Baby rudin subset with 3 limit points question
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Construct a bounded closed subset of $mathbbR$ with exactly three
limit points.
This might be a dumb question but why can't you just choose say $S=1,2,3$? It's bounded, and any sequence in $S$ that converges must eventually become constant. So any sequence must then converge to $1,2$ or $3$ which means $S$ is closed. Using the same reasoning, the limit points are $1,2$ and $3$.
I am using the sequential definition of "closed", and the following definition for the set of limit points of a given subset $S$ inside a metric space $M$:
$$lim S:=p in M mid exists (x_n) in S text such that x_n to p .$$
general-topology
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Construct a bounded closed subset of $mathbbR$ with exactly three
limit points.
This might be a dumb question but why can't you just choose say $S=1,2,3$? It's bounded, and any sequence in $S$ that converges must eventually become constant. So any sequence must then converge to $1,2$ or $3$ which means $S$ is closed. Using the same reasoning, the limit points are $1,2$ and $3$.
I am using the sequential definition of "closed", and the following definition for the set of limit points of a given subset $S$ inside a metric space $M$:
$$lim S:=p in M mid exists (x_n) in S text such that x_n to p .$$
general-topology
I know it's already been answered, but I think Rudin gives a good hint in the exercise right before when he asks to prove that $K = 0 cup frac1n : n in mathbbN$ is compact. It's clear that $0$ is the only limit point. So take $K_2 = 1 cup 1 + frac1n$ and $K_3$ similarly. The union of these 3 sets has 3 unique limit points.
â Good Morning Captain
Aug 15 at 4:36
What you define is just the closure of $S$, not exactly the same.
â Carsten S
Aug 15 at 8:51
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Construct a bounded closed subset of $mathbbR$ with exactly three
limit points.
This might be a dumb question but why can't you just choose say $S=1,2,3$? It's bounded, and any sequence in $S$ that converges must eventually become constant. So any sequence must then converge to $1,2$ or $3$ which means $S$ is closed. Using the same reasoning, the limit points are $1,2$ and $3$.
I am using the sequential definition of "closed", and the following definition for the set of limit points of a given subset $S$ inside a metric space $M$:
$$lim S:=p in M mid exists (x_n) in S text such that x_n to p .$$
general-topology
Construct a bounded closed subset of $mathbbR$ with exactly three
limit points.
This might be a dumb question but why can't you just choose say $S=1,2,3$? It's bounded, and any sequence in $S$ that converges must eventually become constant. So any sequence must then converge to $1,2$ or $3$ which means $S$ is closed. Using the same reasoning, the limit points are $1,2$ and $3$.
I am using the sequential definition of "closed", and the following definition for the set of limit points of a given subset $S$ inside a metric space $M$:
$$lim S:=p in M mid exists (x_n) in S text such that x_n to p .$$
general-topology
general-topology
edited Aug 15 at 3:52
Aloizio Macedoâ¦
22.8k23483
22.8k23483
asked Aug 15 at 3:18
RayOfHope
625
625
I know it's already been answered, but I think Rudin gives a good hint in the exercise right before when he asks to prove that $K = 0 cup frac1n : n in mathbbN$ is compact. It's clear that $0$ is the only limit point. So take $K_2 = 1 cup 1 + frac1n$ and $K_3$ similarly. The union of these 3 sets has 3 unique limit points.
â Good Morning Captain
Aug 15 at 4:36
What you define is just the closure of $S$, not exactly the same.
â Carsten S
Aug 15 at 8:51
add a comment |Â
I know it's already been answered, but I think Rudin gives a good hint in the exercise right before when he asks to prove that $K = 0 cup frac1n : n in mathbbN$ is compact. It's clear that $0$ is the only limit point. So take $K_2 = 1 cup 1 + frac1n$ and $K_3$ similarly. The union of these 3 sets has 3 unique limit points.
â Good Morning Captain
Aug 15 at 4:36
What you define is just the closure of $S$, not exactly the same.
â Carsten S
Aug 15 at 8:51
I know it's already been answered, but I think Rudin gives a good hint in the exercise right before when he asks to prove that $K = 0 cup frac1n : n in mathbbN$ is compact. It's clear that $0$ is the only limit point. So take $K_2 = 1 cup 1 + frac1n$ and $K_3$ similarly. The union of these 3 sets has 3 unique limit points.
â Good Morning Captain
Aug 15 at 4:36
I know it's already been answered, but I think Rudin gives a good hint in the exercise right before when he asks to prove that $K = 0 cup frac1n : n in mathbbN$ is compact. It's clear that $0$ is the only limit point. So take $K_2 = 1 cup 1 + frac1n$ and $K_3$ similarly. The union of these 3 sets has 3 unique limit points.
â Good Morning Captain
Aug 15 at 4:36
What you define is just the closure of $S$, not exactly the same.
â Carsten S
Aug 15 at 8:51
What you define is just the closure of $S$, not exactly the same.
