Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Show that a sequentially compact metric space is totally bounded.

Well since sequentially compact $\implies$ compact, any open cover of sequentially compact metric space $X$ has a finite subcover. So $X$ sequentially compact $\implies$ $\exists$ finite subcover. Can this subcover consist of balls of radius $\epsilon$? How would I go about showing this?

share|cite|improve this question
Well, what happens if you put a ball of radius $\epsilon$ around every point? Does that cover the space? – Arturo Magidin Feb 13 '12 at 4:15
So let $\{B_{\epsilon}(x)\}$ be the collection of balls of radius $\epsilon>0$ around points $x\in X$. $\bigcup B_{\epsilon}(x)$ cover $X$ since $X$ is compact $\implies$ $X$ totally bounded? – Emir Feb 13 '12 at 4:22
Since $X$ is compact, there is a finite subcover. Since there is a finite subcover, for every $\epsilon$, $X$ can be covered with finitely many open balls of radius $\epsilon$, hence $X$ is totally bounded. – Arturo Magidin Feb 13 '12 at 4:23
up vote 7 down vote accepted

As total boundedness is usually used as a stepping stone towards showing a sequentially compact metric space is compact, I do not think assuming compactness of $X$ is what is intended for this problem.

The contrapositive is easily proved:

Suppose $X$ is not totally bounded. Then there is an $\epsilon>0$ so that no finite collection of open balls covers $X$. So, for any finite collection of points $\{x_1,\ldots ,x_n\}$, there is a point $x$ in $X$ not in any of open balls $B_\epsilon(x_k)$, $k=1,\ldots n$; whence, $d(x,x_k)>\epsilon$ for each admissible $k$.

Using the above observation, one may construct, by induction, a sequence $(y_n)$ in $X$ such that $d(y_i,y_j)>\epsilon$ whenever $i\ne j$.

I'll leave the rest of the argument for you...

share|cite|improve this answer
then this sequence does not have a subsequence which converges to an element in $X$, which contradicts the assumption that $X$ is sequentially compact? – Emir Feb 13 '12 at 4:54
@Emir No contradiction. We're proving the contrapositive statement. – David Mitra Feb 13 '12 at 4:55

For a direct proof, see e.g. Theorem 34 here. A key intermediate point is the fact that a metric space is totally bounded iff every sequence admits a Cauchy subsequence.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.