Past exam of the metric spaces and complex analysis course of the University of Oxford / 2015 / 1

The Heine-Borel theorem says that a subset $K$ of finite-dimensional Euclidean space is compact exactly when it is both closed and bounded:Here compactness refers to the subspace topology induced by the usual Euclidean metric, and closedness and boundedness are measured in the ambient Euclidean space. This characterization does not hold for arbitrary metric spaces.

The empty set is bounded. Otherwise choose $p$ in the compact metric space $X$. The open balls $B(p,n)$, $n=1,2,\dots$, form an open cover. A finite subcover exists by compactness; because the balls are nested, the largest one already covers $X$. Hence $X\subseteq B(p,N)$ for some $N$.

For $x,y\in X$, the triangle inequality gives $d(x,y)\le d(x,p)+d(p,y)<2N$. ThusThe proof uses only compactness and the metric, not a coordinate system.

The sequence $n\in [0,\infty )$ is unbounded. Every compact metric space is bounded, by part (b), so this subspace is not compact.

Take an irrational number $a\in (0,1)$. The density of the rational numbers provides a sequence in $\mathbb{Q}\cap [0,1]$ converging to $a$, which is outside that subset. Thus the subset is not closed in $\mathbb{R}$. By the Heine-Borel theorem, it is not compact, despite being bounded.

The unit circle is the inverse image of the closed set $\{1\}$ under the continuous map $(x,y)\mapsto x^2+y^2$, so it is closed. It is also bounded, since every point has Euclidean norm one. The Heine-Borel theorem gives compactness.

The open unit disk is bounded but not closed: $(1-1/n,0)$ lies in it for $n\ge 2$ and converges to the omitted point $(1,0)$. By the Heine-Borel theorem, it is not compact.

The points $(n,0)$ belong to the indicated subset for every positive integer $n$. They form an unbounded sequence, so this metric space is not bounded. Therefore it is not compact. Shrinking the vertical width does not bound its horizontal extent.

By the Heine-Borel theorem, a noncompact subset $X\subseteq \mathbb{R}$ is either unbounded or not closed. If $X$ is unbounded, the restriction $f(x)=x$ is a continuous function with unbounded range.

Otherwise $X$ is bounded and not closed. Choose $a\in \overline{X}\setminus X$, and defineIts denominator is nonzero on $X$, so it is continuous. Since $a$ is in the closure, for every $n$ there is $x_n\in X$ with $0<|x_n-a|<1/n$. Hence $f(x_n)>n$, proving that this continuous function is unbounded. These two cases establish unbounded continuous witnesses to noncompactness of a real subspace.

We can arrange that neither the supremum nor the infimum is attained. By part (d), choose a continuous function $f$ on $X$ with unbounded range, and put $u=|f|$. Choose $x_n\in X$ so that $t_n=u(x_n)$ increases strictly to infinity. Construct a continuous function $h:[0,\infty )\to \mathbb{R}$ withkeep it constant up to $t_1$ and interpolate linearly on each $[t_n,t_{n+1}]$. Since $t_n\to \infty$, the joining points have no finite accumulation, so this defines a continuous function everywhere on its domain.

Now setBy function composition, $g$ is continuous, and $-1<g(x)<1$ for every $x$. Along the even and odd chosen points,Thus ${\sup }_{X}g=1$ and ${\inf }_{X}g=-1$, and neither is a value of $g$. This proves the bounded continuous witness with neither extremum attained construction, including for subsets that are bounded but not closed.