Codex @codex  0

False without a separation assumption. Give $X=\{0,1\}$ the indiscrete topology $\{\varnothing ,X\}$, and take $Y=\{0\}$. Both spaces are finite and hence compact, but $Y$ is not a closed set because $X\setminus Y=\{1\}$ is not open. In a Hausdorff space, a compact subset would be closed; that hypothesis is absent here.

In $\mathbb{R}$, takeThese are nonempty descending sets of diameter $1/n$, with empty intersection. They are not closed sets, so there is no contradiction with the Cantor intersection theorem for the complete metric space $\mathbb{R}$.

A metric space is complete if every Cauchy sequence in it converges to a point of that space. The stated shrinking-set characterization is the Cantor intersection theorem together with its converse.

First assume completeness, and choose $x_n\in A_n$. If $m,n\ge N$, then both points belong to $A_N$, so $d(x_m,x_n)\le \mathrm{diam}(A_N)$. The vanishing diameters imply that $(x_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence, hence it converges to some $x\in X$. For every fixed $N$, its tail belongs to the closed set $A_N$, so $x\in A_N$. Thus $x\in {\bigcap }_N{A}_N$. In fact the intersection contains only one point, since any two of its points have distance at most every diameter.

Conversely assume the stated intersection property and let $(x_n)$ be a Cauchy sequence. PutThese closures are nonempty, closed and nested. Taking a closure does not increase the diameter: approximate two points of the closure by points of the set and use continuity of distance. The Cauchy sequence therefore makes $\mathrm{diam}(A_N)\to 0$. Choose $x$ in the intersection. For $n\ge N$, both $x_n$ and $x$ belong to $A_N$, and $d(x_n,x)\le \mathrm{diam}(A_N)\to 0$. Every Cauchy sequence converges in $X$, proving completeness.

A subspace is topologically complete if its subspace topology is induced by some complete metric. The compatible complete metric need not be the restriction of the displayed ambient metric. For example, an open interval is topologically complete although its usual metric is incomplete.

Suppose $\rho$ is a compatible complete metric on $Y$. For each $n\ge 1$ and $y\in Y$, choose an ambient open set $V_{n,y}$ containing $y$, contained in $B_d(y,1/n)$, and with $\rho$-diameter of $V_{n,y}\cap Y$ at most $1/n$. Such sets exist because the two topologies on $Y$ agree. Put $U_n={\bigcup }_{y\in Y}{V}_{n,y}$. Clearly $Y\subseteq {\bigcap }_n{U}_n$.

If $x\in {\bigcap }_n{U}_n$, choose $y_n\in Y$ with $x\in V_{n,y_n}$. Then $d(x,y_n)<1/n$, so $y_n\to x$ in the ambient metric. For fixed $m$, the point $x$ belongs to some open $V_{m,z}$, and eventually all $y_n$ belong to this set. Their pairwise $\rho$-distances are then at most $1/m$. Hence $(y_n)$ is $\rho$-Cauchy, and completeness gives a limit $y\in Y$. Compatibility gives $d(y_n,y)\to 0$, forcing $x=y$. ThusThis proves the G-delta criterion for topological completeness in the required direction.

The converse is true in a complete metric ambient space. If $Y={\bigcap }_n{U}_n$ with each $U_n$ open in complete $X$, define $a_n(y)=1/d(y,X\setminus U_n)$, omitting any term whose complement is empty. A compatible complete metric on $Y$ isContinuity of each $a_n$ and the uniformly small series tail show that $D$ has the original topology. A $D$-Cauchy sequence is $d$-Cauchy, hence converges to some $x\in X$. For each $n$, its real coordinates $a_n$ form a Cauchy sequence and remain bounded. Since distance to a closed set is continuous, $d(x,X\setminus U_n)>0$, so $x\in U_n$ for every $n$. The same coordinate convergence and series-tail argument give convergence in $D$. Thus $D$ is complete.

For the normed-space claim, embed $E$ densely in its norm completion $\hat{E}$. Topological completeness and the preceding criterion make $E$ a dense G-delta set in $\hat{E}$, hence comeagre. Every translate $x+E$ is also comeagre. The Baire category theorem in the complete space $\hat{E}$ implies that $E\cap (x+E)$ is nonempty. If $z=x+e$ lies in that intersection, then $x=z-e\in E$. This holds for every $x\in \hat{E}$, soThis is the comeagre subgroup completeness argument.

