Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Prove that if set $K\subset \mathbb{R}^k$ has the property that for every sequence $\left\{ x_n \right\}\subset K$ we can choose convergent subsequence $\left\{ x_{n_j} \right\}\rightarrow x\in K$ then $K$ is closed and bounded.

Seems very hard, but very interesting. I don't know how to approach. Can anybody help?

share|improve this question
2  
You already have a more detailed answer from Arturo, but the short answer is contraposition. –  Jonas Meyer May 31 '12 at 20:57
    
@JonasMeyer, right.. In retrospect, there was rather no other option. By contradiction there is always something we can "seize". –  xan May 31 '12 at 21:04
    
@xan: Contraposition and contradiction are not the same. Contraposition means using equivalence of $A\implies B$ and (not $B)\implies($not $A)$, whereas contradiction could be used for example in the form of showing that $(A$ and (not $B))$ leads to a contradiction. –  Jonas Meyer May 31 '12 at 21:08
    
@xan: If you have a contraposition proof, contradiction could be unnecessarily thrown in (because $A$ and (not $A)$ is always a contradiction). But for example, nowhere is the assumption of $K$ being sequentially compact (q.v.) used in Arturo's proof sketch that if $K$ is not closed and bounded (=not closed or not bounded), then $K$ is not sequentially compact. Thus, it is a proof by contraposition. –  Jonas Meyer May 31 '12 at 21:16
    
@JonasMeyer, thank you very much for pointing it out! Now I see the difference, but so far I thought that this is the same. Especially because in my native language those two words are pronounced identically. –  xan May 31 '12 at 21:16
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

If $K$ were unbounded, then for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, we can choose some $x_n\in K$ such that $\lVert x_n\rVert>n$. No subsequence of such a sequence can converge at all, much less to a point of $K$. If $K$ were not closed, then there is some limit point $x$ of $K$ with $x\notin K$. That means every neighborhood of $x$ contains a point of $K$ (so cannot be $x$), and in particular, for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, we can choose $x_n\in K$ with $\lVert x_n-x\rVert<\cfrac{1}{n+1}$. This sequence (and every subsequence) converges to $x$, so does not converge to a point in $K$, by uniqueness of limits.

share|improve this answer
add comment

If $K$ is not bounded, then for every $M\gt 0$ there exists $x\in K$ such that $\lVert x\rVert \gt M$. Pick $x_n$ with $\lVert x_{n+1}\rVert \gt \lVert x_n\rVert+1$ to get a sequence with no convergent subsequence.

If $K$ is not closed, pick $y\in\overline{K}\setminus K$; if a sequence of points of $K$ converges to $y$, can a subsequence converge to a point in $K$?

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.