- #1

- 90

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter irony of truth
- Start date

- #1

- 90

- 0

- #2

rachmaninoff

irony of truth said:

No, it's not. Every point in that set is an accumulation point of it.

An example is

[tex] \left[0 , 1 \right] \cup \{ 2 \} [/tex].

edit: Another example is

Last edited by a moderator:

- #3

- 90

- 0

By the way, suppose I have Λ as my least upper bound of a set S but Λ is not in S. I want to know how this Λ is an accumulation point....

My friend told me that for any ε > 0, he can show that there is a point s belonging to S such that Λ - ε < s < Λ. To end up the proof, he used the definition of accumulation point... how do I prove this...? :D

- #4

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,833

- 964

- #5

- 90

- 0

- #6

- 90

- 0

HallsofIvy said:Suppose Λ is a least upper bound of a set, A, but not in the set itself. Since &Lamba; is an upper bound for A, there are no members of A larger than λ. Given ε> 0 suppose there were no members of A between Λ-ε and Λ. Then there would be no members of A larger than Λ-ε. That means that &Lamba;-ε is an upper bound for A, contradicting the fact that Λ is theleastupper bound.

May I clarify something.... is this the proof for ( I have restated my problem) "Assume that Λ is the least upper bound of a set S but Λ is not in S. Show that Λ is an accumulation point of S" ?

- #7

rachmaninoff

irony of truth said:

Yes, you're right.irony of truth said:May I clarify something.... is this the proof for ( I have restated my problem) "Assume that Λ is the least upper bound of a set S but Λ is not in S. Show that Λ is an accumulation point of S" ?

- #8

- 90

- 0

From the proof HallsofIvy stated, how did /\ turn out in the end to be an accumulation point (I apologize for being "slow")

Share:

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 1K