â Carsten S
Aug 15 at 8:51
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
With that definition, the set $S$ that you have actually works out, because every convergent sequence must be eventually constant, so must have as a limit one of the elements of $S$.
However, the definition of limit point in some other books is somewhat different :
$x in S$ is a limit point if for all open sets $O$ with $x in O$, there exists $q neq x in S$ such that $q in O$. In other words, $(O setminus x) cap E neq emptyset$ for all open sets $O$ containing $x$.
The way of interpreting this definition, is that a limit point of $S$ is one such that at any arbitrary distance, one can find a point of $S$ closer than that distance which is different from $x$. In other words, there is a sequence, none of whose terms are $x$, which converges to $x$.
For example,Rudin has this definition.
Now, with this definition $S$ does not work, because any eventually constant sequence cannot be used to show that some point is a limit point. We have to, instead, be cleverer.
Indeed, the following set works out now : $frac 12,frac 23,frac 34,frac45,...,1 cup 1frac 12,1frac 34 , 1 frac 45,...,2 cup 2frac 12,2frac 23,2frac 34,...,3$.This set has exactly three limit points, according to the new definition.
You must not be too worried that your definitions are not tallying with other ones. Proceed with your definitions, and soon enough you will comfortable in switching while having conversations with others who have differing definitions.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
For any $m$ distinct reals
(or any domain where
the following makes sense)
$(a_k)_k=1^m
$,
the $m$ sequences
$S_k = (a_k+frac1n)_n=1^infty
$
for
$k=1$ to $m$
are bounded
and
$S_k$ converges to
$a_k$.
You can interlace these
to get a single sequence
with $m$ subsets
that each converge to
one of the $a_k$:
$T_n
= (a_1+(n-1 bmod m)
+frac1mlfloor (n+m-1)/m rfloor
$
for
$n=1$ to $infty$.
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
With that definition, the set $S$ that you have actually works out, because every convergent sequence must be eventually constant, so must have as a limit one of the elements of $S$.
However, the definition of limit point in some other books is somewhat different :
$x in S$ is a limit point if for all open sets $O$ with $x in O$, there exists $q neq x in S$ such that $q in O$. In other words, $(O setminus x) cap E neq emptyset$ for all open sets $O$ containing $x$.
The way of interpreting this definition, is that a limit point of $S$ is one such that at any arbitrary distance, one can find a point of $S$ closer than that distance which is different from $x$. In other words, there is a sequence, none of whose terms are $x$, which converges to $x$.
For example,Rudin has this definition.
Now, with this definition $S$ does not work, because any eventually constant sequence cannot be used to show that some point is a limit point. We have to, instead, be cleverer.
Indeed, the following set works out now : $frac 12,frac 23,frac 34,frac45,...,1 cup 1frac 12,1frac 34 , 1 frac 45,...,2 cup 2frac 12,2frac 23,2frac 34,...,3$.This set has exactly three limit points, according to the new definition.
You must not be too worried that your definitions are not tallying with other ones. Proceed with your definitions, and soon enough you will comfortable in switching while having conversations with others who have differing definitions.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
With that definition, the set $S$ that you have actually works out, because every convergent sequence must be eventually constant, so must have as a limit one of the elements of $S$.
However, the definition of limit point in some other books is somewhat different :
$x in S$ is a limit point if for all open sets $O$ with $x in O$, there exists $q neq x in S$ such that $q in O$. In other words, $(O setminus x) cap E neq emptyset$ for all open sets $O$ containing $x$.
The way of interpreting this definition, is that a limit point of $S$ is one such that at any arbitrary distance, one can find a point of $S$ closer than that distance which is different from $x$. In other words, there is a sequence, none of whose terms are $x$, which converges to $x$.
For example,Rudin has this definition.
Now, with this definition $S$ does not work, because any eventually constant sequence cannot be used to show that some point is a limit point. We have to, instead, be cleverer.
Indeed, the following set works out now : $frac 12,frac 23,frac 34,frac45,...,1 cup 1frac 12,1frac 34 , 1 frac 45,...,2 cup 2frac 12,2frac 23,2frac 34,...,3$.This set has exactly three limit points, according to the new definition.
You must not be too worried that your definitions are not tallying with other ones. Proceed with your definitions, and soon enough you will comfortable in switching while having conversations with others who have differing definitions.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
With that definition, the set $S$ that you have actually works out, because every convergent sequence must be eventually constant, so must have as a limit one of the elements of $S$.
However, the definition of limit point in some other books is somewhat different :
$x in S$ is a limit point if for all open sets $O$ with $x in O$, there exists $q neq x in S$ such that $q in O$. In other words, $(O setminus x) cap E neq emptyset$ for all open sets $O$ containing $x$.
The way of interpreting this definition, is that a limit point of $S$ is one such that at any arbitrary distance, one can find a point of $S$ closer than that distance which is different from $x$. In other words, there is a sequence, none of whose terms are $x$, which converges to $x$.
