Showing that the set of non- decreasing bounded functions is compact

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Take the set $B=exists C in Bbb R forall n in Bbb N:$



and the distance $d(a(n),b(n)):= sup|a(n)-b(n)|$



Then given the subset $J:= forall n in Bbb N: a(n+1)geq a(n)$, I want to decide if J is compact or not, given that I know it's closed ?



The theorems I think I can use :



  1. continuous images of compact sets are compact.


  2. any closed subset of a compact subset is closed.


Okay so from here , here is my argument:



define a function $f:[0,C] rightarrow B$ we could just say the function is f(x)=a, where x is some value between zero and C.



clearly $[0,C]$ is compact as it is closed and bounded so by the heine borel theorem this is true.



this implies by theorem 1. that B is compact . Therefore as J is a closed subset of B , by 2. J is also compact.



Could anyone tell me if this is correct , or how I can adjust my argument ?







share|cite|improve this question



















  • All constant functions are in $J$ and form a closed copy of the reals, for another argument for non-compactness.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Aug 7 at 22:46














up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Take the set $B=exists C in Bbb R forall n in Bbb N:$



and the distance $d(a(n),b(n)):= sup|a(n)-b(n)|$



Then given the subset $J:= forall n in Bbb N: a(n+1)geq a(n)$, I want to decide if J is compact or not, given that I know it's closed ?



The theorems I think I can use :



  1. continuous images of compact sets are compact.


  2. any closed subset of a compact subset is closed.


Okay so from here , here is my argument:



define a function $f:[0,C] rightarrow B$ we could just say the function is f(x)=a, where x is some value between zero and C.



clearly $[0,C]$ is compact as it is closed and bounded so by the heine borel theorem this is true.



this implies by theorem 1. that B is compact . Therefore as J is a closed subset of B , by 2. J is also compact.



Could anyone tell me if this is correct , or how I can adjust my argument ?







share|cite|improve this question



















  • All constant functions are in $J$ and form a closed copy of the reals, for another argument for non-compactness.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Aug 7 at 22:46












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











Take the set $B=exists C in Bbb R forall n in Bbb N:$



and the distance $d(a(n),b(n)):= sup|a(n)-b(n)|$



Then given the subset $J:= forall n in Bbb N: a(n+1)geq a(n)$, I want to decide if J is compact or not, given that I know it's closed ?



The theorems I think I can use :



  1. continuous images of compact sets are compact.


  2. any closed subset of a compact subset is closed.


Okay so from here , here is my argument:



define a function $f:[0,C] rightarrow B$ we could just say the function is f(x)=a, where x is some value between zero and C.



clearly $[0,C]$ is compact as it is closed and bounded so by the heine borel theorem this is true.



this implies by theorem 1. that B is compact . Therefore as J is a closed subset of B , by 2. J is also compact.



Could anyone tell me if this is correct , or how I can adjust my argument ?







share|cite|improve this question











Take the set $B=exists C in Bbb R forall n in Bbb N:$



and the distance $d(a(n),b(n)):= sup|a(n)-b(n)|$



Then given the subset $J:= forall n in Bbb N: a(n+1)geq a(n)$, I want to decide if J is compact or not, given that I know it's closed ?



The theorems I think I can use :



  1. continuous images of compact sets are compact.


  2. any closed subset of a compact subset is closed.


Okay so from here , here is my argument:



define a function $f:[0,C] rightarrow B$ we could just say the function is f(x)=a, where x is some value between zero and C.



clearly $[0,C]$ is compact as it is closed and bounded so by the heine borel theorem this is true.



this implies by theorem 1. that B is compact . Therefore as J is a closed subset of B , by 2. J is also compact.



Could anyone tell me if this is correct , or how I can adjust my argument ?









share|cite|improve this question










share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question









asked Aug 7 at 19:07









exodius

772315




772315











  • All constant functions are in $J$ and form a closed copy of the reals, for another argument for non-compactness.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Aug 7 at 22:46
















  • All constant functions are in $J$ and form a closed copy of the reals, for another argument for non-compactness.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Aug 7 at 22:46















All constant functions are in $J$ and form a closed copy of the reals, for another argument for non-compactness.
– Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 22:46




All constant functions are in $J$ and form a closed copy of the reals, for another argument for non-compactness.
– Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 22:46










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote



accepted










The set is indeed closed, but it’s closed in $ell^infty$ (the normed space of bounded real sequences in the supremum norm), which is itself non-compact. So it does not show compactness at all.



In fact it is very non-compact. Define for each $k in mathbbN$ the function $f_k: mathbbN to mathbbR$ by $f_k(n) = 0$ for $n le k$ and $1$ for $n>k$. These $f_k$ are all bounded non-decreasing functions in your space and one can easily check that it is a discrete and closed infinite subset of it. So your set is not even countably compact.



