4
$\begingroup$

I'm having trouble with proving this theorem: A metric space is separable iff it is homeomorphic to a totally bounded metric space. There is a link on Wikipedia to book by S. Willard, but it is stated there as a fact leaving it to the reader as an exercise to prove it. Any help would be appreciated.

  • 0
    @kahen: U cannot claim that "Any completion of Y is then compact" cos closure of Y may not be equal to completion of Y!2013-11-27

1 Answers 1

10

First, you’re right that a totally bounded metric space is automatically separable, so that there’s no need to go through the completion: the union of finite $2^{-n}$-nets for $n\in\omega$ is a countable dense subset.

Now assume that $\langle X,d\rangle$ is a separable metric space. Without loss of generality assume that $d(x,y)\le 1$ for all $x,y\in X$, and let $D=\{x_n:n\in\omega\}$ be a dense subset of $X$. Define the map

$f:X\to[0,1]^\omega:x\mapsto\big\langle d(x,x_n):n\in\omega\big\rangle\;.$

Now show that $f$ is an embedding of $X$ into the compact metrizable space $[0,1]^\omega$, the Hilbert cube; being compact, the Hilbert cube is totally bounded in any compatible metric, and total boundedness is hereditary, so $f[X]$ is totally bounded in any metric inherited from $[0,1]^\omega$.

  • 1
    @Frank: Yes, it is.2013-12-05