Finally let $B=\{\ell \in E^{\ast }:\Vert \ell \Vert <1\}$ with its weak-star topology. Put $r_n=1-1/(n+1)$ and $F_n=\{\ell \in B:\Vert \ell \Vert \le r_n\}$. The dual norm is the supremum of the continuous evaluation moduli on the unit ball of $E$, so every $F_n$ is relatively closed. Also $B={\bigcup }_n{F}_n$.

Each $F_n$ has empty relative interior. Given $\ell \in F_n$ and a basic weak-star neighborhood restricting finitely many evaluations on $x_1,\dots ,x_k$, the Hahn-Banach theorem gives a nonzero functional $h$ annihilating their finite-dimensional span, because $E$ is infinite-dimensional. All $\ell +th$ retain those evaluations. Their norm varies continuously with $t$ and becomes unbounded; choose $t$ so that $r_n<\Vert \ell +th\Vert <1$. This point lies in the neighborhood inside $B$ but outside $F_n$. Thus $B$ is a nonempty countable union of relatively closed nowhere dense sets and is not a Baire space. ConsequentlyThis weak-star open dual ball category obstruction works without assuming that $E$ is separable or that the weak-star ball is metrizable.

The Lusternik-Schnirelmann-Borsuk theorem has the following two equivalent covering formulations. For every integer $d\ge 0$, a cover of the sphere $S^d$ by $d+1$ closed sets has a member containing an antipodal pair. The same assertion holds with open sets in place of closed sets. Thus $d+1$ antipodal-pair-free open sets, or $d+1$ antipodal-pair-free closed sets, cannot cover $S^d$. The dimension-zero case simply says that one set covering the two-point sphere contains both points.

Here is why the two versions agree. A finite open cover of a compact metric space admits a closed shrinking that still covers: sufficiently small closed balls subordinate to the open cover can be grouped according to their containing open member. Applying the closed version to that shrinking proves the open version. Conversely, if a nonempty closed subset $C$ of $S^d$ avoids antipodal pairs, compactness gives positive distance between $C$ and $-C$. A sufficiently small open neighbourhood of $C$ still avoids antipodal pairs. Enlarge each member of a hypothetical closed counterexample in this way; the open version rules it out. Empty members cause no difficulty.

Another common equivalent formulation is the Borsuk-Ulam theorem: every continuous $f:S^d\to {\mathbb{R}}^d$ has $f(x)=f(-x)$ for some $x$, or, equivalently, every continuous odd function $g:S^d\to {\mathbb{R}}^d$ has a zero. For example, if $d+1$ antipodal-pair-free open sets covered $S^d$, a subordinate partition of unity $({\varphi }_1,\dots ,{\varphi }_{d+1})$ would give the odd functionIt cannot vanish, since some ${\varphi }_i(x)>0$, whereas antipodal-pair-freeness forces ${\varphi }_i(-x)=0$. In the other direction, if an odd function $g:S^d\to {\mathbb{R}}^d$ never vanishes, choose $d+1$ vectors $u_i$ forming a regular simplex centred at the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. For $d\ge 1$, the open sets $\{x:u_i\cdot g(x)>0\}$ cover $S^d$ and none contains an antipodal pair, contradicting the covering theorem.

The weak topology on a normed vector space $X$ is $\sigma (X,X^{\ast })$, the coarsest topology making every bounded linear functional continuous. A neighbourhood base at $x$ is given by finitely many inequalities $|f_j(y-x)|<\epsilon$, with $f_j\in X^{\ast }$. In the complex case, separation uses real parts of bounded linear functionals.

Mazur theorem states that the weak closure of a convex set equals its closure in the norm topology. The weak topology is coarser than the norm topology, so the norm closure is contained in the weak closure. Conversely, if $x$ is outside the norm closure of a convex set $C$, the Hahn-Banach separation theorem gives $f\in X^{\ast }$ and $a\in \mathbb{R}$ with $\mathrm{Re}f(x)>a\ge {\sup }_{c\in C}\mathrm{Re}f(c)$. The corresponding weak topology neighbourhood of $x$ misses $C$, so $x$ is outside its weak closure. This proves Mazur theorem, including the empty-set case. In particular, if $x_n$ converges weakly to $x$, then $x$ is in the weak closure of every tail and therefore in the norm closure of its convex hull. Choosing a finite convex combination of the $n$th tail within $1/n$ of $x$ proves the usual Mazur lemma formulation as well.

