0
$\begingroup$

A subspace of $\mathbb R^n$ is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded in the Eulidean Metric or Square Metric or $l_1$ metric.

Is my statement correct?

Actually the statement - "A subspace of $\mathbb R^n$ is compact iff it is closed and bounded in the Euclidean Metric or Square Metric" was given in Mukresh. I think closed and bounded set in the $l_1$ metric would also be compact. As the topologies of three are same.

Am I correct? Please correct me if I am wrong.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Yes, the $\ell_1$ metric is equivalent to the euclidean metric. This follows from simple arithmetic inequalities. Moreover, there is only one norm-induced topology on R^n. $\endgroup$ – Lorenzo Quarisa Apr 8 '18 at 12:45
  • $\begingroup$ I did not get you @hardmath...All I want to know is whether my statement is correct or not. $\endgroup$ – cmi Apr 8 '18 at 12:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The only compact subspace of $\mathbb R^n$ is the trivial subspace (consisting solely of the zero vector, one point). I'm concerned that you meant to ask about characterizing which subsets of $\mathbb R^n$ are compact rather than which subspaces are compact. But the statement is true (what applies to all subsets certainly applies to subspaces). $\endgroup$ – hardmath Apr 8 '18 at 12:56
  • $\begingroup$ yes..You are correct..But why Mukresh used Subspace ?@hardmath $\endgroup$ – cmi Apr 8 '18 at 12:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Context matters. If one speaks of Euclidean space $\mathbb R^n$, most often one is thinking about it as a vector space that has a topology. In a general topology text one may instead think of the subsets of a topological spaces as inheriting a subspace topology, so I'm open to the author using "subspace" to mean topological subspace rather than vector subspace. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Apr 8 '18 at 13:04
2
$\begingroup$

As the topologies induced by the $\ell_1, \ell_2$ and $\ell_\infty$ metric are the same on $\mathbb{R}^n$, closedness under one of them is equivalent to closedness under any other of them.

Also, all these metrics are related by inequalities:

$d_1(x,y) \le d_2(x,y) \le \sqrt{n} d_\infty(x,y); d_\infty(x,y) \le d_1(x,y)$ etc. so that boundedness in one of them also implies boundedness in all others.

So the compactness characterisation holds in all 3 of the metrics, in fact in any metric derived from a norm. The topology being the same is not enough, as the truncated metric $d_{t}(x,y) = \min(d(x,y), 1)$ induces the same topology as $d$ does, but in $d_t$ all sets are bounded, while this need not hold for $d$. So one does require an argument to see that the combination of closedness and boundedness for a specific metric is preserved.

$\endgroup$

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.