Prove that a metric space is totally bounded if and only if every sequence has a Cauchy subsequence.

I think I proved the Cauchy subsequence part:

Let $a_{0},a_{1}, a_{2}, a_{3}, a_{4},...\in X$ be a sequence.

For each $k$, let $F \subseteq X$ be a finite $\frac1k$-net.

Given $I \subseteq \Bbb N_{\ge0}$ and $k>1$ you find an infinite $J \subseteq I$ such that: $$\exists p\in F:\forall n\in J: d(x_n,p)<\frac1k$$

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I've edited your question to give it a meaningful title (please give some attention to this in the future), and to make your own work more readable. Please ensure that I didn't accidentally change what you originally wrote. $\endgroup$ – Lord_Farin Nov 7 '13 at 22:55

You have proved that totally bounded implies every sequence has Cauchy subsequence, so I will prove the other implication. This is a proof using the contrapositive, that is, not totally bounded implies that there is a sequence with no Cauchy subsequence.

Suppose that $X$ is not totally bounded. Then there is an $\epsilon>0$ such that for all finite sets of points $\{x_1,\ldots,x_n\}$ $$X\neq \bigcup_{k=1}^n B(x_k;\epsilon).$$ Now we construct a sequence that has no Cauchy subsequence. Start with a finite collection of points $\{x_1,\ldots,x_n\}$, as above. Then since $X\neq \bigcup_{k=1}^n B(x_k;\epsilon)$, there is a point $x_{n+1}\in X$ such that $x_{n+1}\notin \bigcup_{k=1}^n B(x_k;\epsilon)$. Moveover, $$X\neq \bigcup_{k=1}^{n+1} B(x_k;\epsilon)$$ because if it were equal, we would have a contradiction to our assumption. Wash, rinse, repeat this process to get a sequence $(x_k)_{k=1}^\infty$.

To check that this has no Cauchy subsequence, notice that for any two terms $x_n$ and $x_m$ in this sequence, if $m>n$ then $$x_m\notin \bigcup_{k=1}^{m-1} B(x_k;\epsilon).$$ In particular, $x_m\notin B(x_n;\epsilon)$, hence $d(x_m,x_n)\geq \epsilon$. Similarly if $n>m$. This shows that the terms of this sequence are at least $\epsilon$ in distance apart, hence no Cauchy subsequence can exist.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "wash-rinse-repeat", loved it and the method +1 $\endgroup$ – Shobhit Oct 1 '17 at 19:21

The stated proof of implication totally bounded $\implies $ Cauchy subsequence is more like a sketch of the approach than a complete proof. Here is how it develops:

Suppose $(a_n)$ is a sequence in a totally bounded metric space $X$. For each $k$, choose a finite $(1/k)$-net in $X$ and call it $F_k$.

Let $J_0 = \mathbb{N}$ and construct infinite sets $J_0\supset J_1\supset J_2\supset J_3\supset\cdots $ inductively as follows. For every $n\in J_{k-1}$ there is $p\in F_k$ such that $d(x_n,p)<1/k$. Since $J_{k-1}$ is infinite while $F_k$ is finite, there exists $p\in F_k$ such that the set $J_k : = \{n\in \mathbb{N}:d(x_n, p)< 1/k\}$ is infinite.

Finally, define subsequence $a_{n_k}$ by letting $n_k$ be some element of $J_k$ that is greater than $n_{k-1}$. This is a Cauchy subsequence. Indeed, for any $\epsilon>0$ there exists $N$ such that $2/N<\epsilon$. For $j,k\ge N$ we have $n_j,n_k\in J_N$, hence there is $p\in F_N$ such that $$ d(a_{n_k},p) < \frac{1}{N}, \quad d(a_{n_j},p) < \frac{1}{N} $$ Thus $d(a_{n_k}, a_{n_j}) < 2/N<\epsilon$ by the triangle inequality.


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.