Baby rudin subset with 3 limit points question

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash 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 $M$:
$$lim S:=p in M mid exists (x_n) in S text such that x_n to p .$$










share|cite|improve this question























  • 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.
    – Good Morning Captain
    Aug 15 at 4:36










  • What you define is just the closure of $S$, not exactly the same.
    – Carsten S
    Aug 15 at 8:51














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 $M$:
$$lim S:=p in M mid exists (x_n) in S text such that x_n to p .$$










share|cite|improve this question























  • 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.
    – Good Morning Captain
    Aug 15 at 4:36










  • What you define is just the closure of $S$, not exactly the same.
    – Carsten S
    Aug 15 at 8:51












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 $M$:
$$lim S:=p in M mid exists (x_n) in S text such that x_n to p .$$










share|cite|improve this question
















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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 15 at 3:52









Aloizio Macedo♦

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.
    – Good Morning Captain
    Aug 15 at 4:36










  • What you define is just the closure of $S$, not exactly the same.
    – 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.
    – Good Morning Captain
    Aug 15 at 4:36










  • What you define is just the closure of $S$, not exactly the same.
    – 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.
– 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.
– Good Morning Captain
Aug 15 at 4:36












What you define is just the closure of $S$, not exactly the same.
– Carsten S
Aug 15 at 8:51




What you define is just the closure of $S$, not exactly the same.
– Carsten S
Aug 15 at 8:51










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.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    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 $infty$.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















      Your Answer




      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      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






























      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer
























          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          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.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Aug 15 at 3:54









          Aloizio Macedo♦

          22.8k23483




          22.8k23483










          answered Aug 15 at 3:42









          астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг

          33.8k32870




          33.8k32870




















              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 $infty$.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                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 $infty$.






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  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 $infty$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  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 $infty$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Aug 15 at 3:57









                  marty cohen

                  70.1k446122




                  70.1k446122



























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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













































































                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                      Bahrain

                      Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay