1617-257/TUT-R-3: Difference between revisions
From Drorbn
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "On 9/29/16, we discussed three notions of compactness in <math>\mathbb{R}^n</math> equipped with the usual topology: (1) closed and bounded (2) subsequential compactness (3...") |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
We will tacitly assume that this is the topology we're giving <math>\mathbb{R}^n</math> for the remainder of this post. |
We will tacitly assume that this is the topology we're giving <math>\mathbb{R}^n</math> for the remainder of this post. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
- We proved that (1) and (2) are equivalent. |
|||
* We proved that (1) and (2) are equivalent. |
|||
* Statements (2) and (3) are equivalent in general metric spaces. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
Latest revision as of 11:48, 30 September 2016
On 9/29/16, we discussed three notions of compactness in equipped with the usual topology:
(1) closed and bounded
(2) subsequential compactness
(3) every open cover admits a finite subcover
We will tacitly assume that this is the topology we're giving for the remainder of this post.
- We proved that (1) and (2) are equivalent.
- Statements (2) and (3) are equivalent in general metric spaces.
- (1) is not necessarily equivalent to (2) or (3) in other settings (and even non-contrived settings: that is, settings which are not just around for the sake of counterexample. There is an abundance of examples arising from basic objects of study in functional analysis.).