Another simpler argument: consider all functions/sequences that are constant. These are all in $J$ and they show that $J$ is unbounded. So it cannot be compact, as compact implies boundedness in the metric.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I also noticed I made the silly mistake of defining something that isn't even a function, thats obviously where I went wrong....but I digress. You seem to use the fact that it is "discrete" as a reason as to why it is not compact, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this term though ( it will probably show up in more advanced classes I haven't taken yet) would you be able to explain why it is not compact without using this term ?
    – exodius
    Aug 7 at 19:22










  • Could you explain how you deduce from the existence of a discrete and closed infinite subset that the set is not countably compact?
    – Severin Schraven
    Aug 7 at 20:27










  • @SeverinSchraven countable compactness is closed hereditary.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Aug 7 at 20:28










  • Isn't your set of function countable and thus countably compact?
    – Severin Schraven
    Aug 7 at 20:36










  • @SeverinSchraven a countable set is Lindelöf. Not necessarily countably compact. Consider the cover by singletons which has no finite subcover.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Aug 7 at 20:39










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);








 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2875289%2fshowing-that-the-set-of-non-decreasing-bounded-functions-is-compact%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
4
down vote



accepted










The set is indeed closed, but it’s closed in $ell^infty$ (the normed space of bounded real sequences in the supremum norm), which is itself non-compact. So it does not show compactness at all.



In fact it is very non-compact. Define for each $k in mathbbN$ the function $f_k: mathbbN to mathbbR$ by $f_k(n) = 0$ for $n le k$ and $1$ for $n>k$. These $f_k$ are all bounded non-decreasing functions in your space and one can easily check that it is a discrete and closed infinite subset of it. So your set is not even countably compact.



Another simpler argument: consider all functions/sequences that are constant. These are all in $J$ and they show that $J$ is unbounded. So it cannot be compact, as compact implies boundedness in the metric.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I also noticed I made the silly mistake of defining something that isn't even a function, thats obviously where I went wrong....but I digress. You seem to use the fact that it is "discrete" as a reason as to why it is not compact, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this term though ( it will probably show up in more advanced classes I haven't taken yet) would you be able to explain why it is not compact without using this term ?
    – exodius
    Aug 7 at 19:22










  • Could you explain how you deduce from the existence of a discrete and closed infinite subset that the set is not countably compact?
    – Severin Schraven
    Aug 7 at 20:27










  • @SeverinSchraven countable compactness is closed hereditary.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Aug 7 at 20:28










  • Isn't your set of function countable and thus countably compact?
    – Severin Schraven
    Aug 7 at 20:36










  • @SeverinSchraven a countable set is Lindelöf. Not necessarily countably compact. Consider the cover by singletons which has no finite subcover.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Aug 7 at 20:39














up vote
4
down vote



accepted










The set is indeed closed, but it’s closed in $ell^infty$ (the normed space of bounded real sequences in the supremum norm), which is itself non-compact. So it does not show compactness at all.



In fact it is very non-compact. Define for each $k in mathbbN$ the function $f_k: mathbbN to mathbbR$ by $f_k(n) = 0$ for $n le k$ and $1$ for $n>k$. These $f_k$ are all bounded non-decreasing functions in your space and one can easily check that it is a discrete and closed infinite subset of it. So your set is not even countably compact.



Another simpler argument: consider all functions/sequences that are constant. These are all in $J$ and they show that $J$ is unbounded. So it cannot be compact, as compact implies boundedness in the metric.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I also noticed I made the silly mistake of defining something that isn't even a function, thats obviously where I went wrong....but I digress. You seem to use the fact that it is "discrete" as a reason as to why it is not compact, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this term though ( it will probably show up in more advanced classes I haven't taken yet) would you be able to explain why it is not compact without using this term ?
    – exodius
    Aug 7 at 19:22










  • Could you explain how you deduce from the existence of a discrete and closed infinite subset that the set is not countably compact?
    – Severin Schraven
    Aug 7 at 20:27










  • @SeverinSchraven countable compactness is closed hereditary.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Aug 7 at 20:28










  • Isn't your set of function countable and thus countably compact?
    – Severin Schraven
    Aug 7 at 20:36










  • @SeverinSchraven a countable set is Lindelöf. Not necessarily countably compact. Consider the cover by singletons which has no finite subcover.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Aug 7 at 20:39












up vote
4
down vote



accepted







up vote
4
down vote



accepted






The set is indeed closed, but it’s closed in $ell^infty$ (the normed space of bounded real sequences in the supremum norm), which is itself non-compact. So it does not show compactness at all.



In fact it is very non-compact. Define for each $k in mathbbN$ the function $f_k: mathbbN to mathbbR$ by $f_k(n) = 0$ for $n le k$ and $1$ for $n>k$. These $f_k$ are all bounded non-decreasing functions in your space and one can easily check that it is a discrete and closed infinite subset of it. So your set is not even countably compact.



