COMPACTNESS IN METRIC SPACES I: TOTAL

BOUNDEDNESS
MATH 431 SEPT 16

The point of this note is to provide a generalization of some of the results (namely, Cantor Intersection Theorem and HeineBorel Theorem) of
Chapter 3 to the general metric space environment.
Let us begin with the observation that the characterization of compact
sets as bounded and closed (in Rd using the Euclidean metric) is unsuitable
in this generality. This can be made clear using the following two examples:
Example 1. In problem 8 from problem set 2, we observe that any metric
can be modified to an equivalent metric = min(, 1): the open sets under
this new metric are the same, as are the compact sets. However, every set
is now bounded (since (x, y) 1), so closed/bounded in this case will not
work. (In this case, boundedness fails to be a useful condition.)
Example 2. Consider the set of rationals Q. This is a subset of the reals
R and is a metric space using the usual Euclidean metric. The interval
I := [0, ] Q is a closed, bounded subset of Q (indeed, any closed interval
[a, b] Q is closed in Q; you can repeat this example with any interval,
provided one of its endpoints is irrational) and bounded, but it doesnt
contain its left endpoint.
We can cover it with many balls which dont quite hit (think of this as
walking toward , but as you get nearer, your steps get shorter). For every
rational number 0 x < , let rx = x, and consider the open interval
(x rx /2, x + rx /2) Q. Each x I is contained in such an interval, but
we cant cover I with a finite number of these since
sup

n
[

!
(xi rxi /2, xi + rxi /2)

= xmax + rxmax /2 <

i=1

Using the sequential characterization

is even easier, consider the decimal
P
expansion = 3.1415 = 3 +
d
10j and create the sequence of
j
j=1
Pn
partial sums sn = 3 + j=1 dj 10j . Each sn is rational, and is therefore
in I. It has no convergent subsequence (in I) the limit of any convergent
subsequence would be .
(In this case, it was closed-ness which was not useful; a set in Q may be
closed but not contain sufficiently many accumulation points.)
1

MATH 431 SEPT 16

A better set of criteria exist for compactness in general metric spaces.

These are completeness and total boundedness. The book discusses completeness of a metric space in Chapter 4, but the second criterion doesnt
get as much attention.
Total Boundedness. A subset S of a metric space (X, ) is totally bounded
if forSevery  > 0 there exist finitely many points x1 , . . . , xn X so that
S nj=1 B(xj , ).
In many ways, this is a more meaningful property for metric spaces than
boundedness. When we use boundedness in Rd , we are often using total
boundedness (the two properties are the same for Rd with the Euclidean
metric you are asked to show this in problem set 3).
Lets look at one more interesting example.
Example 3. Consider the metric space of bounded sequences of real numbers. Each sequence x = (xn ) is a function from the naturals to the reals
x : N R, but we may also think of it as an infinite list (this is why we use
the notation (xn ), to indicate that the value of x at n is the nth element of
the list: x(n) = xn ).
We endow this space with the supremum metric:
(x, y) = sup |xn yn |.
nN

(Convince yourself that this is always finite for any two bounded sequences
x and y.) The function : X X [0, ) is a metric because
(1) if (x, y) = 0 then xn = yn for all n, so they are the same sequence;
(2) (x, y) = supnN |xn yn | supnN |yn xn | = (y, x);
(3) Fix  > 0. Find an n so that (x, y) |xn yn | + . Then for any
z X, we have |xn yn | |xn zn | + |zn yn | which implies
(x, y) |xn zn | + |zn yn | +  = (x, y) (x, z) + (z, y) + 
Since  > 0 is arbitrary, (x, y) (x, z) + (z, y).
It follows that the space of bounded sequences is a metric space using the
sup metric. Now we can discuss the example.
Consider the sequence ej X, where ej (k) = 1 if j = k and ej (k) = 0
if j 6= k (thus, ej is the list consisting of all 0s except a 1 in the j entry
its the jth coordinate sequence). There are infinitely many such ej s, and
each one lives in the closed unit ball B(0, 1). In short, {ej | j N} is a
bounded set. Note that for j 6= k, (ej , ek ) = 1. We will now show that the
set {ej | j N} is not totally bounded.
From this, it follows that the family of open balls B(ej , 1/2) are disjoint
(Pick z B(ej , 1/2), we cant have z B(ek , 1/2) or else (ej , z)+(ek , z) <
1 which would violate the triangle inequality). Another way of saying this
is: if (z, ej ) < 1/2 then (z, ek ) > 1/2 for all k 6= j.

COMPACTNESS IN METRIC SPACES I: TOTAL BOUNDEDNESS

This shows that there is no finite set of points {x1 , . . . , xN } in X that can
cover the unit ball with  1/2:
X

N
[

B(xj , 1/2) 6=

j=1

since any such family would only capture (at most) N of the elements ej .
Thus {ej | j N} is not totally bounded.
The set {ej | j N} is also not compact, since the family of balls
{B(ej , 1/2) | j N} covers it, but cannot be reduced to a finite subcover.
Its not hard to see a few other things: the closed ball B(0, 1) in (X, ) is
not totally bounded, since it contains {ej | j N}. It is also not compact,
since {ej | j N} is a closed subset of B(0, 1). This is a common difficulty
when dealing with infinite dimensional (normed) vector spaces (like the space
X of bounded sequences).