PROVING COMPLETENESS OF THE HAUSDORFF INDUCED

METRIC SPACE
KATIE BARICH
WHITMAN COLLEGE
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge Professor Russ Gordon and Professor Pat Keef for
their advice and guidance on this project. I would also like to thank Nate Wells for
his help in the editing process.
Abstract
Given a metric space (X, d), we may dene a new metric space with Hausdor
metric h on the set K of the collection of all nonempty compact subsets of X.
We show that if (X, d) is complete, then the Hausdor metric space (K, h) is also
complete.
Introduction
The Hausdor distance, named after Felix Hausdor, measures the distance
between subsets of a metric space. Informally, the Hausdor distance gives the
largest length out of the set of all distances between each point of a set to the
closest point of a second set. Given any metric space, we nd that the Hausdor
distance denes a metric on the space of all nonempty compact subsets of the metric
space. We nd that there are many interesting properties of this metric space, which
will be our focus in this paper. The rst property is that the Hausdor induced
metric space is complete if our original metric space is complete. Similarly, the
second property we explore is that if our original metric space is compact, then our
Hausdor induced metric space is also compact.
1
2 KATIE BARICH WHITMAN COLLEGE
In the next section, we provide some denitions and theorems necessary for
understanding this paper. We then dene the Hausdor distance in the following
section, and examine its properties through some examples and short proofs. We
nd that the Hausdor distance satises the conditions for a metric on a space of
nonempty compact subsets of a metric space. Finally, in our last section, we prove
that if our original metric space is complete then the Hausdor induced metric
space is also complete. We further show that (K, h) is compact when (X, d) is
compact.
Preliminaries
The concepts in this paper should be familiar to anyone who has taken a course in
Real Analysis. The notation and terminology in this paper will come from Gordons
Real Analysis: A First Course [1]. Therefore, we expect the reader to be familiar
with the following concepts regarding metric spaces and real numbers.
Denition 2.1 Let S be a nonempty set of real numbers that is bounded below.
The number is the inmum of S if is a lower bound of S and any number
greater than is not a lower bound of S. We will write = inf S. The denition
of the supremum of S is analogous and will be denoted by sup S.
Completeness Axiom Each nonempty set of real numbers that is bounded below
has an inmum. Similarly, any nonempty set of real numbers that is bounded above
has a supremum.
The reader may be more familiar with the following denitions when applied
to the metric space (R, d), where d(x, y) = |x y|. However, with the exclusion
of some examples, for the majority of this paper we will be working in a general
metric space. Thus our denitions will be given with respect to any metric space
(X, d).
PROVING COMPLETENESS OF THE HAUSDORFF INDUCED METRIC SPACE 3
Denition 2.2 A metric space (X, d) consists of a set X and a function
d : X X R that satises the following four properties.
(1) d(x, y) 0 for all x, y X.
(2) d(x, y) = 0 if and only if x = y.
(3) d(x, y) = d(y, x) for all x, y X.
(4) d(x, y) d(x, z) + d(z, y) for all x, y, z X.
The function d, which gives the distance between two points in X, is called a
metric. For example, a metric on the set of real numbers is d(x, y) = |x y|. It is
easily veried that d satises the four properties listed above.
For the next set of denitions, let (X, d) be a metric space.
Denition 2.3 Let v X and let r > 0. The open ball centered at v with radius
r is dened by B
d
(v, r) = {x X : d(x, v) < r}.
Denition 2.4 A set E X is bounded in (X, d) if there exist x X and M > 0
such that E B
d
(x, M).
Denition 2.5 A set K X is totally bounded if for each > 0 there is a nite
subset {x
i
: 1 i n} of K such that K
n

i=1
B
d

x
i
,

.
For the following denitions, let {x
n
} be a sequence in a metric space (X, d).
Denition 2.6 The sequence {x
n
} converges to x X if for each > 0 there
exists a positive integer N such that d(x
n
, x) < for all n N. We say {x
n
}
converges if there exists a point x X such that {x
n
} converges to x.
Denition 2.7 The sequence {x
n
} is a Cauchy sequence if for each > 0 there
exists a positive integer N such that d(x
n
, x
m
) < for all m, n N.
It is easy to verify that every convergent sequence is a Cauchy sequence.
Denition 2.8 A metric space (X, d) is complete if every Cauchy sequence in
(X, d) converges to a point in X.
An example of a metric space that is not complete is the space (Q, d) of rational
numbers with the standard metric given by d(x, y) = |x y|. However, the space
4 KATIE BARICH WHITMAN COLLEGE
R of real numbers and the space C of complex numbers under the same metric
d(x, y) = |x y| are complete.
Denition 2.9 A set K X is sequentially compact in (X, d) if each sequence
in K has a subsequence that converges to a point in K.
Note that by Theorem 8.59 in [1], a subset of a metric spaces is compact if and
only if it is sequentially compact; therefore, we will use the concepts of sequentially
compact and compact interchangeably throughout this paper.
Denition 2.10 The point x is a limit point of a set E if for each r > 0, the set
E B
d
(x, r) contains a point of E other than x.
As an alternative to the denition, Theorem 8.49 in [1] states that x is limit
point of the set E if and only if there exists a sequence of points in E\{x} that
converges to x. This theorem provides us with the opportunity to choose a sequence
converging to x, which will be useful in proving that a set is closed.
Denition 2.11 A set E is closed in (X, d) if E contains all of its limit points.
Denition 2.12 The closure of E, denoted E, is the set E E

