How are these two proofs for the compactness of [a,b] equivalent?

In summary, the conversation discusses two different proofs for the compactness of a closed interval [a,b]. The first proof uses the concept of open covers and supremum, while the second proof uses a process of dividing the interval into smaller intervals and using the completeness property. Both proofs ultimately conclude that [a,b] is compact, but they use different approaches and language to arrive at this result. This raises the question of whether these two proofs are equivalent, meaning they are essentially the same proof stated in different ways.
  • #1
Extropy
17
0
1.
Let O be an open cover for [a,b] and let x=sup{d|[a,d] can be covered by finitely many elements of O}. Clearly x>a.

If x<b or x=b, then there is an element [tex]O_1[/tex] of O which is a neighborhood of x, and there is an [tex]\epsilon>0[/tex] such that [tex]x-\epsilon[/tex] is an element of [tex]O_1[/tex], and since there is a finite open subcover of O for [a,[tex]x-\epsilon[/tex]] (since x is the supremum), then adding [tex]O_1[/tex] to this subcover would form a finite subcover for [a,y] form some y>x, contradicting the idea that x is the supremum. Therefore, x>b.

2.
Consider a sequence in [a,b], and divide it in half, and choose the one with an infinite number of elements of the sequence. Divide it it in half again, and choose the one with an infinite number of elements of the sequence, and repeat this process to get a sequence of intervals. Due to completeness, their intersection is non-empty, which is therefore a limit point of the sequence. Therefore, [a,b] is sequentially compact, and therefore compact (since the space is second countable and therefore has the Lindelöf property).

The second proof is the process that I see used to prove the more general Heine Borel theorem for metric spaces - with an analogous process of picking smaller and smaller neighborhoods which are in turn totally bounded, and using the completeness property to deduce that there exists a limit point, and is therefore sequentially compact, and therefore is compact (since, due to total boundedness, there exists a set whose closure is the whole space, and therefore is second countable and therefore has the Lindelöf property). However, I am unable to find how to relate the first proof to the second.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What does it means for two proofs to be equivalent?
 
  • #3
Meaning, equivalent in method. Are they essentially the same proof stated in different language? If so, how are they the same proofs?
 
Last edited:

FAQ: How are these two proofs for the compactness of [a,b] equivalent?

1. How do you prove the compactness of [a,b]?

The compactness of [a,b] can be proven using two different methods: the Heine-Borel Theorem and the Sequential Compactness Theorem. Both methods involve showing that every open cover of [a,b] has a finite subcover, but they use different approaches to do so.

2. What is the Heine-Borel Theorem?

The Heine-Borel Theorem states that a subset of R (the set of real numbers) is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded. This theorem is often used to prove the compactness of [a,b] by showing that [a,b] is both closed and bounded, and therefore must be compact.

3. How does the Sequential Compactness Theorem prove the compactness of [a,b]?

The Sequential Compactness Theorem states that a subset of R is compact if and only if every sequence in the subset has a convergent subsequence with its limit in the subset. This theorem can be used to prove the compactness of [a,b] by considering a sequence of points in [a,b] and showing that it has a convergent subsequence within [a,b]. This implies that [a,b] contains all its limit points and therefore must be compact.

4. Are the two proofs for the compactness of [a,b] equivalent?

Yes, the two proofs for the compactness of [a,b] are equivalent. Both methods ultimately show that [a,b] has a finite subcover for any open cover, which is the definition of compactness. Although they use different approaches, they lead to the same conclusion.

5. Can you use other methods to prove the compactness of [a,b]?

Yes, there are other methods that can be used to prove the compactness of [a,b], such as the Bolzano-Weierstrass Theorem and the Nested Interval Theorem. However, the Heine-Borel Theorem and the Sequential Compactness Theorem are the most commonly used and well-known methods for proving the compactness of [a,b].

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
623
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top