So one of the exercises I am doing is to prove (or disprove) that 'Every compact set on a metric space is bounded'. Verbally, I can 'prove' this by simply stating: "If the every compact set on a metric space is not bounded, then there exists an infinite number of open covers, and if something is compact, there are only a finite number of open covers. This is a contradiction, and thus every compact set on a metric space is bounded."
Two questions: is this argument right? And if so, how to I learn how to represent this formally?
Your argument is essentially correct but pay attention to the essentially.
I would phrase it in words like so:
Note the few differences I have
First I say there exists at least one compact set on a metric space that is not bounded. This is needed because we need some sort of compact set to work with - otherwise we're really not being precise with what we're saying since every compact set on a metric space is not bounded could be misleading (one could think you're stating every compact set on a metric space is unbounded, which is subtly different).
Next I say Since it's unbounded we can construct an infinite open covering which doesn't have a finite subcover. This is the very important part and why I said "pay attention to the essentially". The root of the contradiction is that there does exist an open cover without a finite subcover, which is exactly what I stated here.
Now I encourage you to make things mathy, but below is what I came up with.
I want to add the following comment: When I said your argument is essentially correct I meant that it appears you had the essence of the proof in mind, not that you could use this argument exactly how it is for a precise, formal or really even informal proof. I apologize for being misleading - from my perspective it seems like you have an idea on what's going on but are unfamiliar with wording things in a precise manner (in some sense this is exactly what math is), but I would still argue that having this base intuition is also important. To put it concisely, sorry for being misleading, you're argument is not valid, but it appears (at least to me) that you have the proper intuition.