I've stumbled upon a mention of Cousin's theorem in the context of Henstock–Kurzweil integral and got confused. I do not understand why this fact is called a theorem and what makes it any remarkable, when it seems to be a more or less trivial consequence of compactness (in the sens that every open cover has a finite subcover).
Here is the statement taken from Wikipedia (slightly simplified):
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a full cover of $[a, b]$, that is, a collection of closed subintervals of $[a, b]$ with the property that for every $x\in[a, b]$, there exists a $\delta > 0$ so that $\mathcal{C}$ contain all subintervals of $[a, b]$ which contain $x$ and are of length smaller than $\delta$. Then there exists a partition $a = x_0 < x_1 <\dotsb < x_n = b$ of $[a, b]$ such that $[x_{i-1},x_{i}]\in{\mathcal{C}}$ for all $i$.
Is there some historical context that makes this obvious consequence of compactness deserve to be called a theorem? If so, why is this theorem still so often mentioned in the context of Henstock–Kurzweil integral nowadays instead of just referring to the compactness of the interval? Am I missing something?
Clearly, the interval $[a,b]$ is covered by the interiors (the interiors relative to $[a,b]$) of closed intervals in $\mathcal{C}$ such that all their closed subintervals containing their midpoint are also in $\mathcal{C}$, so there is a finite set $\mathcal{D}$ of such closed intervals in $\mathcal{C}$ that covers $[a,b]$. Is the hard part supposed to be to prove that if $[a,b]$ is covered by a finite set $\mathcal{D}$ of closed intervals, then there is a partition $a = x_0 < x_1 <\dotsb < x_n = b$ of $[a, b]$ such that each $[x_{i-1},x_{i}]$ is contained in an element of $\mathcal{D}$ and contains that element's midpoint?