In the book Financial Economics (2010) by Hens and Rieger, on page 101 we find the following Lemma 3.1: If we have finitely many assets, the minimum-variance opportunity set is closed and connected.
We have: K number of assets, a sequence of points $x_n = (\mu_n, \sigma_n) (n=1,2,...)$ in the opportunity set with $x_n\rightarrow x= (\mu,\sigma)$, each $x_n$ corrsponds to a portfolio characterized by asset weights $\lambda_1^n,...,\lambda_K^n$ with $\lambda_k^n\geq 0$ for all $k = 1,...,K$ and $\sum_{k=1}^{K}\lambda_k^n=1$
The proof that the mean-variance-opportunity set is closed, it is stated that the vector of asset weights $\lambda = (\lambda_1^n, ... ,\lambda_k^n)$ is for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$ in a compact set. Does the proof infer that since $\lambda$ is compact (ie closed and bounded), the opportunity set also must be closed? Why does an arbitrary point $x_n\rightarrow x= (\mu,\sigma)$?