Convergence of Compact Sets in Metric Spaces

In summary: Thanks for catching that!In summary, the result is true with the added restriction that An ≠ ∅ for each n in N.
  • #1
sammycaps
91
0
I was just googling around and I came across this problem.

Let (X,d) be a metric space.

Let (An)n [itex]\in[/itex] N be a sequence of closed subsets of X with the property An [itex]\supseteq[/itex] An+1 for all n [itex]\in[/itex] N. Suppose it exists an m [itex]\in[/itex] N such that Am is compact. Prove that [itex]\bigcap[/itex]n[itex]\in N[/itex]An is not empty.



I'm wondering if there is a typo here. Take some metric space. The we can set Am = ∅, and this is compact and closed, so it satisfies the conditions but the intersection is empty. What am I missing, thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The result is true with the added restriction that An ≠ ∅ for each n in N.
 
  • #3
jgens said:
The result is true with the added restriction that An ≠ ∅ for each n in N.

If this were the case, then why would we need compactness?
 
  • #4
sammycaps said:
If this were the case, then why would we need compactness?

Just because each [itex]A_n[/itex] is nonempty, doesn't mean that the intersection is.

For example, take [itex]A_n=[n,+\infty[[/itex], then the intersection [itex]\bigcap A_n = \emptyset
[/itex]. We need a compactness hypothesis somewhere.
 
  • #5
micromass said:
Just because each [itex]A_n[/itex] is nonempty, doesn't mean that the intersection is.

For example, take [itex]A_n=[n,+\infty[[/itex], then the intersection [itex]\bigcap A_n = \emptyset
[/itex]. We need a compactness hypothesis somewhere.

Oh I see, that was stupid. Thanks!
 
  • #6
sammycaps said:
I was just googling around and I came across this problem.

Let (X,d) be a metric space.

Let (An)n [itex]\in[/itex] N be a sequence of closed subsets of X with the property An [itex]\supseteq[/itex] An+1 for all n [itex]\in[/itex] N. Suppose it exists an m [itex]\in[/itex] N such that Am is compact. Prove that [itex]\bigcap[/itex]n[itex]\in N[/itex]An is not empty.



I'm wondering if there is a typo here. Take some metric space. The we can set Am = ∅, and this is compact and closed, so it satisfies the conditions but the intersection is empty. What am I missing, thanks.

Notice that since Am is assumed compact, X is metric ( so Hausdorff ), and

Am [itex]\supseteq[/itex] Am+1 , all of which are closed, then

the Am+i ;i=1,2,... , can be seen as compact subspaces of

Am. This is a standard theorem in Analysis/Topology.
 
  • #7
Bacle2 said:
Notice that since Am is assumed compact, X is metric ( so Hausdorff ), and

Am [itex]\supseteq[/itex] Am+1 , all of which are closed, then

the Am+i ;i=1,2,... , can be seen as compact subspaces of

Am. This is a standard theorem in Analysis/Topology.

Yeah, I just had a momentarily lapse in brain function where I didn't realize closed and nested doesn't imply a non-empty intersection.
 
  • #8
sammycaps said:
Yeah, I just had a momentarily lapse in brain function ...

Aah,.., welcome to the club :) .
 

FAQ: Convergence of Compact Sets in Metric Spaces

What is a compact space?

A compact space is a mathematical concept in topology that describes a space that is finite in size and shape. It is a generalization of the notion of a closed and bounded interval in one-dimensional space.

What is the significance of the sequence of compact spaces?

The sequence of compact spaces is important because it helps to study the properties of infinite spaces by breaking them down into smaller, more manageable parts. It also allows for the study of convergence and continuity in topological spaces.

How is a sequence of compact spaces defined?

A sequence of compact spaces is a collection of topological spaces that are ordered in a specific way. Each space in the sequence is a subset of the next, and the union of all the spaces in the sequence is the entire topological space under consideration.

What is the relationship between a sequence of compact spaces and compactness?

A sequence of compact spaces does not necessarily imply that the entire topological space is compact. However, if the sequence satisfies certain conditions, such as being nested or having decreasing open covers, then the entire space is guaranteed to be compact.

How is the sequence of compact spaces used in mathematical proofs?

The sequence of compact spaces is often used in mathematical proofs to show that a property or statement holds for all compact spaces. By breaking down a larger space into smaller compact ones, it becomes easier to prove the desired result for the entire space.

Similar threads

Back
Top