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

The Heine-Borel-Property says:

A subset M is compact iff it is closed and bounded.

It is well known that the euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^n$ has this property. In a narrower sense I found the following.

A normed space $X$ is finite-dimensional iff it obeys the Heine-Borel-Property.

I was wondering if the property of the space $X$ to have a norm or a metric is necessary. In the proofs I found they are all based on balls, convergence and other notions where norms or metrics are involved. But in the statement of the H-B-Property, all concepts could be defined without a reference to a norm or a metric. For example, let $K$ be a complete, ordered field (like $\mathbb{R}$), then we could define the sets $(a,b) := \{ x : a < x < b \}$ and consider the topology $\tau$ generated by the collection of all such sets. So compactness could be defined as usual by requiring a compact set to have a finite open-cover, boundedness of a set $M$ could be defined as existence of a set $(a,b)$ with $M \subseteq (a,b)$ and closedness as $M$ is closed iff $K \setminus M$ is open, i.e. $K \setminus M \in \tau$. So now could the Heine-Borel-Property be proved for $K$? I don't find any proofs that doesn't use concepts like norm or metric (even the concept of limit could be defined without these concepts, like $x$ is limit point of set $M$ iff for every set $U$ with $x \in U$ if holds that $M \cap U \ne \emptyset$). Do you know any proofs that just use these basic notions?

share|cite|improve this question
You get the same topology if you add sets $(a,+\infty)$ and $(-\infty,b)$ to your basis of $\tau$. This changes the concept of boundedness and hence the validity of Heine-Borel. What makes your chosen basis special? – Hagen von Eitzen Jan 15 '13 at 18:29
This post may be of interest. – David Mitra Jan 15 '13 at 18:30

The Schwartz space $\mathcal D(\mathbb R^n)$ of test functions has the Heine-Borel property and is not metrizable.

share|cite|improve this answer
How do you define bounded without a metric? – JSchlather Jan 15 '13 at 18:32
Here bounded should be taken to have its usual meaning in the context of topological vector spaces, of course; there is a Wikipedia page on that at… – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Jan 15 '13 at 18:32
Yeah. It is silly that spaces that have property X be called Y... :-/ – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Jan 15 '13 at 18:44
I suppose your last comment was a response to my deleted comment pointing out that (barreled spaces) with this "Heine-Borel property" are called Montel spaces. I think it makes sense to have the distinction because boundedness in the topological vector space sense cannot be detected by a metric -- otherwise this would force the space to be locally compact, hence finite-dimensional, which the space of distributions manifestly isn't. – Martin Jan 15 '13 at 19:44
s/distributions/test functions – Martin Jan 15 '13 at 19:53

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.