, where E

is the
set of all limit points of E.
The following two results and lemma are placed in this section to be referred to
in later proofs. In addition they will serve as an introduction to proofs that use the
denition of convergent sequences and the triangle inequality.
Result 1: Let {x
n
} and {y
n
} be sequences in a metric space (X, d). If {x
n
}
converges to x and {y
n
} converges to y, then {d(x
n
, y
n
)} converges to d(x, y).
Proof. Let > 0. Since {x
n
} converges to x, by denition there exists a positive
integer N
1
such that d(x
n
, x) <

2
for all n N
1
. Similarly, since {y
n
} converges to
y, there exists a positive integer N
2
such that d(y
n
, y) <

2
for all n N
2
. Choose
N = max{N
1
, N
2
}. Then for all n N, we nd that
d(x
n
, y
n
) d(x
n
, x) + d(x, y) + d(y, y
n
) <

2
+ d(x, y) +

2
= d(x, y) + ,
PROVING COMPLETENESS OF THE HAUSDORFF INDUCED METRIC SPACE 5
and
d(x, y) d(x, x
n
) + d(x
n
, y
n
) + d(y
n
, y) <

2
+ d(x
n
, y
n
) +

2
= d(x
n
, y
n
) + .
Together these inequalities imply |d(x
n
, y
n
) d(x, y)| < for all n N. Therefore,
{d(x
n
, y
n
)} converges to d(x, y).
Result 2: If {z
k
} is a sequence in a metric space (X, d) with the property that
d(z
k
, z
k+1
) < 1/2
k
for all k, then {z
k
} is a Cauchy sequence.
Proof. Let > 0 and choose a positive integer N such that
1
2
N1
< . Then for all
n > m N we nd that
d(z
m
, z
n
) d(z
m
, z
m+1
) + d(z
m+1
, z
m+2
) + + d(z
n1
, z
n
)
<
1
2
m
+
1
2
m+1
+ +
1
2
n1
<

k=m
1
2
k
=
1
2
m1

1
2
N1
< .
It follows that {z
k
} is a Cauchy sequence.
Lemma 1: Let (X, d) be a metric space and let A be a closed subset of X. If
{a
n
} converges to x and a
n
A for all n, then x A.
Proof. Suppose {a
n
} is a sequence that converges to x and a
n
A for all n. There
are two cases to consider. If there exists a positive integer n such that a
n
= x, then
it is clear x A. If there does not exist a positive integer n such that a
n
= x, then
x is a limit point of A by Theorem 8.49 in [1]. Since A is closed, x A.
Construction of the Hausdorff Metric
We now dene the Hausdor metric on the set of all nonempty, compact subsets
of a metric space. Let (X, d) be a complete metric space and let K be the collection
of all nonempty compact subsets of X. Note that K is closed under nite unions
and nonempty intersections. For x X and A, B K, dene
r(x, B) = inf{d(x, b) : b B} and (A, B) = sup{r(a, B) : a A}.
6 KATIE BARICH WHITMAN COLLEGE
Note that r is nonnegative and exists by the Completeness Axiom since
d(a, b) 0 by the denition of a metric space. Since r exists and is nonnegative,
then both (A, B) and (B, A) exist and are nonnegative. In addition, we dene
the Hausdor distance between sets A and B in K as
h(A, B) = max{(A, B), (B, A)}.
Before proving that h denes a metric on the set K, let us consider a few examples
to get a grasp on how these distances work. Consider the following example of closed
interval sets in (R, d), where d(x, y) = |x y|.
Example Let A = [0, 20] and let B = [22, 31].
We nd that r(x, B) is going to be the inmum of the set of distances from each
a A to the closest point in B. As an example of one of these distances, consider
a = 12. Then r(12, B) = inf{d(12, b) : b B} = d(12, 22) = 10. We can note that
for each a A, the closest point in B that gives the smallest distance will always
be b = 22. Therefore, we nd that (A, B) = sup{d(a, 22) : a A}. The point
a = 0 in A maximizes this distance. Therefore (A, b) = d(0, 22) = |22 0| = 22.
Similarly, we nd that (B, A) = sup{d(b, 20) : b B}, since the point a = 20
will give the smallest distance to any point in B. The point b = 31 in B maximizes
this distance, so we have (B, A) = d(20, 31) = |20 31| = 11.
We will note that (B, A) and (A, B) are not always equal. It follows that
h(A, B) = max{(A, B), (B, A)} = 22.
Let us consider another example in (R, d) of discrete sets where the metric
d(x, y) = |x y|.
Example Let A = {5n : 0 n 19} and B = {p : p < 100, p prime}. Since we
are working with discrete, nite subsets of the real number line, we nd that r(p, A)
is equal to the minimum distance from any prime number p B to a multiple of 5
in the set A. That is, for any p B,
r(p, A) = min{|p 5n| : 0 n 19}.
PROVING COMPLETENESS OF THE HAUSDORFF INDUCED METRIC SPACE 7
Note that the minimum distance from any prime number to the nearest multiple
of 5 is either 2 or 1. For example, if p = 17, then we nd that
r(17, A) = min{|17 5n| : 0 n 19} = 2, when n = 3.
If p = 71, then
r(71, A) = min{|71 5n| : 0 n 19} = 1, where n = 14.
Therefore we nd that, for any point a A, (B, A) = max{r(b, A) : b B} = 2.
In other words, (B, A) is equal to the maximum of the minimum distances from
a prime p in the set B to the multiples of 5 in the set A.
Similarly, we nd that (A, B) is equal to the maximum of the minimum dis-
tances from each multiple of 5 in the set A to the set of primes in the set B. Thus
r(a, B) is equal to the minimum distance from any multiple of 5 in the set A to a
prime number p B. There is no ecient way to do this, except by looking at the
distances between each point in A to each point in B. . By looking at the distance
between all of the multiples of 5 to a prime number we nd that the largest of
these minimum distances occurs at the point 50 A and 47, 53 B. Therefore
h(A, B) = max{(A, B), (B, A)} = max{3, 2} = 3.
Now consider the following example of r, , and h in the complete metric space
(R
2
, d), where d((x
1
, y
1
), (x
2
, y
2
)) =

