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

Rudin PMA p.157

I'm trying to prove;

"If $\{f_n\}$ is a pointwise bounded sequence of complex functions on a countable set $E$, then $\{f_n\}$ has a subsequence $\{f_{n_k}\}$ such that $\{f_{n_k}\}$ pointwise convergent on $E$"

It's clear that Rudin made dependent choice.

I'm trying to prove this withouc AC and want to know if there is a way to choose a subsequence of a sequence. That is when $\{n\}$ is a given sequence, then i want to choose a subsequence $\{n_k\}$, then again choose a subsequence of $\{n_{k_j}\}$ and again countable times.

Is it possible?

Or if one can prove this with a different argument, Or if it is unprovable, please let me know..

Thank you in advance

share|cite|improve this question
In other words: How much choice is needed for Tychonoff's theorem for a countable product of closed and bounded subsets of $\mathbb{C}$? – Nate Eldredge Dec 15 '12 at 15:33
@Nate Yes exactly – Katlus Dec 15 '12 at 15:37
It seems to me the key is: given a bounded sequence $\{a_n\}$ (say in [0,1] for simplicity) can we canonically choose a convergent subsequence? Here's a proposal: the set of subsequential limits of $\{a_n\}$ is closed and bounded, hence has a minimum element $a$. (So we canonically chose a subsequential limit.) Now choose the subsequence: let $n(k)$ be the least $n$ with $|a_n - a| < 1/k$. Then $a_{n(k)} \to a$. – Nate Eldredge Dec 15 '12 at 15:41
Oh wait: "the set of subsequential limits is closed": we have to be a little careful not to use choice in proving this. – Nate Eldredge Dec 15 '12 at 15:45
@TonyK: That is easily repaired, though: The $n$th time you choose a nested subsequence to restrict to, decide always to keep the first $n$ points in the previous sequence unchanged. This will not change the limit of the subsequence you restrict to, and the eventual nest of subsequences is guaranteed to have infinite intersection. – Henning Makholm Dec 15 '12 at 16:42
up vote 0 down vote accepted

The answer is yes, here is a proof:

  • Every bounded sequence $\{x_n\}$ in $\mathbb{R}$ has a limit point.

Suppose not,let $K$ be a compact set containing the sequence, then $\{x_n\}$ must be infinite;no AC needed to prove this, thus for each $k\in{K}$ define $s(k)$ where $s(k)$ is the least positive integer $n$ such that $(B_{1/n}(k)-\{k\})\cap{\{x_n\}}=\emptyset$, then $\{B_{\frac{1}{s(k)}}(k)\}_{k\in{K}}$ is an open covering of $K$ with no finite subcover, since $\{x_n\}$ is infinite.

  • For every bounded sequence $\{x_n\}$ there exists a uniquely determined converging subsequence $\{f(\{x_n\})_m\}_{m\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ of $\{x_n\}$.

Let $E$ be the set of limit points of $\{x_n\}$, then $E$ is a bounded set since our sequence is bounded, let $a=infE$; $a$ exixts since $E$ is nonempty by what it was shown above, then every neighborhood of $a$ intersects the sequence; this is easily seen without using AC, then for each $m>0$ let $k(0)=0$ and for each $n$ let $k(m+1))$ be the least positive integer $r$ greater than all of $k(0),\ldots,k(m)$ and such that $|a-x_r|<\frac{1}{m+1}$. Define $f(\{x_n\})_m=x_{k(m)}$ for all $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, it is clear that the series $\{f(\{x_n\})_m\}_{m\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ converges to $a$.

Now using the notation on page 157 in Rudin’s PMA define $S_0=\{x_n\}$, and for $m\in{\mathbb{N}}, S_{m+1}=f(S_m)$

share|cite|improve this answer

Let's confine ourselves to Real-valued functions.

That is, let $\{f_n\}$ be a sequence of pointwise bounded functions on $E$ such that $f_n$ maps from $E$ to $\mathbb{R}$.

Let $x_i$ enumerate $E$.

Let $S_1 = \{n_k \subset \mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N} : f_{n_k}(x_1) \rightarrow \limsup_{n\to\infty} f_n(x_1) \}$

and $g_1:\omega \rightarrow \bigcup_{n_k \in S_1} rng(n_k)$ be the isomorphism.

$S_{i+1} = \{g_{i_{n_k}} \subset \mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N} : f_{g_{i_{n_k}}}(x_{i+1}) \rightarrow \limsup_{n\to\infty} f_{g_{i_n}}(x_{i+1}) \}$

and $g_{i+1}:\omega \rightarrow \bigcup_{g_{i_{n_k}}\in S_{i+1}} rng(g_{i_{n_k}})$ be the isomorphism.

(Note that $S_i$ is nonempty and well-defined since $f_n$ is pointwise bounded on $E$)

By induction, $\{g_i\}$ is well defined and $g_{i+1}$ is a subsequence of $g_i$.

Define $h(n)=g_n(n)$ for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$

Then for any $i\in\mathbb{N}$, $f_{h(n)}(x_i)$ is convergent. Q.E.D.

This can be extended to $\mathbb{R}^k$.

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.