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.

We are given a metric space $(M,d(x,y))$ and a sequence $\{x_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$ of elements of a compact set $L\subseteq M$. Also K is the set of $x\in M$ for which there is a subsequence, $\{x_{j_n}\}_{n=1}^\infty$ that converges to $x$. If $K$ has exactly one element, then we have to show that $\{x_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$ converges to that element.

Is this problem the same as proving that if all possible subsequences of a given sequence of elements of a compact set converge to an element, then the sequence also converges to that same element?

And if not, how do we prove this result? By contradiction?

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

If $(x_j)$ doesn't converge to that single subsequential limit $x\in K$, then there is a subsequence $(y_j)$ of $(x_j)$ such that for some $\epsilon>0$, for all $j$, we have $d(y_j,x)\geq \epsilon$. Because $(y_j)$ is a sequence in the compact set $L$, it has a convergent subsequence, call it $(z_j)$, such that $(z_j)$ converges to some $y\in L$ where $y\neq x$. Since $(z_j)$ is a subsequence of $(x_j)$, we get $y\in K$, a contradiction.

Your saying that all possible subsequences of a given sequence of elements of a compact set converge to an element doesn't make sense here because that just means the sequence itself converges since it is a subsequence of itself.

share|improve this answer
    
Okay, I accept your reasoning. Then how is the original problem to be solved? –  schumi Dec 10 '12 at 3:14
    
oh! Damn, it's that simple! okay thanks a lot! –  schumi Dec 10 '12 at 3:18
    
Yes, I was just doing that. I was starting by assuming that $x_j$ converges to some other point $y$ and following up on your logic. But is it safe to assume that the $x_j$ converges at all? What if it doesn't? –  schumi Dec 10 '12 at 3:23
add comment

I don't think this is the same. That $K = \{x\}$ is a singleton means there exists a subsequence converging to $x$, but does not imply that every subsequence converges to $x$, since $\{x_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$ could have a nonconvergent subsequence in general. The question is asking: if every convergent subsequence of a sequence in a compact set converges to the same point $x$, then does the sequence itself converge to that point?

share|improve this answer
    
Like Jasper says, if we take out convergent and assume every subsequence converges to $x$, then this is trivial since the sequence is a subsequence of itself. –  kigen Dec 10 '12 at 3:08
    
Okay I see your point. So how does one go about proving the original statement. –  schumi Dec 10 '12 at 3:15
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.