(x
1
x
2
)
2
+ (y
1
y
2
)
2
.
Example Let A and B be subsets of R
2
dened by A = {(x, y) : x
2
+y
2
1} and
B = {(x, y) : 0 x 3, 0 y 1} [see Figure 1].
By denition, r(x, A) = inf{d(x, a) : a A}. So r(x, A) is the set of all distances
from each x B to the closest point a A to x. Note that x will be an ordered
pair, as are a and b.
If b A B, then it is clear that r(b, A) = 0. If b B\A, then r(b, A) is found
using the line from b to the origin [see Figure 2]. We nd that the point that yields
the largest distance is the upper right vertex of the rectangle at the point (3, 1).
Therefore, (B, A) is equal to the distance from the point

10
,
1

10

on the
circle to the point (3, 1).
8 KATIE BARICH WHITMAN COLLEGE
Figure 1. Graph of A and B in (R
2
, d).
Figure 2. Area shaded contains all points that give the inmum
distance r(a, B) = 0. Additionally, we nd (A, B) = 1 and
(B, A) =

10 1.
Thus,
(B, A) = d

10
,
1

10

, (3, 1)

10 1.
Now we must nd (A, B). We nd that we can use any of the points in the
bottom lower left quadrant on the unit circle. Let us choose the point (1, 0). Then
(A, B) = d

(1, 0) , (0, 0)

= 1.
Therefore, the Hausdor distance is h(A, B) = max{1,

10 1} =

10 1.
The next example is also in the metric space (R
2
, d) with the same metric d from
the previous example. However, this time we will consider two subsets of the plane
that do not intersect.
PROVING COMPLETENESS OF THE HAUSDORFF INDUCED METRIC SPACE 9
Example Let A and B be sets dened by A = {(x, y) : 0 x 1, 0 y 1} and
let B = {(x, y) : 3 x 5, 0 y 4} [see Figure 3].
Figure 3. The sets A and B in (R
2
, d).
If (a
1
, a
2
) A, then r

(a
1
, a
2
), B)

= d

(a
1
, a
2
), (3, a
2
)

= 3 a
1
. Since
0 a
1
1, we nd that (A, B) = 3.
If (b
1
, b
2
) B, then r

(b
1
, b
2
), A)

= d

(b
1
, b
2
), (1, a
2
)

, where 0 a
2
1,
which varies with our choice of (b
1
, b
2
). We nd that the point that maximizes r is
b = (5, 4) such that (B, A) = d

(5, 4), (1, 1)

= 5.
Therefore, the Hausdor distance is given by h(A, B) = (B, A) = 5.
Now that we have gained a knowledge on how r, , and h work in a few special
cases, we prove some basic properties of r and .
Theorem 1. Let x X and let A, B, C K.
(1) r(x, A) = 0 if and only if x A.
(2) (A, B) = 0 if and only if A B.
(3) There exists a
x
A such that r(x, A) = d(x, a
x
).
(4) There exists a

