Showing that the set of non- decreasing bounded functions is compact
Clash 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 :
continuous images of compact sets are compact.
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 ?
general-topology metric-spaces compactness
add a comment |Â
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 :
continuous images of compact sets are compact.
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 ?
general-topology metric-spaces compactness
All constant functions are in $J$ and form a closed copy of the reals, for another argument for non-compactness.
â Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 22:46
add a comment |Â
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 :
continuous images of compact sets are compact.
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 ?
general-topology metric-spaces compactness
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 :
continuous images of compact sets are compact.
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 ?
general-topology metric-spaces compactness
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.
â Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 22:46
add a comment |Â
All constant functions are in $J$ and form a closed copy of the reals, for another argument for non-compactness.
â 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.
â 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.
â Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 22:46
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
The set is indeed closed, but itâÂÂs 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.
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 ?
â 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?
â Severin Schraven
Aug 7 at 20:27
@SeverinSchraven countable compactness is closed hereditary.
â Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 20:28
Isn't your set of function countable and thus countably compact?
â 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.
â Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 20:39
 |Â
show 3 more comments
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 itâÂÂs 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.
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 ?
â 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?
â Severin Schraven
Aug 7 at 20:27
@SeverinSchraven countable compactness is closed hereditary.
â Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 20:28
Isn't your set of function countable and thus countably compact?
â 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.
â Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 20:39
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
The set is indeed closed, but itâÂÂs 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.
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 ?
â 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?
â Severin Schraven
Aug 7 at 20:27
@SeverinSchraven countable compactness is closed hereditary.
â Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 20:28
Isn't your set of function countable and thus countably compact?
â 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.
â Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 20:39
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
The set is indeed closed, but itâÂÂs 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.
The set is indeed closed, but itâÂÂs 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.
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 ?
â 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?
â Severin Schraven
Aug 7 at 20:27
@SeverinSchraven countable compactness is closed hereditary.
â Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 20:28
Isn't your set of function countable and thus countably compact?
â 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.
â Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 20:39
 |Â
show 3 more comments
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 ?
â 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?
â Severin Schraven
Aug 7 at 20:27
@SeverinSchraven countable compactness is closed hereditary.
â Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 20:28
Isn't your set of function countable and thus countably compact?
â 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.
â 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 ?
â 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 ?
â 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?
â 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?
â Severin Schraven
Aug 7 at 20:27
@SeverinSchraven countable compactness is closed hereditary.
â Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 20:28
@SeverinSchraven countable compactness is closed hereditary.
â Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 20:28
Isn't your set of function countable and thus countably compact?
â Severin Schraven
Aug 7 at 20:36
Isn't your set of function countable and thus countably compact?
â 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.
â 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.
â Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 20:39
 |Â
show 3 more comments
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
All constant functions are in $J$ and form a closed copy of the reals, for another argument for non-compactness.
â Henno Brandsma
Aug 7 at 22:46