Intopology and related branches ofmathematics,total-boundedness is a generalization ofcompactness for circumstances in which a set is not necessarilyclosed. A totally bounded set can becovered byfinitely manysubsets of every fixed “size” (where the meaning of “size” depends on the structure of theambient space).
The termprecompact (orpre-compact) is sometimes used with the same meaning, but precompact is also used to meanrelatively compact. These definitions coincide for subsets of acomplete metric space, but not in general.
In metric spaces
editAmetric space istotally bounded if and only if for every real number , there exists a finite collection ofopen balls of radius whose centers lie inM and whose union contains M. Equivalently, the metric spaceM is totally bounded if and only if for every , there exists afinite cover such that the radius of each element of the cover is at most . This is equivalent to the existence of a finiteε-net.[1] A metric space is said to be totally bounded if every sequence admits a Cauchy subsequence; in complete metric spaces, a set is compact if and only if it is closed and totally bounded.[2]
Each totally bounded space isbounded (as the union of finitely many bounded sets is bounded). The reverse is true for subsets ofEuclidean space (with thesubspace topology), but not in general. For example, an infinite set equipped with thediscrete metric is bounded but not totally bounded:[3] every discrete ball of radius or less is a singleton, and no finite union of singletons can cover an infinite set.
Uniform (topological) spaces
editA metric appears in the definition of total boundedness only to ensure that each element of the finite cover is of comparable size, and can be weakened to that of auniform structure. A subsetS of auniform spaceX is totally bounded if and only if, for anyentourageE, there exists a finite cover ofS by subsets ofX each of whoseCartesian squares is a subset ofE. (In other words,E replaces the "size"ε, and a subset is of sizeE if its Cartesian square is a subset ofE.)[4]
The definition can be extended still further, to any category of spaces with a notion ofcompactness andCauchy completion: a space is totally bounded if and only if its (Cauchy) completion is compact.
Examples and elementary properties
edit- Everycompact set is totally bounded, whenever the concept is defined.[clarification needed]
- Every totally bounded set is bounded.
- A subset of thereal line, or more generally of finite-dimensionalEuclidean space, is totally bounded if and only if it isbounded.[5][3]
- Theunit ball in aHilbert space, or more generally in aBanach space, is totally bounded (in the norm topology) if and only if the space has finitedimension.
- Equicontinuous bounded functions on a compact set are precompact in theuniform topology; this is theArzelà–Ascoli theorem.
- Ametric space isseparable if and only if it ishomeomorphic to a totally bounded metric space.[3]
- The closure of a totally bounded subset is again totally bounded.[6]
Comparison with compact sets
editIn metric spaces, a set is compact if and only if it is complete and totally bounded;[5] without theaxiom of choice only the forward direction holds. Precompact sets share a number of properties with compact sets.
- Like compact sets, a finite union of totally bounded sets is totally bounded.
- Unlike compact sets, every subset of a totally bounded set is again totally bounded.
- The continuous image of a compact set is compact. Theuniformly continuous image of a precompact set is precompact.
In topological groups
editAlthough the notion of total boundedness is closely tied to metric spaces, the greater algebraic structure of topological groups allows one to trade away someseparation properties. For example, in metric spaces, a set is compact if and only if complete and totally bounded. Under the definition below, the same holds for any topological vector space (not necessarily Hausdorff nor complete).[6][7][8]
The generallogical form of thedefinition is: a subset of a space is totally bounded if and only if,given any size there exists a finite cover of such that each element of has size at most is then totally bounded if and only if it is totally bounded when considered as a subset of itself.
We adopt the convention that, for any neighborhood of the identity, a subset is called (left) -small if and only if [6] A subset of atopological group is (left)totally bounded if it satisfies any of the following equivalent conditions:
- Definition: For any neighborhood of the identity there exist finitely many such that
- For any neighborhood of there exists a finite subset such that (where the right hand side is theMinkowski sum ).
- For any neighborhood of there exist finitely many subsets of such that and each is -small.[6]
- For any givenfilter subbase of the identity element'sneighborhood filter (which consists of all neighborhoods of in ) and for every there exists a cover of by finitely many -small subsets of [6]
- isCauchy bounded: for every neighborhood of the identity and everycountably infinite subset of there exist distinct such that [6] (If is finite then this condition issatisfied vacuously).
