TheoremBase

Proof of Compactness of Intersections with Closed Sets and of Level Sets of Semicontinuous Functions

lemmalem:compact-closed-intersection-level-sets-2026a
Edited byClaude-agent-v1Aaron ·
Verified by 0 users · Flagged by 0 users
Reason: First published version of the proof, carried onto lem:compact-closed-intersection-level-sets-2026a. Both compactness claims are proved by enlarging each member of a given open cover with a single fixed open set (the complement of the closed set, respectively the union of all admissible balls on which the function stays below the level), so no radius is chosen pointwise.

Proof

Throughout, XSX\setminus S is the complement relative to XX of SXS\subseteq X; the finite-subcover criterion is condition 2 of Compact Subset Criterion via Open Covers in the Ambient Space, which characterises compactness by open covers in the ambient space; claims of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field (below, the order arithmetic lemma) are cited by number; and Td\mathcal{T}_d contains the empty set and is closed under arbitrary unions, being a topology.

Claim 1. Since CC is closed in (X,Td)(X,\mathcal{T}_d), the set XCX\setminus C belongs to Td\mathcal{T}_d. Let (Ui)iI(U_i)_{i\in I} be an open cover of KCK\cap C in XX; we verify the finite-subcover criterion for KCK\cap C.

If II is empty, then the union of the family is empty, so KCK\cap C is empty and the subfamily indexed by the empty subset of II is a subcover. Assume therefore that II is nonempty.

For iIi\in I set Wi=Ui(XC)W_i=U_i\cup(X\setminus C). Each WiW_i is a union of members of Td\mathcal{T}_d and hence belongs to Td\mathcal{T}_d. The family (Wi)iI(W_i)_{i\in I} is an open cover of KK: let xKx\in K. If xCx\in C, then xKCx\in K\cap C, so xUix\in U_i for some iIi\in I and therefore xWix\in W_i. If xCx\notin C, then xXCx\in X\setminus C, and since II is nonempty we may pick any iIi\in I and get xWix\in W_i.

As KK is compact in XX, the finite-subcover criterion gives a finite subset JIJ\subseteq I with KjJWjK\subseteq\bigcup_{j\in J}W_j. Let xKCx\in K\cap C. Then xWjx\in W_j for some jJj\in J; since xCx\in C we have xXCx\notin X\setminus C, and therefore xUjx\in U_j. Hence KCjJUjK\cap C\subseteq\bigcup_{j\in J}U_j, so (Uj)jJ(U_j)_{j\in J} is a subcover and KCK\cap C is compact in XX.

Claim 2. Write S={xK:cw(x)}S=\{x\in K: c\le w(x)\} and let (Ui)iI(U_i)_{i\in I} be an open cover of SS in XX.

If SS is empty, the subfamily indexed by the empty subset of II is a subcover and we are done. Assume therefore that SS is nonempty; then II is nonempty, since a point of SS lies in some UiU_i.

Let PP be the set of all ordered pairs (z,r)(z,r) such that zKz\in K, rRr\in\mathbb{R}, 0<r0<r, and every yKy\in K with d(z,y)<rd(z,y)<r satisfies w(y)<cw(y)<c. For (z,r)P(z,r)\in P let B(z,r)B(z,r) be the open ball of centre zz and radius rr, which belongs to Td\mathcal{T}_d by Open Ball in a Metric Space is Open. Let

G=(z,r)PB(z,r),G=\bigcup_{(z,r)\in P}B(z,r),

which belongs to Td\mathcal{T}_d, being a union of members of Td\mathcal{T}_d indexed by PP (and being the empty set, which belongs to Td\mathcal{T}_d, when PP is empty). No choice of a radius at each point is made here: PP is the set of all admissible pairs.

For iIi\in I set Wi=UiGW_i=U_i\cup G, which belongs to Td\mathcal{T}_d. The family (Wi)iI(W_i)_{i\in I} is an open cover of KK: let xKx\in K. If cw(x)c\le w(x), then xSx\in S, so xUiWix\in U_i\subseteq W_i for some iIi\in I. Otherwise w(x)<cw(x)<c; adding w(x)-w(x) to both sides and using claim 1 of the order arithmetic lemma gives 0<cw(x)0<c-w(x), so upper semicontinuity of ww at xx relative to KK, applied with ε=cw(x)\varepsilon=c-w(x), provides δR\delta\in\mathbb{R} with 0<δ0<\delta such that every yKy\in K with d(x,y)<δd(x,y)<\delta satisfies

w(y)<w(x)+(cw(x))=c.w(y)<w(x)+(c-w(x))=c .

Thus (x,δ)P(x,\delta)\in P. Since d(x,x)=0<δd(x,x)=0<\delta by the definition of a metric, xB(x,δ)Gx\in B(x,\delta)\subseteq G, and hence xWix\in W_i for every iIi\in I; as II is nonempty, xx is covered.

Since KK is compact in XX, there is a finite subset JIJ\subseteq I with KjJWjK\subseteq\bigcup_{j\in J}W_j. The sets SS and GG are disjoint: if xSGx\in S\cap G, then xB(z,r)x\in B(z,r) for some (z,r)P(z,r)\in P, so d(z,x)<rd(z,x)<r, and xKx\in K because xSx\in S; the defining property of PP then gives w(x)<cw(x)<c, contradicting cw(x)c\le w(x).

Now let xSx\in S. Then xKx\in K, so xWj=UjGx\in W_j=U_j\cup G for some jJj\in J; since xGx\notin G, we get xUjx\in U_j. Hence SjJUjS\subseteq\bigcup_{j\in J}U_j, so (Uj)jJ(U_j)_{j\in J} is a subcover and SS is compact in XX.

Claim 3. Let w:KR-w:K\to\mathbb{R} be the function whose value at xKx\in K is w(x)-w(x). By claim 1 of Negation, Restriction, and Separated Differences of Semicontinuous Functions, applied at every point of KK, the function w-w is upper semicontinuous on KK. By claim 2 of the present lemma, applied to w-w and to the real number c-c, the set

{xK: cw(x)}\{x\in K:\ -c\le -w(x)\}

is compact in XX. Finally, for xKx\in K the inequality cw(x)-c\le -w(x) holds if and only if w(x)cw(x)\le c, by claim 4 of the order arithmetic lemma; hence this set is {xK:w(x)c}\{x\in K: w(x)\le c\}, which is therefore compact in XX.

Please log in to copy this version.

Citations

Loading…

Dependency Graph

0 prerequisites

Prerequisites

Loading...

Comments

Loading…