A and b

B such that (A, B) = d(a

, b

).
(5) If A B, then r(x, B) r(x, A).
(6) If B C, then (A, C) (A, B).
(7) (A B, C) = max{(A, C), (B, C)}.
(8) (A, B) (A, C) + (C, B).
10 KATIE BARICH WHITMAN COLLEGE
Proof. We rst prove Property (1). Suppose x A. Then the inmum distance is
d(x, a) = 0, where a = x. Now suppose that r(x, A) = 0. Then for each positive
integer n, there exists a
n
A such that d(x, a
n
) <
1
n
. By denition {a
n
} converges
to x. Since A is compact, it is closed. By Lemma 1 it follows that x A.
We now prove Property (2). Suppose A B. Let a A. Since a B, by
Property (1) then r(a, B) = 0. Therefore (A, B) =sup{0} = 0. To prove the
converse, suppose (A, B) = 0. Let a A. Then 0 r(a, B) (A, B) = 0, and
thus by Property (1), we nd a B. It follows that A B.
To prove Property (3), by denition of an inmum we can let {a
n
} be a sequence
in A such that d(x, a
n
) < r(x, A) +
1
n
. We know A is sequentially compact, so there
exists a subsequence {a
n
k
} of {a
n
} that converges to an element a
x
A. Then we
nd that
r(x, A) d(x, a
x
) d(x, a
n
k
) + d(a
n
k
, a
x
) r(x, A) +
1
n
k
+ d(a
n
k
, a
x
).
Since lim
k

1
n
k
+ d(a
n
k
, a
x
)

= 0, it follows that d(x, a

x
) = r(x, A).
To prove Property (4), by denition of a supremum we can let {a
n
} be a sequence
in A such that (A, B) is the limit of r(a
n
, B). By Property (3) there exists a
sequence {b
n
} in B such that r(a
n
, B) = d(a
n
, b
n
). Since A is sequentially compact,
there exists a subsequence {a
n
k
} of {a
n
} that converges to an element a

A. Since
B is sequentially compact, there exists a subsequence {b
n
k
j
} of {b
n
k
} that converges
to b

. Since {b
n
k
j
} converges to b

and {a
n
k
j
} converges to a

, by Result 1, we
know that d(a
n
k
j
, b
n
k
j
) converges to d(a

, b

). Therefore, it follows that

(A, B) = lim
j
r(a
n
k
j
, B) = lim
j
r(a
n
k
j
, b
n
k
j
) = d(a

, b

).
Thus it follows that d(a

, b

) = (A, B).
Now we will prove Property (5). Suppose A B and x X. Let a A. Since
A is a subset of B, we nd that a B. It follows that
d(x, a) inf{d(x, b) : b B} = r(x, B).
PROVING COMPLETENESS OF THE HAUSDORFF INDUCED METRIC SPACE 11
Since this is true for all a A, we nd that r(x, A) = inf{d(x, a) : a A} r(x, B).
For Property (6), suppose B C. By Property (5) then r(a, C) r(a, B) for
all a A. It follows that sup{r(a, C) : a A} sup{r(a, B) : a A} and thus
(A, C) (A, B).
For Property (7), by the denitions of r and we see that
(A B, C) = sup{r(x, C) : x A B}
= max{sup{r(x, C) : x A}, sup{r(x, C) : x B}}
= max{(A, C), (B, C)}.
We now turn to Property (8). Property (3) guarantees that for each a A there
exists c
a
C such that r(a, C) = d(a, c
a
). We then have
r(a, B) = inf{d(a, b) : b B}
inf{d(a, c
a
) + d(c
a
, b) : b B}
= d(a, c
a
) + inf{d(c
a
, b) : b B}
= r(a, C) + r(c
a
, B)
(A, C) + (C, B).
Since a A was arbitrary, taking the supremum, we nd that
(A, B) (A, C) + (C, B).
This completes the proof.

Note that by Property (4) of Theorem 1, there exist points a

1
A and b
1
B
such that (A, B) = d(a
1
, b
1
) and alternatively there exist points a
2
A and
b
2
B such that (B, A) = d(a
2
, b
2
). Since h(A, B) is just the maximum of
(A, B) and (B, A), it follows that there exist points a

A and b

B such that
h(A, B) = d(a

, b

).
12 KATIE BARICH WHITMAN COLLEGE
The following theorem shows that the Hausdor distance denes a metric on K.
Theorem 2. The set K with the Hausdor distance h dene a metric space (K, h).
Proof. To prove that (K, h) is a metric space, we need to verify the following four
properties.
(1) h(A, B) 0 for all A, B K.
(2) h(A, B) = 0 if and only if A = B.
(3) h(A, B) = h(B, A) for all A, B K.
(4) h(A, B) h(A, C) + h(C, B) for all A, B, C K.
To prove the rst property, since (A, B) and (B, A) are nonnegative, it follows
that h(A, B) 0 for all A, B K.
For the second property, suppose A = B. Therefore A B and B A. By
Property (2) of Theorem 1 we nd that (A, B) = 0 and (B, A) = 0, and thus
h(A, B) = 0. Now suppose h(A, B) = 0. This implies (A, B) = (B, A) = 0. By
Property (2) of Theorem 1, we see that A B and B A and it follows that
A = B.
The third property can be proved from the symmetry of the denition since
h(A, B) = max{(A, B), (B, A)} = max{(B, A), (A, B)} = h(B, A).
The nal property follows from the denition of and h and from Property (8)
of Theorem 1. We nd that
(A, B) (A, C) + (C, B) max{(A, C), (C, A)} + max{(C, B), (B, C)}
=h(A, C) + h(C, B).
Similarly,
(B, A) (B, C) + (C, A) max{(B, C), (C, B)} + max{(C, A), (A, C)}
=h(C, B) + h(A, C).
Therefore, h(A, B) = max{(A, B), (B, A)} h(A, C) + h(C, B).
PROVING COMPLETENESS OF THE HAUSDORFF INDUCED METRIC SPACE 13
Therefore we know that h denes a metric on K. In the next section, we will
look at examples of what this metric space might look like, and then proceed to
prove that if the metric space (X, d) is complete, then the metric space (K, h) is
also complete.
Examples of the Hausdorff Metric Space
Given a complete metric space (X, d), we have now constructed a new metric
space (K, h) from the nonempty, compact subsets of X using the Hausdor metric.
Now it remains for us to prove that (K, h) is also complete. To be a complete
metric space, every Cauchy sequence in the space must converge to a point also in
the space. Therefore, when we think about the metric space (K, h), we are choosing
a sequence of nonempty, compact sets and showing that this sequence converges to
another nonempty, compact set. To better visualize the abstract mathematics we
are doing, consider the following two examples that demonstrate metric spaces of
nonempty, compact sets with the Hausdor metric.
Example Let (R, d
0
) be the complete metric space, where d
0
is the discrete metric,
d
0
(x, y) =