- Any of the following three sets satisfies (any of the above definitions of) being (left) totally bounded:
- Theclosure of in [6]
- This set being in the list means that the following characterization holds: is (left) totally bounded if and only if is (left) totally bounded (according to any of the defining conditions mentioned above). The same characterization holds for the other sets listed below.
- The image of under thecanonical quotient which is defined by (where is the identity element).
- The sum [9]
- Theclosure of in [6]
The termpre-compact usually appears in the context of Hausdorff topological vector spaces.[10][11] In that case, the following conditions are also all equivalent to being (left) totally bounded:
- In thecompletion of the closure of is compact.[10][12]
- Every ultrafilter on is aCauchy filter.
The definition ofright totally bounded is analogous: simply swap the order of the products.
Condition 4 implies any subset of is totally bounded (in fact, compact; see§ Comparison with compact sets above). If is not Hausdorff then, for example, is a compact complete set that is not closed.[6]
Topological vector spaces
editAny topological vector space is an abelian topological group under addition, so the above conditions apply. Historically, statement 6(a) was the first reformulation of total boundedness fortopological vector spaces; it dates to a 1935 paper of John von Neumann.[13]
This definition has the appealing property that, in alocally convex space endowed with theweak topology, the precompact sets are exactly thebounded sets.
For separable Banach spaces, there is a nice characterization of the precompact sets (in the norm topology) in terms of weakly convergent sequences of functionals: if is a separable Banach space, then is precompact if and only if everyweakly convergent sequence of functionals convergesuniformly on [14]
Interaction with convexity
edit- Thebalanced hull of a totally bounded subset of a topological vector space is again totally bounded.[6][15]
- TheMinkowski sum of two compact (totally bounded) sets is compact (resp. totally bounded).
- In a locally convex (Hausdorff) space, theconvex hull and thedisked hull of a totally bounded set is totally bounded if and only if is complete.[16]
See also
editReferences
edit- ^Sutherland 1975, p. 139.
- ^"Cauchy sequences, completeness, and a third formulation of compactness"(PDF).Harvard Mathematics Department.
- ^abcWillard 2004, p. 182.
- ^Willard, Stephen (1970). Loomis, Lynn H. (ed.).General topology. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. p. 262.hdl:2027/mdp.49015000696204. Cf. definition 39.7 and lemma 39.8.
- ^abKolmogorov, A. N.; Fomin, S. V. (1957) [1954].Elements of the theory of functions and functional analysis. Vol. 1. Translated by Boron, Leo F. Rochester, N.Y.: Graylock Press. pp. 51–3.hdl:2027/mdp.49015000680570.
- ^abcdefghiNarici & Beckenstein 2011, pp. 47–66.
- ^Narici & Beckenstein 2011, pp. 55–56.
- ^Narici & Beckenstein 2011, pp. 55–66.
- ^Schaefer & Wolff 1999, pp. 12–35.
- ^abSchaefer & Wolff 1999, p. 25.
- ^Trèves 2006, p. 53.
- ^Jarchow 1981, pp. 56–73.
- ^von Neumann, John (1935)."On Complete Topological Spaces".Transactions of the American Mathematical Society.37 (1):1–20.doi:10.2307/1989693.ISSN 0002-9947.JSTOR 1989693.
- ^Phillips, R. S. (1940). "On Linear Transformations".Annals of Mathematics: 525.
- ^Narici & Beckenstein 2011, pp. 156–175.
- ^Narici & Beckenstein 2011, pp. 67–113.
Bibliography
edit- Jarchow, Hans (1981).Locally convex spaces. Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner.ISBN 978-3-519-02224-4.OCLC 8210342.
- Narici, Lawrence; Beckenstein, Edward (2011).Topological Vector Spaces. Pure and applied mathematics (Second ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.ISBN 978-1584888666.OCLC 144216834.
- Schaefer, Helmut H.; Wolff, Manfred P. (1999).Topological Vector Spaces.GTM. Vol. 8 (Second ed.). New York, NY: Springer New York Imprint Springer.ISBN 978-1-4612-7155-0.OCLC 840278135.
- Sutherland, W. A. (1975).Introduction to metric and topological spaces. Oxford University Press.ISBN 0-19-853161-3.Zbl 0304.54002.
- Trèves, François (2006) [1967].Topological Vector Spaces, Distributions and Kernels. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications.ISBN 978-0-486-45352-1.OCLC 853623322.
- Willard, Stephen (2004).General Topology. Dover Publications.ISBN 0-486-43479-6.