You are here
Homesequentially compact
Primary tabs
sequentially compact
A topological space $X$ is sequentially compact if every sequence in $X$ has a convergent subsequence.
Every sequentially compact space is countably compact. Conversely, every first countable countably compact space is sequentially compact. The ordinal space $W(2\omega_{1})$ is sequentially compact but not first countable, since $\omega_{1}$ has not countable local basis.
Next, compactness and sequential compactness are not compatible. In other words, neither one implies the other. Here’s an example of a compact space that is not sequentially compact. Let $X=I^{I}$, where $I$ is the closed unit interval (with the usual topology), and $X$ is equipped with the product topology. Then $X$ is compact (since $I$ is, together with Tychonoff theorem). However, $X$ is not sequentially compact. To see this, let $f_{n}:I\to I$ be the function such that for any $r\in I$, $f(r)$ is the $n$th digit of $r$ in its binary expansion. But the sequence $f_{1},\ldots,f_{n},\ldots$ has no convergent subsequences: if $f_{{n_{1}}},\ldots,f_{{n_{k}}},\ldots$ is a subsequence, let $r\in I$ such that its binary expansion has its $k$th digit $0$ iff $k$ is odd, and $1$ otherwise. Then $f_{{n_{1}}}(r),\ldots,f_{{n_{k}}}(r),\ldots$ is the sequence $0,1,0,1,\ldots$, and is clearly not convergent. The ordinal space $\Omega_{0}:=W(\omega_{1})$ is an example of a sequentially compact space that is not compact, since the cover $\{W(\alpha)\mid\alpha\in\Omega_{0}\}$ has no finite subcover.
When $X$ is a metric space, the following are equivalent:

$X$ is sequentially compact.

$X$ is limit point compact.

$X$ is compact.

$X$ is totally bounded and complete.
Mathematics Subject Classification
40A05 no label found54D30 no label found Forums
 Planetary Bugs
 HS/Secondary
 University/Tertiary
 Graduate/Advanced
 Industry/Practice
 Research Topics
 LaTeX help
 Math Comptetitions
 Math History
 Math Humor
 PlanetMath Comments
 PlanetMath System Updates and News
 PlanetMath help
 PlanetMath.ORG
 Strategic Communications Development
 The Math Pub
 Testing messages (ignore)
 Other useful stuff
Comments
don't you need separability?
Are you sure that
"Sequential compactness is equivalent to compactness when $X$ is a metric space."?
I can prove this claim only when $X$ is metric and separable.
Em.
Re: don't you need separability?
Munkres proves this as part of Theorem 28.2 in Topology, 2nd ed. (pp. 179180).
In particular, Munkres proves that if $X$ is sequentially compact metric, then $X$ is totally bounded, that is, given a positive $\epsilon$, there is a finite covering of $X$ by $\epsilon$balls. Hence $X$ is Lindel\"{o}f. Because $X$ is also metric, this implies that $X$ is separable. So the assumption that $X$ is separable is not necessarily to show that sequential compactness implies compactness.
The proof that compactness implies sequential compactness does not use separability.
Re:
I try to prove that "Sequentially compactness is equivalent to compactness when X is metric space", if you interested in this problem, can you give me some help?