked 2 days ago
Charith JeewanthaCharith Jeewantha
827
add a comment |
Let $(X,||·||)$ be a normed vector space and S be a non-empty subset
of $X$. Which of the following conditions always implies the other two
conditions? Prove one of the two implications. Also, give one example
illustrating that one condition does not imply some other.
- S is closed and bounded.
- S is sequentially compact
- S is complete.
My Answer:
- (2) implies both (1) and (3):
Proof:
$(2)rightarrow(1)$ Suppose $S$ is sequentially compact. Then we have shown that compactness will imply both closed and bounded properties for any metric space (Converse of the Heine Borel theorem is true for any metric space).
$quadquad(2)rightarrow(3)$
begin{align*}
S text{ is Sequentially Compact} &Rightarrow text{ Any Cauchy Sequence in S has a convergent subsequence}\
&Rightarrow text{Cauchy Seqence converges [*]}\
&Rightarrow text{ S is complete}
end{align*}
[Proof of *: Cauchy sequence is convergent iff it has a convergent subsequence ]
- (1) does not imply (2)
Proof: Consider the metric space $X=(0,1)$ with the Euclidean. That is the open interval. Since this is the metric space, it is closed. (Any metric space is clopen). Also it is bounded because it is a bounded interval.
Now consider the sequence $(frac{1}{n})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ from $X$. And as we have shown that in the set of real numbers with the Euclidean metric, this sequence converges to 0. Thus all sub sequences should also converge to 0. And as we haven't change the metric for $X$, now we have a sequence from $X$ which does not have a subsequence converging to a point in $X$. Thus it is not sequentially compact. (And also similar argument can be used to say that (1) doesnot imply (3))
I would like some suggestions and feedback on my proposed answer. Moreover I'm wondering whether there is any possible proper subset of a metric space which can be used to say that (1) doesnot imply (2)
real-analysis general-topology metric-spaces
asked 2 days ago
Charith JeewanthaCharith Jeewantha
827
2
You arguments and examples are correct, but you did not answer the question. $X= (0,1)$ is not a normed vector space. But you may consider $X = mathbb{R}$ to show (3) does not imply (1) nor (2).
– Paul Frost
2 days ago
But then what should I need to choose as the complete subset of X? can I take $[0,infty)$
– Charith Jeewantha
2 days ago
1
Just $S=X=mathbb{R}$ itself is complete. And not bounded nor sequentially compact.
– Henno Brandsma
2 days ago
1
As for (1) not implying (2) : take $S$ as the closed unit ball in say $X=ell_2$ (or any inifnite-dimensional Banach space), closed and bounded but not sequentially compact. It also shows (3) does not imply (2).
– Henno Brandsma
2 days ago
add a comment |
Let $(X,||·||)$ be a normed vector space and S be a non-empty subset
of $X$. Which of the following conditions always implies the other two
conditions? Prove one of the two implications. Also, give one example
illustrating that one condition does not imply some other.
- S is closed and bounded.
- S is sequentially compact
- S is complete.
My Answer:
- (2) implies both (1) and (3):
Proof:
$(2)rightarrow(1)$ Suppose $S$ is sequentially compact. Then we have shown that compactness will imply both closed and bounded properties for any metric space (Converse of the Heine Borel theorem is true for any metric space).
$quadquad(2)rightarrow(3)$
begin{align*}
S text{ is Sequentially Compact} &Rightarrow text{ Any Cauchy Sequence in S has a convergent subsequence}\
&Rightarrow text{Cauchy Seqence converges [*]}\
&Rightarrow text{ S is complete}
end{align*}
[Proof of *: Cauchy sequence is convergent iff it has a convergent subsequence ]
- (1) does not imply (2)
Proof: Consider the metric space $X=(0,1)$ with the Euclidean. That is the open interval. Since this is the metric space, it is closed. (Any metric space is clopen). Also it is bounded because it is a bounded interval.
Now consider the sequence $(frac{1}{n})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ from $X$. And as we have shown that in the set of real numbers with the Euclidean metric, this sequence converges to 0. Thus all sub sequences should also converge to 0. And as we haven't change the metric for $X$, now we have a sequence from $X$ which does not have a subsequence converging to a point in $X$. Thus it is not sequentially compact. (And also similar argument can be used to say that (1) doesnot imply (3))
I would like some suggestions and feedback on my proposed answer. Moreover I'm wondering whether there is any possible proper subset of a metric space which can be used to say that (1) doesnot imply (2)
real-analysis general-topology metric-spaces
asked 2 days ago
Charith JeewanthaCharith Jeewantha
827
Let $(X,||·||)$ be a normed vector space and S be a non-empty subset
of $X$. Which of the following conditions always implies the other two
conditions? Prove one of the two implications. Also, give one example
illustrating that one condition does not imply some other.
- S is closed and bounded.
- S is sequentially compact
- S is complete.
My Answer:
- (2) implies both (1) and (3):
Proof:
$(2)rightarrow(1)$ Suppose $S$ is sequentially compact. Then we have shown that compactness will imply both closed and bounded properties for any metric space (Converse of the Heine Borel theorem is true for any metric space).
