Accumulation points of the domain of a function

Click For Summary
For a function f: A -> R^m, if a is an accumulation point of the domain A, it does not necessarily imply that f(A) is an accumulation point in R^m. The discussion highlights that while continuity suggests a relationship between accumulation points, it is not a requirement for limits to exist. An example provided is the constant function f(x) = 0, where an accumulation point in the domain does not translate to an accumulation point in the image set. The participants question the significance of having f(A) as an accumulation point, pondering its usefulness in proving theorems or in broader concepts. Ultimately, the relationship between accumulation points in the domain and the image set requires careful consideration of the function's properties.
demonelite123
Messages
216
Reaction score
0
let a function f: A -> R^m where A is a subset of R^n. if a is an accumulation point of the domain of f, the set A, then f(A) is an accumulation point of the set R^m.

i'm not sure if this statement is true or not but if it is, how would I prove this result? i was thinking of using the fact that if a function is continuous and the sequence x_n approaches x, then f(x_n) approaches f(x). but the function need not be continuous for a limit to exist.

the question I'm trying to answer for myself is that, if a is not an accumulation point of the domain of a function then the limit as x approaches a is not well defined since it could be any number you choose and you could prove the result vacuously. so if a is an accumulation point of the domain does that necessarily mean that f(a) is an accumulation point as well?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How about we consider f:\bbold{R} \to \bbold{R} defined by f(x) = 0? Take an accumulation point in the domain of f and see if you find an accumulation point in the image set.
 
ah i see. in this case since 0 is the only possible point in the codomain of f(x), f(A) is not always an accumulation point when A is an accumulation point.

are there cases where having f(A) be an accumulation point would be useful? as in proving some theorem or leading to some other concepts? or does having an accumulation point at f(A), given A is an accumulation point, not have much further significance whatsoever?
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K