Def'n 1. is the general def'n of compactness in topology, whether or not the topology can be generated by a metric.
In a metric space, a set $X$ is compact iff every sequence in $X$ has a limit point that BELONGS to $X$ iff every infinite subset of $X$ has a limit point that belongs to $X.$
The n-dimensional generalization of the (1-dimensional) Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem is that a subset of $R^n$ is compact iff it is closed and bounded. (But this does not hold for all metric spaces.)
It is useful to know various equivalents to compactness, and to know that there are equivalents specific to metric spaces, just as it is useful to know various equivalents of "continuous function", some of which are specific to metric spaces.
Another term is "pre-compact" which I have seen only in the context of Hausdorff spaces : $X$ is pre-compact iff $\overline X$ is compact.
Lemma: Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. For each $n \in \{1,2,3,\ldots\}$ there is (by Zorn's lemma) a maximal (by inclusion) set $D_n$ such that for all $x,y \in D_n$ with $x \neq y$, we have $d(x,y) \ge \frac{1}{n}$. If all $D_n$ are at most countable, then $X$ is separable.
Proof: We'll show that $D = \cup_n D_n$ is dense (and is countable when all $D_n$ are), and so pick any $x \in X$ and any $r>0$ and we'll show that $B(x,r) \cap D \neq \emptyset$. Suppose not, then find $m$ with $\frac{1}{m} < r$. Then from $B(x,r) \cap D = \emptyset$ we know that
$d(x, y) \ge \frac{1}{m}$ for all $y \in D_m$ (or else $y \in D \cap B(x,r)$), and then $D_m \cup \{x\}$ would contradict the maximality of $D_m$. So the intersection with $D_m$ and hence $D$ is non-empty, and so $D$ is dense.
(The above is the heart of the proof that a ccc metric space is separable, as $X$ ccc implies that all $D_m$ are countable, as the $B(x,\frac{1}{m})$, $x \in D_m$ are a pairwise disjoint open family of non-empty sets.)
Now suppose that $(X,d)$ is countably compact. Suppose for a contradiction that $X$ is not separable. Then for some $m \ge 1$ we have that $D_m$ (as in the lemma) is uncountable.
Fix such an $m$.
Now $D_m$ is discrete (clear as $B(x,\frac{1}{m}) \cap D_m = \{x\}$ for each $x \in D_m$) and closed: suppose that $y \in X\setminus D_m$ is in $\overline{D_m}$, then $B(y, \frac{1}{2m})$ contains infinitely many points of $D_m$ and for any $2$ of them, say $x_1, x_2 \in D_m$, we'd have $d(x_1, x_2) \le d(x_1, y) + d(y,x_2) < \frac{1}{m}$ contradiction (as points in $D_m$ are at least $\frac{1}{m}$ apart). So $D_m$ is closed and discrete (as an aside: being uncountable this would already contradict Lindelöfness of $X$; this shows that a Lindelöf metric space is separable, e.g.), but we want to contradict countable compactness, which is easy too:
Choose $A \subseteq D_m$ countably infinite (so that $A$ is closed in $X$, as all subsets of $D_m$ are), and define a countable open cover $\mathcal{U} = \{B(p, \frac{1}{m}): p \in A\} \cup \{X\setminus A\}$ of $X$ that has no finite subcover: we need every $B(p,\frac{1}{m})$ to cover $p$ for all $p \in A$.
This contradiction then shows $X$ is separable (and thus has a countable base ,is Lindelöf etc. finishing the compactness).
The crucial fact is that all of the following are equivalent for a metric space:
- $X$ has a countable base.
- $X$ is separable.
- All discrete subspaces of $X$ are at most countable.
- All closed and discrete subspaces of $X$ are at most countable.
- $X$ is ccc.
- $X$ is Lindelöf.
In the above I essentially did "not (2) implies not (4)" implicitly. The fun is that countable compactness implies (4) easily (such closed discrete subspaces are even finite) and thus we get Lindelöfness "for free". Also implicit in the above proof is that every countably compact space is limit point compact.
Best Answer
It’s a straightforward result that a uniform space $X$ is totally bounded iff every net in $X$ has a Cauchy subnet, and the usual equivalence between nets and filters shows that this is in turn equivalent to the statement that for each filter in $X$ there is a finer Cauchy filter. However, this does not guarantee that every sequence has a Cauchy subsequence. One counterexample is $\beta\omega$: it’s a compact Hausdorff space, so it has a unique compatible uniformity and is both complete and totally bounded in that uniformity, but the sequence $\langle n:n\in\omega\rangle$ has no convergent subsequence.
I’ve not worked much with uniform spaces, but in that context I’ve generally seen precompact used as a synonym of totally bounded. The situation with respect to the other meaning of the term is the same as in metric spaces. If $Y$ is a subspace of a complete uniform space $X$, then $\operatorname{cl}_XY$ is complete; if $Y$ is also totally bounded $-$ which is an inherent property, just as it is for metric spaces $-$ then $\operatorname{cl}_XY$ is totally bounded and therefore compact. Thus, a subset of a complete uniform space is precompact (in this other sense) iff it is totally bounded. This will not be the case in arbitrary uniform spaces, however.