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

Consider a sequence $\{x_n\}$ in $S$. Where $S$ is a metric subspace. Given that every convergent subsequence of $\{x_{k(n)}\}$ converges to the same point say $x$. Prove that if S is compact, show that $\{x_n\}$ converges to $x$. Is my answer correct?

share|cite|improve this question
Compactness seems irrelevant here. Try the contrapositive: Assume that $\{x_n\}$ does not converge to $x$, and see where that leads. – Harald Hanche-Olsen Nov 4 '12 at 9:51
definitely relevant. Consider what happens if S is not compact – Mathematics Nov 4 '12 at 9:53
Compactness gives that each subsequence has a convergent subsequence. Now proceed as @Harald suggested. – martini Nov 4 '12 at 9:55
@HaraldHanche-Olsen Try $x_n=n$ in $S=\mathbb R$. There is no convergent subsequence hence the hypothesis holds. – Did Nov 4 '12 at 10:04
@Mathematics: I think you should edit your question, because it is otherwise misleading in my opinion. – wj32 Nov 4 '12 at 10:29
up vote 4 down vote accepted

I'll assume we're in a metric space with metric $d$.

Suppose $\{x_n\}$ does not converge to $x$. Then $\exists \, \epsilon > 0$ and a sequence of positive integers $m_1,m_2,\ldots$ such that $d(x, x_{m_i})\geq \epsilon$ for all positive integers $i$. The sequence $\{ x_{m_i}\}$ has a convergent subsequence because $S$ is compact. This subsequence converges to $x$, but that's a contradiction because no term in this subsequence is within $\epsilon$ of $x$.

share|cite|improve this answer
I think it should be a metric space – Mathematics Nov 4 '12 at 10:36

Every subsequent converges to the same point if S is compact and hence every subsequence are converges and converge to the same points and hence the sequence also convergent to x. Is the proof valid?

share|cite|improve this answer
I’m afraid not; I’m not sure that it even makes sense. Compactness of $S$ is needed to ensure that $\langle x_k:k\in\Bbb N\rangle$ has any convergent subsequences at all. The hypothesis then says that all of these convergent subsequences have the same limit, $x$. Finally, one argues as @littleO did: if the sequence doesn’t converge to $x$, it has a subsequence bounded away from $x$, and compactness of $S$ implies that this subsequence has a convergent limit. This limit must be different from $x$, and we get a contradiction. – Brian M. Scott Nov 4 '12 at 16:48
Compactness ensures that the subsequence of $\{x_n\}$ is convergent and from the question mentioned, every convergent subsequence converge to the same point. That's why every convergent subsequence converge to the same point and hence the sequence$\{x_n\}_n$ – Mathematics Nov 5 '12 at 6:52
You’re still trying to make it simpler than it actually is. Compactness only ensures that $\langle x_n:n\in\Bbb N\rangle$ has at least one convergent subsequence. Then the hypotheses of the problem tell you that all of its convergent subsequences converge to $x$. But it still takes some work to prove that $\langle x_n:n\in\Bbb N\rangle$ itself is convergent. You really do need littleO’s argument or something equivalent to it; you can’t just declare that $\langle x_n:n\in\Bbb N\rangle$ converges. – Brian M. Scott Nov 5 '12 at 7:03
What about if i use the theorem that any compact subset is complete, is it work in this way? – Mathematics Nov 5 '12 at 7:25
No. You really do need to use the argument that littleO gave and I repeated in an earlier comment. – Brian M. Scott Nov 5 '12 at 7:35

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.