Another simpler argument: consider all functions/sequences that are constant. These are all in $J$ and they show that $J$ is unbounded. So it cannot be compact, as compact implies boundedness in the metric.






share|cite|improve this answer















The set is indeed closed, but it’s closed in $ell^infty$ (the normed space of bounded real sequences in the supremum norm), which is itself non-compact. So it does not show compactness at all.



In fact it is very non-compact. Define for each $k in mathbbN$ the function $f_k: mathbbN to mathbbR$ by $f_k(n) = 0$ for $n le k$ and $1$ for $n>k$. These $f_k$ are all bounded non-decreasing functions in your space and one can easily check that it is a discrete and closed infinite subset of it. So your set is not even countably compact.



Another simpler argument: consider all functions/sequences that are constant. These are all in $J$ and they show that $J$ is unbounded. So it cannot be compact, as compact implies boundedness in the metric.







share|cite|improve this answer















share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Aug 8 at 13:29


























answered Aug 7 at 19:16









Henno Brandsma

91.7k342100




91.7k342100











  • I also noticed I made the silly mistake of defining something that isn't even a function, thats obviously where I went wrong....but I digress. You seem to use the fact that it is "discrete" as a reason as to why it is not compact, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this term though ( it will probably show up in more advanced classes I haven't taken yet) would you be able to explain why it is not compact without using this term ?
    – exodius
    Aug 7 at 19:22










  • Could you explain how you deduce from the existence of a discrete and closed infinite subset that the set is not countably compact?
    – Severin Schraven
    Aug 7 at 20:27










  • @SeverinSchraven countable compactness is closed hereditary.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Aug 7 at 20:28










  • Isn't your set of function countable and thus countably compact?
    – Severin Schraven
    Aug 7 at 20:36










  • @SeverinSchraven a countable set is Lindelöf. Not necessarily countably compact. Consider the cover by singletons which has no finite subcover.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Aug 7 at 20:39
















  • I also noticed I made the silly mistake of defining something that isn't even a function, thats obviously where I went wrong....but I digress. You seem to use the fact that it is "discrete" as a reason as to why it is not compact, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this term though ( it will probably show up in more advanced classes I haven't taken yet) would you be able to explain why it is not compact without using this term ?
    – exodius
    Aug 7 at 19:22










  • Could you explain how you deduce from the existence of a discrete and closed infinite subset that the set is not countably compact?
    – Severin Schraven
    Aug 7 at 20:27










  • @SeverinSchraven countable compactness is closed hereditary.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Aug 7 at 20:28










  • Isn't your set of function countable and thus countably compact?
    – Severin Schraven
    Aug 7 at 20:36










  • @SeverinSchraven a countable set is Lindelöf. Not necessarily countably compact. Consider the cover by singletons which has no finite subcover.
    – Henno Brandsma
    Aug 7 at 20:39















I also noticed I made the silly mistake of defining something that isn't even a function, thats obviously where I went wrong....but I digress. You seem to use the fact that it is "discrete" as a reason as to why it is not compact, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this term though ( it will probably show up in more advanced classes I haven't taken yet) would you be able to explain why it is not compact without using this term ?
– exodius
Aug 7 at 19:22




I also noticed I made the silly mistake of defining something that isn't even a function, thats obviously where I went wrong....but I digress. You seem to use the fact that it is "discrete" as a reason as to why it is not compact, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this term though ( it will probably show up in more advanced classes I haven't taken yet) would you be able to explain why it is not compact without using this term ?
– exodius
Aug 7 at 19:22












Could you explain how you deduce from the existence of a discrete and closed infinite subset that the set is not countably compact?
– Severin Schraven
Aug 7 at 20:27




Could you explain how you deduce from the existence of a discrete and closed infinite subset that the set is not countably compact?
– Severin Schraven
Aug 7 at 20:27












@SeverinSchraven countable compactness is closed hereditary.
– Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 20:28




@SeverinSchraven countable compactness is closed hereditary.
– Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 20:28












Isn't your set of function countable and thus countably compact?
– Severin Schraven
Aug 7 at 20:36




Isn't your set of function countable and thus countably compact?
– Severin Schraven
Aug 7 at 20:36












@SeverinSchraven a countable set is Lindelöf. Not necessarily countably compact. Consider the cover by singletons which has no finite subcover.
– Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 20:39




@SeverinSchraven a countable set is Lindelöf. Not necessarily countably compact. Consider the cover by singletons which has no finite subcover.
– Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 20:39












 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2875289%2fshowing-that-the-set-of-non-decreasing-bounded-functions-is-compact%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

Mutual Information Always Non-negative

Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?