For example,Rudin has this definition.
Now, with this definition $S$ does not work, because any eventually constant sequence cannot be used to show that some point is a limit point. We have to, instead, be cleverer.
Indeed, the following set works out now : $frac 12,frac 23,frac 34,frac45,...,1 cup 1frac 12,1frac 34 , 1 frac 45,...,2 cup 2frac 12,2frac 23,2frac 34,...,3$.This set has exactly three limit points, according to the new definition.
You must not be too worried that your definitions are not tallying with other ones. Proceed with your definitions, and soon enough you will comfortable in switching while having conversations with others who have differing definitions.
With that definition, the set $S$ that you have actually works out, because every convergent sequence must be eventually constant, so must have as a limit one of the elements of $S$.
However, the definition of limit point in some other books is somewhat different :
$x in S$ is a limit point if for all open sets $O$ with $x in O$, there exists $q neq x in S$ such that $q in O$. In other words, $(O setminus x) cap E neq emptyset$ for all open sets $O$ containing $x$.
The way of interpreting this definition, is that a limit point of $S$ is one such that at any arbitrary distance, one can find a point of $S$ closer than that distance which is different from $x$. In other words, there is a sequence, none of whose terms are $x$, which converges to $x$.
For example,Rudin has this definition.
Now, with this definition $S$ does not work, because any eventually constant sequence cannot be used to show that some point is a limit point. We have to, instead, be cleverer.
Indeed, the following set works out now : $frac 12,frac 23,frac 34,frac45,...,1 cup 1frac 12,1frac 34 , 1 frac 45,...,2 cup 2frac 12,2frac 23,2frac 34,...,3$.This set has exactly three limit points, according to the new definition.
You must not be too worried that your definitions are not tallying with other ones. Proceed with your definitions, and soon enough you will comfortable in switching while having conversations with others who have differing definitions.
edited Aug 15 at 3:54
Aloizio Macedoâ¦
22.8k23483
22.8k23483
answered Aug 15 at 3:42
ðÃÂÃÂþý òÃÂûûð þûþàüÃÂûûñÃÂÃÂó
33.8k32870
33.8k32870
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
For any $m$ distinct reals
(or any domain where
the following makes sense)
$(a_k)_k=1^m
$,
the $m$ sequences
$S_k = (a_k+frac1n)_n=1^infty
$
for
$k=1$ to $m$
are bounded
and
$S_k$ converges to
$a_k$.
You can interlace these
to get a single sequence
with $m$ subsets
that each converge to
one of the $a_k$:
$T_n
= (a_1+(n-1 bmod m)
+frac1mlfloor (n+m-1)/m rfloor
$
for
$n=1$ to $infty$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
For any $m$ distinct reals
(or any domain where
the following makes sense)
$(a_k)_k=1^m
$,
the $m$ sequences
$S_k = (a_k+frac1n)_n=1^infty
$
for
$k=1$ to $m$
are bounded
and
$S_k$ converges to
$a_k$.
You can interlace these
to get a single sequence
with $m$ subsets
that each converge to
one of the $a_k$:
$T_n
= (a_1+(n-1 bmod m)
+frac1mlfloor (n+m-1)/m rfloor
$
for
$n=1$ to $infty$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
For any $m$ distinct reals
(or any domain where
the following makes sense)
$(a_k)_k=1^m
$,
the $m$ sequences
$S_k = (a_k+frac1n)_n=1^infty
$
for
$k=1$ to $m$
are bounded
and
$S_k$ converges to
$a_k$.
You can interlace these
to get a single sequence
with $m$ subsets
that each converge to
one of the $a_k$:
$T_n
= (a_1+(n-1 bmod m)
+frac1mlfloor (n+m-1)/m rfloor
$
for
$n=1$ to $infty$.
For any $m$ distinct reals
(or any domain where
the following makes sense)
$(a_k)_k=1^m
$,
the $m$ sequences
$S_k = (a_k+frac1n)_n=1^infty
$
for
$k=1$ to $m$
are bounded
and
$S_k$ converges to
$a_k$.
You can interlace these
to get a single sequence
with $m$ subsets
that each converge to
one of the $a_k$:
$T_n
= (a_1+(n-1 bmod m)
+frac1mlfloor (n+m-1)/m rfloor
$
for
$n=1$ to $infty$.
answered Aug 15 at 3:57
marty cohen
70.1k446122
70.1k446122
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2883148%2fbaby-rudin-subset-with-3-limit-points-question%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
I know it's already been answered, but I think Rudin gives a good hint in the exercise right before when he asks to prove that $K = 0 cup frac1n : n in mathbbN$ is compact. It's clear that $0$ is the only limit point. So take $K_2 = 1 cup 1 + frac1n$ and $K_3$ similarly. The union of these 3 sets has 3 unique limit points.
â Good Morning Captain
Aug 15 at 4:36
What you define is just the closure of $S$, not exactly the same.
â Carsten S
Aug 15 at 8:51