0, when x = y.
1, when x = y.
Since K is the set of all nonempty, compact subsets of (R, d
0
), we nd that K is
the set of all nonempty nite subsets of R. The innite sets are not in K because
they are not totally bounded and are thus not compact.
Furthermore, we may notice that
r(x, B) = inf{d
0
(x, b) : b B} = d
0
(x, b) =

0, when x B.
1, when x / B.
14 KATIE BARICH WHITMAN COLLEGE
Therefore,
(A, B) = sup{r(a, B) : a A} =

0, when a B.
1, when a / B.
.
So it follows that
h(A, B) =

0, when A = B.
1, when A = B.
Therefore we have a metric space with the set K of the discrete subsets of R
with the Hausdor metric as the discrete metric. It is easy to verify that our newly
created space is not totally bounded. However, we know all discrete metric spaces
are complete, so (K, h) is complete. Therefore, the space (K, h) of nite sets with
the discrete metric is an example of our Hausdor induced metric space (K, h).
To illustrate our notion of completeness, now briey consider a sequence of
nonempty compact sets that converges to the unit circle in R
2
. This is an ex-
ample a converging Cauchy sequence in the Hausdor induced metric space that
converges to a set also in the space.
Example Let (R
2
, d) be the complete metric space where for x = (x
1
, x
2
) and for
y = (y
1
, y
2
), then d((x
1
, y
1
), (x
2
, y
2
)) =

