Finite intersection property
Definition 1.
A collection of sets in is said to have the finite intersection property if any finite subcollection of has a nonempty intersection.
If is a collection of open subsets of a metric space , then the collection of complements of sets in is a collection of closed sets. Moreover, is a cover of if and only if has empty intersection. Now, is compact if being an open cover implies a finite subcover of exists. Taking the contrapositive, we get that is compact if no finite subcover of implies is not an open cover.
Theorem 2.
A metric space is compact if and only if every collection of closed subsets of with the finite intersection property has nonempty intersection.
Characterization of compact sets
Recall definitions of open cover compactness (referred to as just compactness), sequential compactness, and limit point compactness. In Analysis 1, we showed that sequential and limit point compactness are equivalent. We stated but didn’t show that this equivalence extends to open cover compactness. We will prove this. Also recall that we showed that all compact sets are closed and bounded (with the converse being true for ). We will introduce a stronger characterization, which says that a set is compact if and only if it is complete and totally bounded.
Definition 3.
A metric space is said to be totally bounded if for each , can be covered by a finite number of open balls of radius . A subset of is said to be totally bounded if is bounded as a metric space.
A totally bounded metric space is always bounded. However, being bounded does not imply being totally bounded. For example, consider with the discrete metric. is bounded under the discrete metric, but is not totally bounded since a finite covering of -balls does not exist for . But, under any metric induced by a norm, a subset of is bounded iff it is totally bounded.
Theorem 4.
A subset of is bounded iff it is totally bounded under any metric induced by a norm.
Proof
Since we have shown that all norms on are equivalent, it will suffice to prove the theorem for the metric induced by the euclidean norm.
Let be a bounded subset of . Since is bounded, we may take large enough such that . Choose such that . Let be a partition of for which each partition has length less than . Then induces a partition of into -cuboids of diameter less than . Consider the finite collection of balls of radius with centers where and are the partition points of . Then this finite collection of balls of radius covers , and hence covers .
Theorem 5(Characterization of compactness for a metric space).
For a metric space , the following assertions are equivalent:
- is complete and totally bounded
- is compact
- is sequentially compact.
Complete and totally bounded compact
We argue by contradiction. Let be an open cover of with no finite subcover. Since is totally bounded, there exists a cover of which consists of open balls of radius . At least one of these open balls must not have an open subcover in . Select one such ball and label its closure . Now take a cover of consisting of open balls of radius . The intersection of at least one such ball with must not have an open subcover in . Select one such ball and label the closure of its intersection with as . Then and are closed, , and , . Continuing in this way we obtain a contracting sequence of nonempty closed sets with the property that each does not have a finite subcover in . Since is complete, it has the Cantor intersection property, which implies , where .
Now, for some . Since is a contracting sequence and is open, for some . This contradicts the choice of as being a set that does not have a finite subcover in .
Compact sequentially compact
Let be a sequence in . For each index , let be the closure of . Note that the collection has the finite intersection property. Since is compact, it follows that . Let . Now, either is a limit point of , or for all . In both cases, we can extract a subsequence of which converges to . Therefore, is sequentially compact.
Sequentially compact complete and totally bounded
Sequentially compact complete is obvious.
Assume is not totally bounded. Then for some , we cannot cover with a finite number of -balls. Pick , , , and so on. The sequence does not have a convergent subsequence since the distance between any two of its points is or greater.