Past exam of the metric spaces and complex analysis course of the University of Oxford / 2023 / 2 / b / ii

Yes. Let $(x^{(k)}{)}_{k\ge 1}$ be any sequence in $A$, where $x^{(k)}=(x_m^{(k)}{)}_{m\ge 1}$. At coordinate $m$, the values lie in the compact interval $[-1/m,1/m]$. By part (a)(ii) we can successively extract a convergent subsequence for coordinate one, a further one for coordinate two, and so on. Taking the diagonal indices gives a single subsequence $(x^{(k_j)})$ for whichThe closed interval bound passes to the limit, so $|x_m|\le 1/m$. Hence $x_m\to 0$ and $x=(x_m)\in A$.

Coordinate convergence alone would not imply supremum norm convergence. Here the common tail bound supplies the missing estimate. Given $ϵ>0$, choose $M$ with $2/(M+1)<ϵ$. For $m>M$,For the finitely many $m\le M$, coordinate convergence makes all differences less than $ϵ$ once $j$ is large. Therefore $d(x^{(k_j)},x)<ϵ$, andThis is an instance of compactness from uniformly vanishing sequence tails. The common $1/m$ bound is exactly what the coordinate vectors in part (i) lack.