(x
1
x
2
)
2
+ (y
1
y
2
)
2
.
Let K be the set of all nonempy, compact subsets of R
2
, or in other words let K
be the set of all nonempty closed and bounded sets of R
2
. As we will later prove,
we know that since (R
2
, d) is complete, then the metric space (K, h) is complete.
To see an example of a Cauchy sequence in this space that converges to something
in the set, let us consider a sequence of sets converging to the unit circle.
For each positive integer k, let A
k
= {(r, ) : r = 1+
1
k
cos(k), 0 2}, and
let A be the unit circle in R
2
. It is easy to see that each A
k
is in K. Examining
the Hausdor distance between sets, we see that h(A
k
, A) =
1
k
.
PROVING COMPLETENESS OF THE HAUSDORFF INDUCED METRIC SPACE 15
We can note that as k increases, the sets converge to the unit circle [See gures
6-8]. Therefore, {A
k
} is an example of a Cauchy sequence that converges to A K.
Figure 4. The set A
5
dened by r = 1 +
1
5
cos(5).
Figure 5. The set A
20
dened by r = 1 +
1
20
cos(20).
Proving that the Metric (K, h) is Complete
As previously stated, to be a complete metric space, every Cauchy sequence in
(K, h) must converge to a point in K. Therefore, in order to prove that the metric
space (K, h) is complete, we will choose an arbitrary Cauchy sequence {A
n
} in K
and show that it converges to some A K. Dene A to be the set of all points
x X such that there is a sequence {x
n
} that converges to x and satises x
n
A
n
16 KATIE BARICH WHITMAN COLLEGE
Figure 6. The set A
50
dened by r = 1 +
1
50
cos(50).
for all n. We will eventually show that the set A is an appropriate candidate.
However, we must begin with some important theorems regarding A.
Given a set A K and a positive number , we dene the set A + by
{x X : r(x, A) }. We need to show that this set is closed for all possible
choices of A and . To do this, we will begin by choosing an arbitrary limit point
of the set A + , and then showing that it is contained in the set.
Proposition 1: A + is closed for all possible choices of A K and > 0.
Proof. Let A K and > 0. Additionally, let x be a limit point of A + . Then
there exists a sequence {x
n
} of points in (A + )\{x} that converges to x. Since
x
n
A + for all n, by denition r(x
n
, A) for all n. Property (3) of Theorem
1 guarantees that for each n there exists a
n
A such that r(x
n
, A) = d(x
n
, a
n
).
Thus d(x
n
, a
n
) for all n. The set A is sequentially compact, so it follows from
the denition that each sequence {a
n
} has a subsequence {a
n
k
} that converges to
a point a A. Since {x
n
} converges to x, we know that any subsequence of {x
n
}
converges to x. Therefore, the subsequence {x
n
k
} converges to x. By Result 1,
then d(x
n
k
, a
n
k
) converges to d(x, a). Note that {x
n
k
} and {a
n
k
} are subsequences
of {x
n
} and {a
n
}, respectively, so d(x
n
k
, a
n
k
) for all k. Therefore, we nd that
d(x, a) . By the denition of r(x, A), then r(x, A) , so x A + by our
PROVING COMPLETENESS OF THE HAUSDORFF INDUCED METRIC SPACE 17
denition of A + . Since x was an arbitrary limit point, then A + is a closed set
since it contains all of its limit points.
As an example where the set A + is not compact, consider the set R with the
discrete metric. Let A be any nonempty nite set and choose > 1. Then the set
A + = R is closed, but not totally bounded and is therefore is not compact.
To show (K, h) is complete, we will need to show that A K, and that {A
n
}
converges to A. By our denition of convergence, we must show that there exists
a positive integer N such that h(A
n
, A) < for all n N. However, the following
theorem gives us an alternative way of proving convergence.
Theorem 3. Suppose that A, B K and that > 0. Then h(A, B) if and only
if A B + and B A + .
Proof. By symmetry, it is sucient to prove (B, A) if and only if B A + .
Suppose B A+. By denition of the set A+, for every b B then r(b, A) .
It follows that (B, A) . Now suppose (B, A) . Then for every b B then
r(b, A) . It follows by denition of the set A + , that B A + .
Extension Lemma: Let {A
n
} be a Cauchy sequence in K and let {n
k
} be an
increasing sequence of positive integers. If {x
n
k
} is a Cauchy sequence in X for
which x
n
k
A
n
k
for all k, then there exists a Cauchy sequence {y
n
} in X such
that y
n
A
n
for all n and y
n
k
= x
n
k
for all k.
Proof. Suppose {x
n
k
} is a Cauchy sequence in X for which x
n
k
A
n
k
for all k.
Dene n
0
= 0. For each n that satises n
k1
< n n
k
, use Property 3 to choose
y
n
A
n
such that r(x
n
k
, A
n
) = d(x
n
k
, y
n
). Then we nd, using the denitions of
and r that
d(x
n
k
, y
n
) = r(x
n
k
, A
n
) (A
n
k
, A
n
) h(A
n
k
, A
n
).
Note that since x
n
k
A
n
k
, then d(x
n
k
, y
n
k
) = r(x
n
k
, A
n
k
) = 0. It follows that
y
n
k
= x
n
k
for all k.
18 KATIE BARICH WHITMAN COLLEGE
Let > 0. Since {x
n
k
} is a Cauchy sequence in X, there exists a positive integer
K such that d(x
n
k
, x
nj
) <

3
for all k, j K. Since {A
n
} is a Cauchy sequence in
K, by denition there exists a positive integer N n
K
such that h(A
n
, A
m
) <

3
for all n, m N. Suppose that n, m N. Then there exists integers j, k K such
that n
k1
< n n
k
, and n
j1
< m n
j
. Then we nd that
d(y
n
, y
m
) d(y
n
, x
n
k
) + d(x
n
k
, x
nj
) + d(x
nj
, y
m
)
= r(x
n
k
, A
n
) + d(x
n
k
, x
nj
) + r(x
nj
, A
m
)
(A
n
k
, A
n
) + d(x
n
k
, x
nj
) + (A
nj
, A
m
)
h(A
n
k
, A
n
) + d(x
n
k
, x
nj
) + h(A
nj
, A
m
)
<

