This seems to be a fairly easy question but I'm looking for new points of view on it and was wondering if anyone might be able to help.

(By the way- this question does come from home-work, but I've already solved and handed it, and I'm posting this out of interest, so no HW tag.)

Let $B_n=B(x_n,r_n)$ be a sequence of nested closed balls in a Banach space $X$. Prove that $\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty B_n\neq\varnothing$.

As I said before, it should be rather simple. When the radii decrease to 0, it's just a matter of selecting any sequence of points in $B_n$, and it must be Cauchy- and the limit is in the intersection.

My question is what to do when the radii do not decrease to 0? I got some tips about multiplying the balls by a sequence of decreasing scalars, or reducing the radii so that they decrease to 0, but found too many pathological cases for both methods.

Finally- I used a geometric arguemnt (which i've shown to work in any normed space) that if $B(x_1,r_1)\subset B(x_2,r_2)$ then $\| x_1-x_2\|\leq|r_1-r_2|$. This turned out to be some kind of technical catastrophe, but it worked...

Still, if anyone knows of a more elegant solution, I'd love to hear about it.

  • $\begingroup$ What's so catastrophic about the geometric argument? All you need is that the affine line spanned by $x_1$ and $x_2$ is isometrically isomorphic to the ground field, then it's just a 1d (or 2d if your space is complex) picture. $\endgroup$ Feb 17, 2011 at 9:27
  • $\begingroup$ "[...] be a sequence of nested in a banach space". Seems like you missed something there? Should it be "nested closed balls"? $\endgroup$
    – kahen
    Feb 17, 2011 at 9:50
  • $\begingroup$ yeah, it's nested sequence- as the title suggests :) i'm changing it $\endgroup$
    – kneidell
    Feb 17, 2011 at 9:56
  • $\begingroup$ It's not true in general. That property is called spherical completeness and fails for the p-adic complex numbers, for example. $\endgroup$ Feb 17, 2011 at 10:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @George: Perhaps the simplest example of a complete metric space where this fails is the natural numbers with the metrc $d(m,n)=1+1/(\min (m,n))$. $\endgroup$ Feb 17, 2011 at 11:35

1 Answer 1


I don't know if this is more elegant, but that's about the best I can come up with at the moment and probably essentially the same as your argument.

Consider first the situation $B_{\leq r}(x) \subset B_{\leq s}(y)$. It is easy to see that $r \leq s$.

Claim. $\|y - x\| \leq s - r$.

Proof. If $x = y$ there is nothing to prove, so let's assume $x \neq y$. The point $z = x - r \frac{y-x}{\|y - x\|}$ belongs to $B_{\leq r}(x)$ and hence also to $B_{\leq s}(y)$. Therefore $\|y - z\| \leq s$. On the other hand, \[ y - z = y - x + \frac{r}{\|y - x\|} (y - x) = \underbrace{\left(1 + \frac{r}{\|y - x\|}\right)}_{\lambda} (y - x), \] so $s \geq \lambda \|y - x\| = \|y - x\| + r$ and hence $\|y - x\| \leq s - r$.

This means that a nested sequence of closed balls $B_{\leq r_{n}}(x_{n})$ has the following properties:

  1. The sequence $r_{n}$ is monotonically decreasing, hence converges to some $r$.
  2. If $N$ is such that $r_{N} \leq r + \varepsilon$ then the above claim implies that for all $n\geq m \geq N$ we have $r_m - r_n \leq \varepsilon$, so $\|x_{m} - x_{n}\| \leq \varepsilon$ because $B_{\leq r_{n}}(x_{n}) \subset B_{\leq r_{m}}(x_{m})$.

In other words, the centers $x_{n}$ form a Cauchy sequence and their limit point $x$ must belong to $\bigcap_{n = 1}^{\infty} B_{\leq r_{n}}(x_{n})$.

Added: As Jonas pointed out, the argument can be made even simpler and doesn't need completeness: Suppose $r_{n} \to r \gt 0$. Then there is $N$ such that $r_{N} \leq 2r$. Then for all $n \geq N$ we have $r \leq r_{n} \leq r_{N} \leq 2r$, so $r_{N} - r_{n} \leq r$ and the claim implies that $\|x_{n} - x_{N}\| \leq r \leq r_{n}$, so $x_{N} \in \bigcap_{n = 1}^{\infty} B_{\leq r_{n}} (x_{n})$.

  • $\begingroup$ @kneidell: While writing this I have forgotten about the fact that you've already had this solution. I don't think there is a much easier way. $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Feb 17, 2011 at 12:19
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ If the limit $r$ of the radii is positive, then $r_N<2r$ for some $N$, and then $x_N$ will be in every subsequent ball (by the claim). $\endgroup$ Feb 20, 2011 at 4:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Jonas: Right. So you needn't even use completeness in that case. Nice! This hasn't occurred to me before, thanks! $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Feb 20, 2011 at 4:47
  • $\begingroup$ Did you nowhere use the reflexivity of the Banach space? What about this example? $\endgroup$ Jul 4, 2013 at 9:16
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry for this comment which is probably stupid but I am wondering how you would prove that $B_r(x) \subset B_s(x)$ implies $r \le s$. What about these examples: math.stackexchange.com/questions/734248/… ? Thanks. $\endgroup$
    – Romeo
    Aug 9, 2014 at 10:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.