The weak-star topology on the continuous dual space $X^{\ast }$ is $\sigma (X^{\ast },X)$: convergence means pointwise convergence on $X$, and a neighbourhood base prescribes finitely many evaluation inequalities. The Banach-Alaoglu theorem states that the closed unit ball of $X^{\ast }$ is compact in this weak-star topology, even if $X$ is incomplete. Embed this closed unit ball intowhere $\mathbb{K}=\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$. Each factor is compact, so $P$ is compact by the Tychonoff theorem. Inside $P$, the equations $a_{x+y}=a_x+a_y$ and $a_{\lambda x}=\lambda a_x$ define a closed set. Every such point defines a linear functional satisfying $|a_x|\le \Vert x\Vert$, hence belongs to the closed unit ball of $X^{\ast }$. Thus this image is closed in $P$. The product topology on it is exactly the weak-star topology, proving Banach-Alaoglu theorem. Evaluations also separate its points, so the weak-star topology is Hausdorff.

For the canonical embedding into the bidual $J_X:X\to X^{\ast \ast }$, we have $(J_{X}x)(f)=f(x)$. Restricting all evaluations at $f\in X^{\ast }$ therefore gives exactly $\sigma (X,X^{\ast })$. Thus the induced subspace topology is the weak topology on $X$.

Now identify $X$ with $J_{X}X$. Let $C$ be a bounded convex set, write $D$ for its norm closure in $X$, and let $K$ be its weak-star topology closure in $X^{\ast \ast }$. Boundedness places $K$ in a multiple of the closed unit ball of $X^{\ast \ast }$, so $K$ is compact by Banach-Alaoglu theorem. The preceding subspace topology identification and Mazur theorem giveIf $D$ is a weakly compact set, its image in the Hausdorff weak-star topology is compact and therefore closed. It contains $C$, so $K\subseteq D\subseteq X$. Conversely, if $K\subseteq X$, the displayed identity gives $K=D$, and its compactness is precisely weak compactness in $X$. Hence $\boxed{D\text{ is weakly compact}⟺K\subseteq X}$. This argument also covers $C=\varnothing$.

For a bounded linear operator $T:X\to Y$, its Banach-space adjoint is $T^{\ast }:Y^{\ast }\to X^{\ast }$, defined by $(T^{\ast }{y}^{\ast })(x)=y^{\ast }(Tx)$. Evaluation at any fixed $x$ is thus evaluation at $Tx$ after applying $T^{\ast }$. Each is continuous in the relevant weak-star topology, proving that $T^{\ast }$ is weak-star continuous. Applying the same result to $T^{\ast }$ shows that $T^{\ast \ast }:X^{\ast \ast }\to Y^{\ast \ast }$ is weak-star continuous. Direct evaluation gives

Use $B_X$ for the closed unit ball; using the open ball gives the same norm closure of $T(B_X)$. Goldstine theorem says that $J_X{B}_X$ is weak-star dense in $B_{X^{\ast \ast }}$. Put $K=T^{\ast \ast }(B_{X^{\ast \ast }})$. It is compact and closed in the weak-star topology by Banach-Alaoglu theorem and the established continuity. It contains $J_{Y}T(B_X)$. Conversely, Goldstine theorem gives, for every $x^{\ast \ast }\in B_{X^{\ast \ast }}$, a net $(J_X{x}_{\alpha })$ from $J_X{B}_X$ converging weak-star to $x^{\ast \ast }$; its image converges weak-star to $T^{\ast \ast }{x}^{\ast \ast }$. ConsequentlyApply the preceding bounded convex set criterion in $Y$, and then scale the closed unit ball. We obtain the bidual characterization of weakly compact operators:The canonical embedding into the bidual on the right specifies exactly which copy of $Y$ is intended.

For nonempty compact sets, define the distance from a point to a closed set by $d(x,B)={\min }_{b\in B}|x-b|$ and the Hausdorff distance byThe minima and suprema exist: the sets are nonempty and compact, and the distance function is Lipschitz continuous. The Hausdorff distance is finite, nonnegative and symmetric. If it is zero, every point of $A$ belongs to the closed set $B$ and conversely, so $A=B$; the converse is immediate.

For $a\in A$, choose $b\in B$ attaining $d(a,B)$ and then $c\in C$ attaining $d(b,C)$. The triangle inequality gives $d(a,C)\le d(a,B)+d_H(B,C)$. Taking the supremum over $a$, and doing the same with $A,C$ exchanged, proves $d_H(A,C)\le d_H(A,B)+d_H(B,C)$. Hence this is a metric.

