Definition of Kuratowski convergence as copied from the Wikipedia page:
Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space, where $X$ is a set and $d$ is the function of distance between points in $X$.
For any $x \in X$ and any non-empty compact subset $A \subseteq X$, define the distance between the point and the subset: $$d(x,A) = \inf\{d(x,a) | a \in A\}.$$
For any sequence of such subsets $A_n \subseteq X$, $n \in \mathbb{N}$, the Kuratowski limit inferior of $A_n$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$ is $$\text{Li}_{n \rightarrow \infty} A_n = \{x \in X | \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\sup d(x,A_n) = 0\};$$ the Kuratowski limit superior of $A_n$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$ is $$\text{Ls}_{n \rightarrow \infty} A_n = \{x \in X | \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\inf d(x,A_n) = 0\};$$
If the Kuratowski limits inferior and superior agree, then their common value is called Kuratowski limit and $A_n$ converges in the Kuratowski sense.
Q: Why are the sets $A_n$ required to be compact? Specifically, why are the $A_n$ required to be bounded? There is an example on that same Wikipedia page, in which the $A_n$ are closed but not bounded. Could the notion of Kuratowski convergence be extended to include open and unbounded sets?
Background: I am working on a proof for the convergence of a cone that can be expressed by a sequence of sets. Since cones are unbounded and thereby not compact, the conditions for applying Kuratowski convergence are not satisfied.
Let $\mathbf{u} \in \mathbb{R}^m$, then $$D^0_n(\mathbf{u}) := \left\{ \mathbf{v} \in \mathbb{R}^m | \frac{1}{n} \max_{i \in [m]} (v_i - u_i) + \min_{i \in [m]} (v_i - u_i) \geq 0 \right\}$$ and $$D^\infty_n(\mathbf{u}) := \left\{ \mathbf{v} \in \mathbb{R}^m | \max_{i \in [m]} (v_i - u_i) + \frac{1}{n} \min_{i \in [m]} (v_i - u_i) \geq 0 \right\}$$
I want to show that $D^0_{n \rightarrow \infty}(\mathbf{u}) = \{\mathbf{u}\} + \mathbb{R}_+^m$ and $D^\infty_{n \rightarrow \infty}(\mathbf{u}) = \{\mathbf{u}\} + \mathbb{R}_m \setminus \mathbb{R}^m_-$ using Kuratowski convergence, where $\mathbb{R}^m_+$ is the positive and $\mathbb{R}^m_-$ is negative orthant.