Accumulation point and limit point

  • Thread starter Thread starter thesleeper
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Point
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The statement "If a sequence converges to L, then L is an accumulation point of {a_n|n greater than or equal to 1}" is false. A counterexample is provided with the sequence {a_n} where a_n = L for all n, which converges to 1 but has a finite range, thus lacking an accumulation point. The definition of an accumulation point requires that every neighborhood of the point contains infinitely many points from the set, which is not satisfied in this case. Therefore, the statement does not hold universally.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of convergence in sequences
  • Knowledge of accumulation points and limit points
  • Familiarity with neighborhoods in metric spaces
  • Basic concepts of topology, particularly in Hausdorff spaces
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of accumulation points in metric spaces
  • Explore the definitions and implications of limit points in topology
  • Learn about Hausdorff spaces and their characteristics
  • Investigate counterexamples in convergence and their significance in mathematical proofs
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, particularly those studying real analysis and topology, as well as educators looking for examples to illustrate concepts of convergence and accumulation points.

thesleeper
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


"If a sequence converges to L, then L is an accumulation point of {a_n|n greater than or equal to 1)."?
Prove or disprove the statement

Homework Equations


accumulation point is also a limit point


The Attempt at a Solution


I think the statement is not true. So in order to disprove it, I give an counterexample
consider the sequence {a_n} where a_n=L for all n. This sequence converges to 1, but its range is finite. Hence, this sequence has no accumulation point. Since the definition of an accumulation point of S is that every neighborhood of it contains infinitely many points of the S. Then, the statement is not always true.
Am I correct? and if the statement is true, how do you prove it?
Please help me with that. Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

It looks like you're on the right to me, though the question is pretty lousy. What have you got to doubt about your argument?

If it helps an equivalent formulation in a Hausdorff space (so in the real/complex numbers) is "L in a space X is an accumulation point of S iff every open set containing L contains a point in S other than L". What does this say about your example?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K