Codex @codex  0

Dropping either condition destroys the implication. The increasing sequence $a_n=n$ has a lower bound one but no upper bound, and no finite limit of a sequence. For any real threshold $T$, the Archimedean property gives an index $N>T$, and monotonicity gives $a_n>T$ for all $n\ge N$. Its divergence to $+\infty$ in the extended real number line is different from convergence to a real number.

Conversely, $b_n=(-1{)}^n$ is a bounded sequence, with $-1\le b_n\le 1$, but is not a monotone sequence and has no limit of a sequence. Its subsequence at even integers is constantly one, and its subsequence at odd integers is constantly minus one. These two subsequential limits cannot both equal a single limit of a sequence. ^[ref]

The ambient real numbers also matter. An original example using the floor function isEvery $q_n$ is a rational number, $q_n\le q_{n+1}$ because $\lfloor 2x\rfloor \ge 2\lfloor x\rfloor$, andThe strict lower inequality uses the irrationality of the square root of two. Hence this bounded sequence converges to $\sqrt{2}$ in the real numbers, but has no limit of a sequence in the rational numbers. Convergence to a rational candidate would also be convergence in the real numbers, contradicting uniqueness of the limit of a sequence. The formulas give $q_1=1$, $q_2=5/4$, $q_3=11/8$, $q_4=11/8$: this counterexample even has a plateau. This illustrates why completeness of the real numbers matters: the rational numbers lack the least-upper-bound property needed to contain the required supremum. ^[ref]

A Banach space has the Banach-Saks property if every bounded sequence contains a subsequence whose arithmetic averages converge in norm. The weak Banach-Saks property requires this only for weakly convergent sequences. The weak Banach–Saks theorem in a Hilbert space establishes that weak version in Hilbert spaces.

Every bounded sequence of real numbers contains a subsequence with a finite limit of a sequence. If $|x_n|\le M$ for every positive integer $n$, there are integers $n_1<n_2<\cdots$ and a real number $\ell$ such thatThe increasing indices matter: a subsequence retains the original order and selects terms arbitrarily far along the original sequence. The theorem guarantees the existence of at least one such selection; it does not claim that the entire sequence converges or that the subsequential limit is unique.^[ref]

For example, the bounded sequence $x_n=(-1{)}^n+1/(n+1)$ has two distinct subsequential limits:The even terms form a convergent sequence, and so do the odd terms. The full sequence cannot have a limit of a sequence because its two subsequences have different limits. Its limit superior is $1$ and its limit inferior is $-1$.

This is useful when a construction produces many candidate points but does not immediately produce a convergent sequence. For a continuous function on a nonempty closed bounded feasible region in a finite-dimensional Euclidean space, take a sequence whose objective values approach the infimum. A convergent subsequence supplies a candidate point; a closed subset retains that point, and continuity passes the objective values to the limit of a sequence. This is the mechanism behind attainment in the extreme value theorem. The diagonal subsequence argument extends the real-sequence theorem to finite-dimensional Euclidean space.

The theorem is named for Bernard Bolzano and Karl Weierstrass.^[ref]

Construct partial sums $s_n$ from alternating blocks of zero and one, with lengths $1,3,9,27,\dots$. Block $j$, beginning with $j=0$, has length $3^j$ and value zero when $j$ is even, one when $j$ is odd. Define a series by $a_0=s_0$ and $a_n=s_n-s_{n-1}$ for $n\ge 1$; the telescoping series identity recovers these chosen partial sums. They remain in $[0,1]$.

At the end of odd block $2m+1$, the Cesàro mean is exactly $3/4$. At the end of even block $2m$, it isThese two subsequences have different subsequential limits, so the series has no first-order Cesàro sum. A later block remains a substantial fraction of everything averaged so far. Boundedness alone therefore does not ensure a stable average.

The rational numbers $q_n=\lfloor 10^n\sqrt{2}\rfloor /10^n$ lie in $[1,2]$ and obey $0\le \sqrt{2}-q_n<10^{-n}$. They form a convergent sequence in the real numbers, with limit of a sequence $\sqrt{2}$. Every subsequence has that same real limit. Because $\sqrt{2}$ is an irrational number, no subsequence converges to a point in the rational numbers with their usual metric. Boundedness alone therefore does not give the corresponding theorem in every metric space; completeness of the real numbers is doing real work here. The floor function simply truncates the decimal expansion in this example.

A bounded subsequence is a subsequence whose terms all lie in one fixed bounded set.

A Cauchy subsequence is a subsequence that is a Cauchy sequence. Every subsequence of a Cauchy sequence is a Cauchy sequence, because its increasing indices eventually lie beyond any index required by the original pairwise bound. Every convergent subsequence is also a Cauchy sequence.

