TITLE: A proof that Sperner's Lemma implies KKM?
QUESTION [5 upvotes]: Wikepedia KKM says that Brouwer fixed-point theorem,   Sperner's lemma, and Knaster–Kuratowski–Mazurkiewicz lemma are equivalent.
In "A course of topological combinatorics", I find a proof that Sperner implies Brouwer. I am wondering is there a proof that Sperner implies KKM?

REPLY [5 votes]: Consider the $k$th barycentric division, which is a triangulation, $T^k$ of $\Delta_n:=\{(x_1,...,x_{n+1}): x_i\ge 0, \sum x_i=1\}$.
We color each vertex $v$ of $T_k$ by minimum $i$ such that $v_i\neq 0$ and $v\in A_i$, where $A_1,...,A_n$ are the closed sets in KKM lemma. Then this coloring is a legal Sperner coloring and we know that there exists a simplex $\sigma_k$ in $T^k$ whose vertices are rainbow (in $n$ colors).
As the volume of $\sigma_k$ tends to 0 as $k$ goes to infinity, we know that there exists $z\in \Delta_n$ that is a common accumulation point of all the vertices in an infinite subsequence of $\sigma_k$ (say $\sigma_{k_\ell}$). As $A_i$ are closed and the vertices of $\sigma_k$ are rainbow, we know that $z\in\bigcap_i A_i$. (For the vertices $v(k_\ell,i)$, which are the vertices in $\sigma_{k_\ell}$ and are colored by $i$, by definition we have $v(k_\ell,i)\in A_i$, and we have $v=\lim_\ell v(k_\ell,i)$ is also in $A_i$ as $A_i$ are closed.)