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.

On page 19 of Counterexamples in Topology, the authors say "sequential compactness clearly implies countable compactness" without explaining.

I feel dumb, why is this so obvious? Does anyone have nice explanation or reference for this fact?

share|improve this question
1  
Earlier on that page, the authors give a few equivalent conditions for a space to be countably compact. One of these is "every sequence has an accumulation point". Does that clear things up? –  Dylan Moreland Sep 11 '11 at 23:51
    
I think it has to see with the fact that any 'hood (neighborhood) containing the limit point will "swallow" most of the elements, i.e., you are given a countable cover {$S_n$}, then take an element $a_n$ for each $S_n$; this gives you an infinite set, which has a limit point $a$; the 'hood containing a will contain all-but-finitely-many elts. of the sequence. –  gary Sep 11 '11 at 23:57
    
@Dylan, mind if I ask some additional questions about the prior explanation? (i) If a sequence has a convergent subsequence, why is that limit point an accumulation point of the original sequence? (ii) I get why $CC_2$ and $CC_3$ are equivalent. But in showing that $CC_2\implies CC_1$, the book states every one of the $O_i$ intersects only finitely many points of the set. Why only finitely many? If you post it as an answer, I'd be happy to accept. –  Gotye Sep 11 '11 at 23:59
    
(i) Because every nbhd of the point contains infinitely many terms of the sequence. Some of those terms may actually be the same point of $X$, but that’s all right: an accum. pt. of a sequence $\langle x_n:n\in\omega\rangle$ is not necessarily an accum. pt. of $\{x_n:n\in\omega\}$. E.g., $0$ is an accum. pt. of the sequence $\langle 0,1,0,2,0,3,0,4,\dots\rangle$ but not of the set $\{0,1,2,3,4,\dots\}$. –  Brian M. Scott Sep 12 '11 at 0:04
    
(ii) I don’t have the book, but I can make a good guess that the set in question is something like $\{x_i:i\in\omega\}$, where $x_i$ is chosen so that $x_i \notin \bigcup_{j\le i}O_j$. If so, you have $x_i \notin O_j$ whenever $i\ge j$, and therefore any given $O_i$ can contain at most $x_0,x_1,\dots$, and $x_{i-1}$. –  Brian M. Scott Sep 12 '11 at 0:10

1 Answer 1

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Suppose $X$ is sequentially compact but $\{U_n: n \in {\mathbb N}\}$ is a countable open cover with no finite subcover. For every $N$, since $\{U_n: n \le N\}$ is not a subcover, there must be $x_N \notin \bigcup_{n \le N} U_n$. By sequential compactness, some subsequence $x_{N_j}$ converges to some point $x \in X$. But $x \in U_m$ for some $m$, and since $x_{N_j} \notin U_m$ when $N_j > m$ we get a contradiction.

share|improve this answer
    
This is much quicker than trying to chase all those equivalent statements back. Thanks Prof. Israel. –  Gotye Sep 12 '11 at 0:05
    
This is probably a dumb question, but what if $N_j\leq m$ for all $N_j$ if all convergent subsequences of $\{x_N\}$ happen to be finite? –  Gotye Sep 12 '11 at 1:38
    
@Gotye: A subsequence is by definition an infinite sequence. –  Robert Israel Sep 12 '11 at 2:40

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.