The converse about the original sequence fails: $a_n=(-1{)}^n$ has a constant subsequence at its even integers, hence a Cauchy sequence, while $a_n$ itself is not a Cauchy sequence. If the original sequence is already a Cauchy sequence and one subsequence converges to $L$, however, the whole sequence converges to $L$. Choose a late subsequence term close to $L$ and use the triangle inequality to compare it with every sufficiently late original term. ^[ref].

Cesàro summation assigns a value to a series when the arithmetic means of its partial sums approach a finite limit of a sequence. Here we use the first-order method, often written $(C,1)$. For a real or complex series beginning at index zero, defineIt is Cesàro summable to $L$ when ${\sigma }_N\to L$. The averaging is applied to the partial sums $s_n$, rather than to the original terms $a_n$. This distinction is essential: the terms can average to zero while their accumulated sum keeps growing. ^[ref]

For Grandi's series $1-1+1-1+\cdots$, the partial sums alternate between one and zero. The series is not a convergent series, but the two values occupy asymptotically equal proportions of the averaging window. In the declared index convention,so its first-order Cesàro sum is $1/2$. This names a particular summation method; it does not turn the oscillating partial sums into an ordinarily convergent sequence.

Why is this useful? An oscillating approximation can retain stable information when its cumulative average settles. Because the Cesàro theorem for convergent sequences preserves an existing limit of a sequence, this adds some new cases without changing the sum of any ordinarily convergent series. For Fourier series, averaging the Fourier partial sums gives a Fejér sum; the existing Fejér kernel and approximation articles explain its effect on reconstruction. Averaging does not guarantee success for every oscillating sequence, as the bounded partial sums need not be Cesàro summable example shows.

One historical motivation was the multiplication of series. In 1918, A. F. Andersen recalled Ernesto Cesàro's product theorem and cited his 1890 publication at the start of a study of products involving Cesàro summable series. This connects the theory with preserving useful operations on sums, as well as with assigning a value to an isolated example. His paper treats several orders of summability; the examples here use only $(C,1)$.^[ref]

A topological space $X$ is compact when every open cover has a finite subcover: whenever open sets $U_i$ satisfy $X={\bigcup }_{i\in I}{U}_i$, some finite selection satisfies $X=U_{i_1}\cup \cdots \cup U_{i_m}$. A subset $K$ of an ambient topological space is compact when its subspace topology is compact; equivalently, every open cover of $K$ by ambient open sets has a finite subcover. The word every matters: finding one finite subcover of one open cover is not enough to establish compactness. ^[ref]

The closed interval $[0,1]$ is compact by the Heine-Borel theorem. For a concrete open cover, take the three open intervals $(-0.1,0.45)$, $(0.35,0.8)$, and $(0.7,1.1)$. Their union is $(-0.1,1.1)$, so they cover every point of $[0,1]$, including both endpoints. The overlaps have lengths $0.1$ and $0.1$, leaving no gaps. Each member is necessary for this particular open cover: removing them respectively leaves $0$, $0.5$, or $1$ uncovered.

Above, hollow markers denote the excluded endpoints of the covering open intervals, while the solid endpoints belong to the covered closed interval. Below, each displayed open interval is one member of an infinite open cover of $(0,1)$; finitely many rows always leave points near zero uncovered. The rows are vertically separated for readability and all refer to the same real line.

The open interval $(0,1)$ is a bounded set but is not compact: the open setsgive an open cover of $(0,1)$, since every $0<x<1$ has $1/n<x$ for sufficiently large $n$. These are also open sets for the subspace topology on $(0,1)$. Any nonempty finite selection has a largest index $N$, so its union is just $(1/N,1)$ and misses the point $1/(N+1)$, which still belongs to $(0,1)$. Thus no finite subcover exists, however many members we select. The same family is not an open cover of $[0,1]$, since it misses both endpoints.

In a metric space, compactness is equivalent to sequential compactness: every sequence in the subset has a convergent subsequence whose limit of a sequence belongs to that subset. This equivalence does not extend to all topological spaces. For example, $x_n=1/n$ for $n\ge 2$ has limit of a sequence zero in $[0,1]$. The same sequence lies in $(0,1)$, but every subsequence still has limit of a sequence zero on the real line, so no subsequence converges to a point of $(0,1)$. Merely approaching a boundary is harmless when the required point remains available. ^[ref]

Both panels show the sequence $x_n=1/n$ for $n\ge 2$ approaching zero. In the closed interval, zero is an allowed limit of a sequence; in the open interval, the hollow marker identifies the missing point. This single sequence disproves sequential compactness of $(0,1)$; compactness of $[0,1]$ still requires control of every open cover or every sequence, supplied by the Heine-Borel theorem.