3
+

3
+

3
= .
Therefore, by denition and from our earlier set up, {y
n
} is a Cauchy sequence in X
such that y
n
A
n
for all n and y
n
k
= x
n
k
for all k. This completes the proof.
The following Lemma makes use of the Extension Lemma to guarantee that A
is closed and nonempty. We will need this fact in proving that A is in K, since we
must show that A is a nonempty, compact subset of K. This Lemma gives us that
A is closed and nonempty. Since closed and totally bounded sets are compact, it
remains to show that A is totally bounded.
Lemma 2: Let {A
n
} be a sequence in K and let A be the set of all points x X
such that there is a sequence {x
n
} that converges to x and satises x
n
A
n
for all
n. If {A
n
} is a Cauchy sequence, then the set A is closed and nonempty.
Proof. We begin by proving that A is nonempty. Since {A
n
} is a Cauchy sequence,
there exists an integer n
1
such that h(A
m
, A
n
) <
1
2
1
=
1
2
for all m, n n
1
. Sim-
ilarly, there exists an integer n
2
> n
1
such that h(A
m
, A
n
) <
1
2
2
=
1
4
for all
m, n n
2
. Continuing this process we have an increasing sequence {n
k
} such that
h(A
m
, A
n
) <
1
2
k
for all m, n n
k
. Let x
n1
be a xed point in A
n1
. By Property 2
PROVING COMPLETENESS OF THE HAUSDORFF INDUCED METRIC SPACE 19
of Theorem 2, we can choose x
n2
A
n2
such that d(x
n1
, x
n2
) = r(x
n1
, A
n2
). Then
by denition of r, , and h we nd that
d(x
n1
, x
n2
) = r(x
n1
, A
n2
) (A
n1
, A
n2
) h(A
n1
, A
n2
) <
1
2
.
Similarly we can choose x
n3
A
n3
such that
d(x
n2
, x
n3
) = r(x
n2
, A
n3
) (A
n2
, A
n3
) h(A
n2
, A
n3
) <
1
4
.
Continuing this process we can construct a sequence {x
n
k
} where each x
n
k
A
n
k
and for all k,
d(x
n
k
, x
n
k+1
) = r(x
n
k
, A
n
k+1
) (A
n
k
, A
n
k+1
) h(A
n
k
, A
n
k+1
) <
1
2
k
.
By Result 2 {x
n
k
} is a Cauchy sequence.
Therefore, since {x
n
k
} is a Cauchy sequence and x
n
k
A
n
k
for all k, by the
Extension Lemma there exists a Cauchy sequence {y
n
} in X such that y
n
A
n
for all n and y
n
k
= x
n
k
for all k. Since X is complete, the Cauchy sequence {y
n
}
converges to a point y X. Since y
n
A
n
for all n, then by denition of the set,
y A. Therefore A is nonempty.
Now we will prove that A is closed. Suppose a is a limit point of A. Then there
exists a sequence a
k
A\{a} that converges to a. Since each a
k
A, there exists a
sequence {y
n
} such that {y
n
} converges to a
k
and y
n
A
n
for each n. Consequently,
there exists an integer n
1
such that x
n1
A
n1
and d(x
n1
, a
1
) < 1. Similarly,
there exists an integer n
2
> n
1
and a point x
n2
A
n2
such that d(x
n2
, a
2
) <
1
2
.
Continuing this process we can choose an increasing sequence {n
k
} of integers such
that d(x
n
k
, a
k
) <
1
k
for all k. Then it follows that
d(x
n
k
, a) d(x
n
k
, a
k
) + d(a
k
, a).
Note that as we take k to innity, the distance between {x
n
k
} and a converges to
zero, so it follows that {x
n
k
} converges to a. Every convergent sequence is Cauchy,
so it follows that {x
n
k
} is a Cauchy sequence for which x
n
k
A
n
k
for all k. The
Extension Lemma guarantees that there exists a Cauchy sequence {y
n
} in X such
that y
n
A
n
for all n and y
n
k
= x
n
k
. Therefore a A, so A is closed.
20 KATIE BARICH WHITMAN COLLEGE
With the previous lemma, to prove A K, it only remains to show that A is
totally bounded. The following lemma will allow us to do so.
Lemma 3: Let {D
n
} be a sequence of totally bounded sets in X and let A be
any subset of X. If for each > 0, there exists a positive integer N such that
A D
N
+ , then A is totally bounded.
Proof. Let > 0. Choose a positive integer N so that A D
N
+

4
. Since D
N
is
totally bounded, by denition we can choose a nite set {x
i
: 1 i q} where
x
i
D
N
such that D
N

q

i=1
B
d
(x
i
,

4
). By reordering the x
i
s, we may assume
that B
d
(x
i
,

2
) A = for 1 i p and B
d
(x
i
,

2
) A = for p < i. Then for
each 1 i p, let y
i
B
d
(x
i
,

2
) A. We claim that A
p

i=1
B
d
(y
i
, ). Let a A.
Then a D
N
+

4
, so r(a, D
N
)

4
. By Theorem 1 Property (3), then there exists
x D
N
such that d(a, x) = r(a, D
N
). Then we nd that
d(a, x
i
) d(a, x) + d(x, x
i
)

4
+

4
=

2
.
So x B
d
(x
i
,

2
) for some 1 i p. Thus we have y
i
B
d
(x
i
,

2
) A such that
d(x
i
, y
i
) <

2
. It follows that
d(a, y
i
) d(a, x
i
) + d(x
i
, y
i
) <

2
+

2
= .
Therefore since for each a A we found y
i
for 1 i p such that a B
d
(y
i
, ),
then it follows that A
p

