0
$\begingroup$

Heine–Borel theorem

For a subset $S$ of the real numbers $\mathbb{R}$, the following two statements are equivalent:

a) $S$ is closed and bounded.

b) for any sequence $(a_n)$ in $S$ there exist a subsequence which converges to some $L$ belonging to $\Bbb R$.

I am ok with the first implication (a $\Rightarrow$ b)

For the second implication, I am assuming that if b holds. And I suppose for a contradiction that $X$ is not bounded i.e for all positive real $M$ there exist $x \in X$ such that $x\le M$ or $x>M$. Then I am getting stuck with finding a sequence such that every subsequence of it will not converge.

Same thing for proving that $X$ is closed. I suppose for the contrary that $X$ is not closed. Does that mean $X$ has an isolated point since it is not closed? If so where can I find the contradiction here?

I would appreciate any help.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ "Not closed" means that $X$ has an accumulation point not in $X$. $\endgroup$ – Robert Z Oct 26 '17 at 6:34
  • $\begingroup$ This is not Heine Borel, but Bolzano-Weierstrass. Heine Borel deals with open covers. $\endgroup$ – Paramanand Singh Oct 26 '17 at 6:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ My edit ea to change the :$\Bbb R$ " to "$X$" in the phrase " ... converging to some $L$ in $\Bbb R$" and to fix the grammar of it. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Oct 26 '17 at 7:52
  • $\begingroup$ My second edit was to undo the first edit, in view of the Answer given, but to change $X$ to $S$ in (b), $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Oct 26 '17 at 7:56
1
$\begingroup$

It's no wonder you've got issues as the theorem is misformulated. The second should be

b) for any sequence $a_n$ in $S$ there exist a subsecuence which is convergent to some $L\in S$.

You use that if a sequence converges all it's subsequences converges to the same. This means that if $S$ is not closed there exists an accumulation point $a$ not in $S$ that is there is a sequence $a_n$ in $S$ such that $a_n\to a$ which in turn means that any subsequence to $a_n$ converges to $a$.

For the boundedness you use the opposite property. That is if a sequence diverges then all subsequence does that too. If $S$ is unbounded there exists a sequence $a_n$ such that $|a_n|>n$, this means that a subsequence $s_n$ to $a_n$ also must fulfil the property that $|s_n|>n$ which means that $s_n$ can't converge to an element of $S$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.