See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232863146

On the equivalence of the Heine-Borel and the

Bolzano-Weierstrass theorems

Article in International Journal of Mathematical Education November 2010

DOI: 10.1080/002073900412714

CITATIONS READS

0 516

2 authors, including:

Liaqat Khan
King Abdulaziz University
72 PUBLICATIONS 212 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Liaqat Khan on 17 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
620 Classroom notes

On the equivalence of the Heine Borel and the Bolzano

Weierstrass theorems

L. A. KHAN* and A. B. THAHEEM**

* Department of Mathematics, King Abdul Aziz University, P.O. Box 9028, Jeddah 21413,
Saudi Arabia, and ** Department of Mathematical Sciences, King Fahd University of
Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia; e-mail: athaheem@kfupm.edu.sa

(Received 15 January 1999 )

The equivalence of the Heine Borel theorem and the Bolzano-Weierstrass

theorem is proved.

1. Introduction
The Heine Borel and the Bolzano Weierstrass theorems are two fundamental
results in real analysis. These theorems are equivalent in the sense that their proofs
can be derived from each other. In fact, there are other axioms and results such as
completeness axiom, the nested interval property, the Dedekind cut axiom of
continuity and Cauchy s general principle of convergence which are equivalent to
these theorems [1, 2]. Most textbooks do not mention these equivalences.
Apparently, it is not within the scope of elementary textbooks on real analysis to
include proofs of these equivalences. Among these results, the Heine Borel
theorem and the Bolzano Weierstrass theorem are of fundamental importance in
applications and generalization to a wider framework of topological spaces. The
purpose of this note is to give an elementary proof of the equivalence of these
theorems which may be of interest to the undergraduate students.
Before we proceed to the proof of the equivalence of the two theorems, we
recall some de nitions and concepts required in the proof. Let K be a subset of R.
An open cover of K is a collection fG : 2 Dg of open sets in R with
[
K G
2D

The set K is said to be compact if every open cover has a nite subcover. A point
x 2 R is said to be a limit point of K if given any > 0, there is an open interval
Ix; x ;x that contains a point of K other than x or, equivalently, if
there exists a sequence fxng in K such that xn ! x. K is called closed if its
complement X K is open or, equivalently, if it contains all its limit points.
We now come to the main purpose of this note and prove the equivalence of the
Heine Borel and the Bolzano Weierstrass theorems.
Theorem A (Heine Borel). Every bounded closed subset of R is compact.
Theorem B (Bolzano Weierstrass). Every bounded in nite subset of R has a
limit point.
(1) Theorem A implies Theorem B. Let K be a bounded in nite subset of R.
Suppose K has no limit point. Then K is closed. So, by Theorem A, K is compact.
Since K has no limit point, therefore for each x 2 R, there is x > 0 such that

* The author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

 Classroom notes 621

Ix;x \ K is either empty or contains only x; that is, Ix;x \ K fxg. Now
fIx;x : x 2 Kg is clearly an open cover of K. Since K is compact, there exist
x1 ;x2 ;. . . ;xn 2 K such that
[
n
K Ixi ;i
i1

Hence
[
n
K Ixi ;i \ K fx1 ;. . . xng
i1

This contradicts the fact that K is an in nite set. Thus K has a limit point.
(2) Theorem B implies Theorem A. Let K be a bounded closed subset of R. If
K is a nite set, then clearly it is compact. Suppose now that K is an in nite set.
Then, by Theorem B, K and, in particular, every in nite subset of K has a limit
point.
We rst assert that, for every > 0, there exists a nite set fx1 ; x2 ; . . . ;xm g K
such that
[
m
K I xi ;
i1

For convenience, we shall call the set F fIx1 ;;. . . ;Ixm ;g a nite -net
for K. If the above assertion is not true, then there exists an > 0 such that K has
no -net. Then, by induction, we can choose a sequence fxng of distinct points in
K such that jxi xj j for i 6 j. Consequently, fxng is not a Cauchy sequence
and so it cannot have a convergent subsequence; that is, fxng is an in nite set in K
having no limit point. This is a contradiction.
Now suppose that K is not compact. Then there exists an open cover
fG : 2 Dg of K which has no nite subcover. By the above argument, for each
n 1, there exists a nite 1 =n-net F 1 =n (say) for K. Since fG g has no nite
subcover for K, therefore for each n 1, at least one of the intervals Ixn ;1 =n
(say) from F 1 =n cannot be covered by nitely many G . This gives us an in nite
bounded set fxng. By Theorem B, fxng has a limit point x0 2 K and hence there
exists a subsequence fxnk g fxng such that xnk ! x0 . Since fG g covers K, we
have x0 2 G for some 2 D. Also G is open implies that there exists > 0 with
Ix0 ; G . Since xnk ! x0 , there exists an integer N 1 such that
jxnk x0 j < =2 for all k N. Choose an integer m > N with 1 =nm < =2. It is
easily seen that I xnm ;1=n Ix0 ; G . This contradicts the fact that
Ixnm ;1 =nm cannot be covered by nitely many G . Thus K is compact. This
completes the proof.

Acknowledgments
One of the authors, A. B. Thaheem, gratefully acknowledges the support
provided by the King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals during this
research.
622 Classroom notes

References
[1] BARTLE, R. G., and SHERBERT D. R. 1992, Introduction to Real Analysis, second edition
(New York: John Wiley & Sons).
[2] RUDIN, W. 1964, Principles of Mathematical Analysis, second edition (New York:
McGraw-Hill).

On divisibility by 7 and other low valued primes

THEODORE EISENBERG
Department of Mathematics, Ben-Gurion University, PO Box 653 Beer-Sheva, 85105
Israel. E-mail: eisen@ black.bgu.ac.il

(Received December 27)

A group of preservice teachers could not recall or devise criteria for

determining when 7 (or any higher prime) divides N. Tests for divisibility, a
topic once studied by students, seems to have disappeared from the curriculum,
with teachers themselves having only a pedestrian knowledge of this topic. This
paper presents several di erent ways to construct tests of divisibility for low
valued divisors.

1. Introduction
There are many things that teachers and students should know which are not
part of any of the essential knowledge lists for survival in the classroom. One of
these is rules of divisibility: teachers and students should know when a positive
integer N is divisible by 2;3;4;5;6; 7;8;9;10; 11; and other small primes. And for
the most part, they do; but often they cannot prove the tests and criteria they use.
For example, in asking a group of inservice high school mathematics teachers when
a positive integer N is divisible by 6; they immediately recited: An integer is
divisible by 6 if, and only if, it is divisible by both 2 and 3, and although they correctly
generalized this notion to distinct primes, they could not prove their general-
ization. The teachers had no trouble in stating valid criteria for divisibility by
2; 3; 4;5;6;8;9; and 10. (For divisibility by 8, one teacher stated: If the number
formed by the last three digits of N is divisible by 8; then N itself is divisible by 8
(correct); another teacher carried this further but was unable to prove that: 2n
divides N if, and only if, 2n divides the number formed by the last n digits of N. But
not one of the teachers was able to construct, or recall, or hypothesize criteria for
divisibility by 7, or for any higher prime.

2. Divisibility by 7
Following are three di erent methods to determine whether or not if a number
N is divisible by 7. Each method is rst motivated, then exempli ed, justi ed and
nally generalized. As we will see, the fact that the teachers could not recall a test
for divisibility by 7 is understandable, but the fact that they could not construct
one, in view of their academic background, is not.

View publication stats