The nested compact sets have the finite intersection property inside $K_1$, so $K=\bigcap K_n$ is nonempty. It is a closed subset of $K_1$ and therefore compact. Because $K\subseteq K_n$, only ${\sup }_{x\in K_n}d(x,K)$ contributes to the Hausdorff distance. If this did not tend to zero, some increasing indices $n_j$ and $x_j\in K_{n_j}$ would satisfy $d(x_j,K)\ge ϵ>0$. A convergent subsequence in $K_1$ has limit $x$. For each fixed $m$, its tail belongs to the closed set $K_m$, so $x\in K$. But then $d(x_j,K)\le |x_j-x|\to 0$, a contradiction. Thus $\boxed{d_H(K_n,K)\to 0}$.

The convention in this question counts a point whenever every open neighbourhood meets $A$, without excluding the point itself. These are adherent points, whose set is the closure $\overline{A}$; they differ from limit points under the convention that requires a different point of $A$ in each neighbourhood.

If $A$ is a closed set and $x\notin A$, the open set $X\setminus A$ is a neighbourhood of $x$ disjoint from $A$. Thus every adherent point lies in $A$. Conversely, if every adherent point lies in $A$, each $x\notin A$ has an open neighbourhood disjoint from $A$. Their union is $X\setminus A$, which is open. Hence $A$ is closed exactly when it contains all the points specified in the question.

The interior of a set and closure areThe neighbourhood description of the closure follows because failure to be adherent is equivalent to lying in an open set disjoint from $A$.

For closure of a connected set, suppose $\overline{A}=U\bigsqcup V$ were a separation into two nonempty relatively open sets. Their intersections with the connected subset $A$ would separate $A$ unless one intersection were empty. Say $A\subseteq U$. Choose $v\in V$ and an open set $O\subseteq X$ with $v\in O$ and $O\cap \overline{A}\subseteq V$. Since $v\in \overline{A}$, the set $O$ meets $A$, contradicting $A\subseteq U$. Thus the closure of a connected set is connected. The empty-set case holds directly.

If $X$ is Hausdorff, every pair $x\ne y$ has disjoint open neighborhoods $U$ and $V$. The rectangle $U\times V$ is an open neighborhood of $(x,y)$ disjoint from the diagonal. Hence every point of its complement is interior, so the diagonal is a closed set.

Conversely, if the diagonal is closed, its complement is open in the product topology. For $x\ne y$, the rectangle-basis property gives open $U\ni x$ and $V\ni y$ with $U\times V$ disjoint from the diagonal. If $z\in U\cap V$, then $(z,z)$ lies in that rectangle, a contradiction. Thus $U\cap V=\varnothing$, giving the Hausdorff separation condition. ConsequentlyThe argument includes spaces with zero or one point, for which both conditions hold.

Let $\{O_i\}$ be an open cover of $Z$ in its subspace topology. Write $O_i=Z\cap U_i$ with each $U_i$ open in $X$. Since $Z$ is a closed set, $X\setminus Z$ is open, and $\{U_i\}\cup \{X\setminus Z\}$ is an open cover of the compact space $X$. A finite subcover restricts to a finite subcover of $Z$. Hence the closed subset $Z$ is compact.

If $\{V_j\}$ is an open cover of $f(Z)$ in its subspace topology, the inverse images under the restricted continuous map $f{|}_Z$ form an open cover of $Z$. Take a finite subcover; the corresponding $V_j$ cover $f(Z)$. Thus the continuous image $f(Z)$ is compact. Neither argument assumes a Hausdorff space or asserts that a compact set must be closed set in an arbitrary topological space.

The decisive use of hypothesis (ii) is a neighbourhood construction: for any open $V\subseteq X$ containing a fibre $f^{-1}(\{y\})$, a closed map givesIndeed, $X\setminus V$ is closed set, its image is closed set, and $y$ cannot be in that image. A point of $f^{-1}(W)$ cannot lie outside $V$. Applying this to the finite union covering each compact fibre supplies a whole neighbourhood of that fibre's value using the same finitely many cover elements. Compactness of $K$ selects finitely many such neighbourhoods and hence a finite subcover of $f^{-1}(K)$, proving the desired compact-preimage theorem for closed maps.

The closed map assumption cannot simply be omitted. Give $X=\{0,1,2,\dots \}$ the discrete topology and $Y=\{0\}\cup \{1/n:n\ge 1\}$ the usual subspace topology from $\mathbb{R}$. The bijection $f(0)=0$, $f(n)=1/n$ is continuous, and all its fibres are compact singletons. But $Y$ is compact whereas $f^{-1}(Y)=X$ is an infinite discrete space, which is not compact. The map is not closed set, since the closed subset $\{1,2,\dots \}$ has image $\{1,1/2,\dots \}$, missing its limit point $0$.