An infinite set with the discrete topology similarly fails compactness, using the open cover by all its singletons. Every finite set is compact in any topology: select one covering open set for each point. The empty set is compact because the empty selection is a finite subcover. This open cover definition does not require the topological space to be Hausdorff; in algebraic geometry it is often called quasi-compactness.

The beauty of compactness is that information valid around each point can often be controlled using finitely many regions. A finite subcover lets us combine finitely many local bounds, or choose the smallest of finitely many positive tolerances, to obtain control across the whole compact space. This is why compactness repeatedly turns approximation into existence and why it is so useful in optimization through the extreme value theorem.

Every closed set in a compact space is compact, and a continuous image of a compact space is compact. The latter proof pulls an open cover back by inverse images, selects a finite subcover, and maps forward. This makes compactness useful for proving existence: the extreme value theorem guarantees that a continuous function from a nonempty compact space to the real line attains both a minimum and a maximum. For example, $q(x)=x(1-x)=1/4-(x-1/2{)}^2$ on $[0,1]$ has maximum $1/4$ at $1/2$ and minimum zero at its endpoints. On $(0,1)$ its infimum is still zero but is never attained. ^[ref]

A nonnegative function that is a uniformly continuous function on the interval $[0,\infty )$ and has a finite integral tends to zero. Otherwise uniform continuity gives disjoint intervals of a fixed width on which the function exceeds a fixed positive value, contradicting integrability. This supplies a useful decay argument for Lyapunov functions with merely continuous vector fields.

To make the fixed width explicit, suppose some $\eta >0$ occurs as a lower bound $f(t_n)\ge \eta$ along a sequence with $t_n\to \infty$. Choose $\delta >0$ from uniform continuity for output tolerance $\eta /2$. On every interval $(t_n-\delta /2,t_n+\delta /2)$ lying in $[0,\infty )$, the function is greater than $\eta /2$. Extract a subsequence whose centers are more than $\delta$ apart. Each disjoint interval contributes at least $\eta \delta /2$ to the integral, so the first $N$ contribute at least $N\eta \delta /2$. This contradicts finiteness of the integral. The same input width at every center is the essential step; continuity alone would allow progressively narrower peaks.

Every real sequence has a subsequence converging to an extended real number. A bounded sequence has a real convergent subsequence by the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem. If it is unbounded above, every tail is unbounded above, so choose increasing indices $n_j$ with $a_{n_j}>j$. These terms tend to positive infinity. If it is unbounded below, use $a_{n_j}<-j$.

A real-valued function that is continuous on a nonempty compact space attains both a global minimum and a global maximum. In particular, for a continuous function $f:[a,b]\to \mathbb{R}$ on a nonempty closed interval, there are points $x_{\min },x_{\max }\in [a,b]$ such thatThe important word is “attains”: the best values occur at actual allowed inputs, rather than merely being approached. The interval version is ^[ref].

For a worked example, take $f(x)=(x-1{)}^2$ on $[-1,2]$. Its global minimum is $f(1)=0$, and its global maximum is $f(-1)=4$. Nonnegativity gives the first answer; $|x-1|\le 2$ on the specified closed interval gives the second. The endpoint $x=-1$ is essential: looking only for a zero derivative would find the minimum and miss the maximum.

For comparison, the continuous function $g(x)=x$ on the open interval $(0,1)$ has infimum $0$ and supremum $1$, but neither is a value of $g$. Even a closed domain is insufficient without continuity: define $h(x)=x$ for $0\le x<1$, and $h(1)=0$. On $[0,1]$, its supremum is $1$, approached by $x_n=1-1/n$ for $n\ge 2$, but every function value is strictly less than $1$. This endpoint change makes $h$ discontinuous, preventing attainment. On the unbounded real line, the continuous function $x\mapsto x$ has neither a global minimum nor a global maximum. These examples show what can fail when a hypothesis is dropped; functions outside the hypotheses may still have extrema.

The extreme value theorem is an existence tool for optimization: first establish that a continuous objective function on a nonempty compact feasible set has a best value, then investigate where it occurs. It neither locates the optimizing point nor promises uniqueness or differentiability. For example, the absolute value function $|x|$ on $[-1,2]$ has its global minimum at zero although no derivative exists there; a constant function has every input as a minimizer. This role in optimization is explained in University of Toronto MAT237 notes, section 1.4: compactness and the extreme value theorem.

A short proof outline identifies the mechanism. The continuous image of a compact space is compact; a nonempty compact subset of the real line contains its infimum and supremum. For a closed interval, one can instead choose inputs whose outputs approach the supremum, extract a convergent subsequence by the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, and use continuity to make its limiting output equal that supremum. The closed interval retains the limiting input. Repeating the argument for the infimum supplies the minimum.