Recall the definition of compact operators between Hilbert spaces:
An operator $A$ is called compact if the image $A(\mathcal U_H)$ of the unit ball is relatively compact (i.e. its closure is compact) in the norm topology.
However, I seem to be able to "prove" that the image is, in fact, compact, not just relatively compact. What went wrong?
$\square$: We show that $A(\mathcal U_H)$ is sequentially compact. Since the topology is given by a norm / metric, this implies that it is also compact.
Let $y_n = Ax_n$ be a sequence in $A(\mathcal U_H)$. The unit ball in a Hilbert space is weakly compact, so there is a weakly converging subsequence $x_{n_j} \to^w x$ which gives $Ax_{n_j} \to^w Ax$.
On the other hand, by the sequential compactness of the closure of $A(\mathcal U_H)$, we know that a subsequence of $z_k = x_{n_{j_k}}$ has the property $Az_k \to y$ for some $y$ in the Hilbert space, though we do not yet know that $y$ is also in the image of the unit ball.
But we have $z_k \to^w x$ as well, and hence $A z_k \to^w A x$. Since the weak limit must coincide with the norm limit, we have $y = Ax$, and $y \in A(\mathcal U_H)$ already. In other words, the original sequence $y_n$ has a subsequence that converges in the image of the unit ball. $\square$
I feel very stupid for not finding my mistake that must surely be very elementary. What went wrong? A counterexample would probably help my understanding as well.