0
$\begingroup$

I'm struggling with a question about compact set, but I can't figure out it on my mind.

Is this set compact or not? Prove it without using Heine-Borel Theorem.

a)$\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $B$ doesn't contain at least one of its accumulation point.

I know that it's a closed set because a $\mathbb{R}^n$ subset is closed if and only if contains all accumulation point, then the question's subset is obviously open. But, without Heine-Borel I just can't think of an example that a open cover doesn't have a finite subcover to prove it. Could someone help me? Thanks!

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Let $x$ be the missing accumulation point in $B$. Let $D_{\tfrac{1}{n}}(x)$ denote the open ball of radius $\tfrac{1}{n}$ around $x$, where $n \in \mathbb{N}$. Take the open cover $\{{D_{\tfrac{1}{n}}(x)}\bigcap B\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \bigcup B \setminus \overline{D_{\frac{1}{2}}(x)}$.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

It's true in any metric space, without using Heine-Borel (which is specific to $\mathbb{R}^n$ in the Euclidean metric), that a compact set contains all its limit points. So a $B$ that does not satisfy it, cannot be compact.

Heine-Borel is the opposite: if $B$ is closed and (Euclidean)-bounded, $B$ is compact;it doesn't help you to show non-compactness of a set.

One other way to see this is that if $p \notin B$ is a limit point of $B$, the $x \to \frac{1}{d(x,B)}$ is a continuous well-defined function on $B$ that has no maximum. (Continuous functions on a compact set are bounded.)

$\endgroup$

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.