i=1
B
d
(y
i
, ). Thus by denition, A is totally bounded.
This completes the proof.
Finally, we have the foundation to prove our nal result. Given a complete metric
space (X, d), we constructed the metric space (K, h) from the nonempty compact
subsets of X using the Hausdor metric. After examining important theorems and
results, we can now prove our main goal.
PROVING COMPLETENESS OF THE HAUSDORFF INDUCED METRIC SPACE 21
Theorem 4. If (X, d) is complete, then (K, h) is complete.
Proof. Let {A
n
} be a Cauchy sequence in K, and dene A to be the set of all points
x X such that there is a sequence {x
n
} that converges to x and satises x
n
A
n
for all n. We must prove that A K and {A
n
} converges to A.
By Lemma 2, the set A is closed and nonempty. Let > 0. Since {A
n
} is Cauchy
then there exists a positive integer N such that h(A
n
, A
m
) < for all m, n N.
By Theorem 3 then A
m
A
n
+ for all m > n N. Let a A. Then we want to
show a A
n
+. Fix n N. By denition of the set A, there exists a sequence {x
i
}
such that x
i
A
i
for all i and {x
i
} converges to a. By Proposition 1 we know that
A
n
+ is closed. Since x
i
A
n
+ for each i, then it follows that a A
n
+. This
shows that A A
n
+ . By Lemma 3, the set A is totally bounded. Additionally,
we know A is complete, since it is a closed subset of a complete metric space. Since
A is nonempty, complete and totally bounded, then A is compact and thus A K.
Let > 0. To show that {A
n
} converges to A K, we need to show that there
exists a positive integer N such that h(A
n
, A) < for all n N. To do this,
Theorem 3 tells us that we need to show two conditions, that A A
n
+ and
A
n
A + . From the rst part of our proof, we know there exists N such that
A A
n
+ for all n N.
To prove A
n
A+, let > 0. Since {A
n
} is a Cauchy sequence, we can choose
a positive integer N such that h(A
m
, A
n
) <

2
for all m, n N. Since {A
n
} is a
Cauchy sequence in K, there exists a strictly increasing sequence {n
i
} of positive
integers such that n
1
> N and such that h(A
m
, A
n
) < 2
i1
for all m, n > n
i
.
We can use Property (3) of Theorem 1 to get the following:
since A
n
A
n1
+

2
, there exists x
n1
A
n1
such that d(y, x
n1
)

2
.
since A
n1
A
n2
+

4
, there exists x
n2
A
n2
such that d(x
n1
, x
n2
)

4
.
since A
n2
A
n3
+

8
, there exists x
n3
A
n3
such that d(x
n2
, x
n3
)

8
.
By continuing this process we are able to obtain a sequence {x
ni
} such that for all
positive integers i then x
ni
A
ni
and d(x
ni
, x
ni+1
) 2
i1
. By Result 2 we nd
22 KATIE BARICH WHITMAN COLLEGE
{x
ni
} is a Cauchy sequence, so by the Extension Lemma the limit of the sequence
a is in A. Additionally we nd that
d(y, x
ni
) d(y, x
n1
) + d(x
n1
, x
n2
) + d(x
n2
, x
n3
) + + d(x
ni1
, x
ni
)

2
+

4
+

8
+ +

2
i
<
Since d(y, x
ni
) for all i, it follows that d(y, a) and therefore y A + .
Thus we know that there exists N such that A
n
A+, so it follows that h(A
n
, A) <
for all n N and thus {A
n
} converges to A K. Therefore, if (X, d) is complete,
then (K, h) is complete.

We will now prove that if X is compact, then K is compact. Note that a metric
space is compact if and only if it is complete and totally bounded.
Theorem 5. If (X, d) is compact, then (K, h) is compact.
Proof. By previous result we know that K is complete. Since we know that a set
is compact if and only if it is complete and totally bounded, we must prove that
K is totally bounded. Let > 0. Since X is totally bounded, there exists a nite
set {x
i
: 1 i n} such that X
n

i=1
B
d

x
i
,

3

and x
i
X for each i. Let
{C
k
: 1 k 2
p
1} be the collection of all possible nonempty unions of the
closures of these balls. Since X is compact, the closure of each ball is a compact
set. Therefore, each C
k
is a nite union of compact sets and thus compact, so
C
k
K. We want to show that K
2
p
1

k=1
B
h
(C
k
, ).
To do this, let Z K. Then we want to show that Z B
h
(C
k
, ) for some k.
Choose S
Z
= {i : Z B
d
(x
i
, ) = }. Then choose an index j so that
C
j
=

iS
Z
B
d

x
i
,

3

. Since Z C
j
, then by Property (2) of Theorem 1 then we
know (Z, C
j
) = 0. Now let c be an element in C
j
. Then there exists some i S
Z
and z Z such that c, z B
d

x
i
,

3

. This implies that r(c, Z)

2
3
. Since our
choice of c was arbitrary, then we nd that (C
j
, Z)
2
3
. Therefore, we nd
PROVING COMPLETENESS OF THE HAUSDORFF INDUCED METRIC SPACE 23
that h(Z, C
j
) = (C
j
, Z) < , and thus Z B
h
(C
j
, ), so K is totally bounded.
Therefore, we have proved that if (X, d) is compact, then (K, h) is compact.

Conclusions
The Hausdor distance is a measure that assigns a nonnegative real number as
the distance between sets. We investigated this distance through several examples.
Then, given a metric space (X, d), we found that the Hausdor distance denes a
metric on the space K of all nonempty compact subsets of X. We explored some of
the nice qualities of this metric. Most importantly, that if (X, d) is complete, then
(K, h) is complete. In addition, we proved that if (X, d) is compact, then (K, h) is
totallycompact, which is a truly remarkable result.
References
[1] Russ Gordon, Real Analysis: A First Course. Walla Walla, Washington, 1st Edition, 2011.