$quadquad(2)rightarrow(3)$
begin{align*}
S text{ is Sequentially Compact} &Rightarrow text{ Any Cauchy Sequence in S has a convergent subsequence}\
&Rightarrow text{Cauchy Seqence converges [*]}\
&Rightarrow text{ S is complete}
end{align*}
[Proof of *: Cauchy sequence is convergent iff it has a convergent subsequence ]
- (1) does not imply (2)
Proof: Consider the metric space $X=(0,1)$ with the Euclidean. That is the open interval. Since this is the metric space, it is closed. (Any metric space is clopen). Also it is bounded because it is a bounded interval.
Now consider the sequence $(frac{1}{n})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ from $X$. And as we have shown that in the set of real numbers with the Euclidean metric, this sequence converges to 0. Thus all sub sequences should also converge to 0. And as we haven't change the metric for $X$, now we have a sequence from $X$ which does not have a subsequence converging to a point in $X$. Thus it is not sequentially compact. (And also similar argument can be used to say that (1) doesnot imply (3))
I would like some suggestions and feedback on my proposed answer. Moreover I'm wondering whether there is any possible proper subset of a metric space which can be used to say that (1) doesnot imply (2)
real-analysis general-topology metric-spaces
real-analysis general-topology metric-spaces
asked 2 days ago
Charith JeewanthaCharith Jeewantha
827
asked 2 days ago
Charith JeewanthaCharith Jeewantha
827
asked 2 days ago
Charith JeewanthaCharith Jeewantha
827
asked 2 days ago
Charith JeewanthaCharith Jeewantha
827
asked 2 days ago
Charith JeewanthaCharith Jeewantha
827
827
2
You arguments and examples are correct, but you did not answer the question. $X= (0,1)$ is not a normed vector space. But you may consider $X = mathbb{R}$ to show (3) does not imply (1) nor (2).
– Paul Frost
2 days ago
But then what should I need to choose as the complete subset of X? can I take $[0,infty)$
– Charith Jeewantha
2 days ago
1
Just $S=X=mathbb{R}$ itself is complete. And not bounded nor sequentially compact.
– Henno Brandsma
2 days ago
1
As for (1) not implying (2) : take $S$ as the closed unit ball in say $X=ell_2$ (or any inifnite-dimensional Banach space), closed and bounded but not sequentially compact. It also shows (3) does not imply (2).
– Henno Brandsma
2 days ago
add a comment |
2
You arguments and examples are correct, but you did not answer the question. $X= (0,1)$ is not a normed vector space. But you may consider $X = mathbb{R}$ to show (3) does not imply (1) nor (2).
– Paul Frost
2 days ago
But then what should I need to choose as the complete subset of X? can I take $[0,infty)$
– Charith Jeewantha
2 days ago
1
Just $S=X=mathbb{R}$ itself is complete. And not bounded nor sequentially compact.
– Henno Brandsma
2 days ago
1
As for (1) not implying (2) : take $S$ as the closed unit ball in say $X=ell_2$ (or any inifnite-dimensional Banach space), closed and bounded but not sequentially compact. It also shows (3) does not imply (2).
– Henno Brandsma
2 days ago
2
2
You arguments and examples are correct, but you did not answer the question. $X= (0,1)$ is not a normed vector space. But you may consider $X = mathbb{R}$ to show (3) does not imply (1) nor (2).
– Paul Frost
2 days ago
You arguments and examples are correct, but you did not answer the question. $X= (0,1)$ is not a normed vector space. But you may consider $X = mathbb{R}$ to show (3) does not imply (1) nor (2).
– Paul Frost
2 days ago
But then what should I need to choose as the complete subset of X? can I take $[0,infty)$
– Charith Jeewantha
2 days ago
But then what should I need to choose as the complete subset of X? can I take $[0,infty)$
– Charith Jeewantha
2 days ago
1
1
Just $S=X=mathbb{R}$ itself is complete. And not bounded nor sequentially compact.
– Henno Brandsma
2 days ago
Just $S=X=mathbb{R}$ itself is complete. And not bounded nor sequentially compact.
– Henno Brandsma
2 days ago
1
1
As for (1) not implying (2) : take $S$ as the closed unit ball in say $X=ell_2$ (or any inifnite-dimensional Banach space), closed and bounded but not sequentially compact. It also shows (3) does not imply (2).
– Henno Brandsma
2 days ago
As for (1) not implying (2) : take $S$ as the closed unit ball in say $X=ell_2$ (or any inifnite-dimensional Banach space), closed and bounded but not sequentially compact. It also shows (3) does not imply (2).
– Henno Brandsma
2 days ago
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
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%2f3062958%2fclosed-boundedness-sequentially-compactness-and-completeness%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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%2f3062958%2fclosed-boundedness-sequentially-compactness-and-completeness%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
2
You arguments and examples are correct, but you did not answer the question. $X= (0,1)$ is not a normed vector space. But you may consider $X = mathbb{R}$ to show (3) does not imply (1) nor (2).
– Paul Frost
2 days ago
But then what should I need to choose as the complete subset of X? can I take $[0,infty)$
– Charith Jeewantha
2 days ago
1
Just $S=X=mathbb{R}$ itself is complete. And not bounded nor sequentially compact.
– Henno Brandsma
2 days ago
1
As for (1) not implying (2) : take $S$ as the closed unit ball in say $X=ell_2$ (or any inifnite-dimensional Banach space), closed and bounded but not sequentially compact. It also shows (3) does not imply (2).
– Henno Brandsma
2 days ago