Boundary of an open set in R2 is a limit point?

Click For Summary
In a discussion about the boundary points of a connected open set in ℝ², it is established that all boundary points are indeed limit points of the set. The reasoning hinges on the definition of boundary points, which states that every neighborhood of a boundary point must intersect both the open set and its complement. A contradiction arises if a neighborhood contains only the boundary point, violating the connectedness of the open set. However, it is noted that open sets do not include their boundary points, prompting a reevaluation of the initial assumptions. The conclusion is that while boundary points are limit points, the nature of open sets must be carefully considered in such discussions.
dumbQuestion
Messages
124
Reaction score
0
I have kind of a simple point set topology question. If I am in ℝ2 and I have a connected open set, call it O, then is it true that all points on the boundary ∂O are limit points of O? I guess I'm stuck envisioning as O as, at least homeomorphic, to an open disk of radius epsilon. So it seems obvious that any points on the boundary would be limit points. But is that true in general?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let U\subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n} be connected and open and non empty. p\in \partial U if and only if every neighborhood of p contains both a point in U (and in \mathbb{R}^{n}\setminus U but we don't care about that here). Let p\in \partial U and assume there exists a neighborhood V of p in \mathbb{R}^{n} such that V\cap U = \left \{ p \right \} (we know of course that U\supset \left \{ p \right \}). This implies \left \{ p \right \} is a non - empty proper clopen subset of U which is a contradiction because U is connected. Thus, p is a limit point of U.
 
thank you very much!
 
dumbQuestion said:
thank you very much!
Should work for any Hausdorff connected space and not just euclidean space as far as I can see. Was there a particular reason for this question or did it just pop into your head for fun or something= D? Cheers!
 
WannabeNewton said:
Let U\subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n} be connected and open and non empty. p\in \partial U if and only if every neighborhood of p contains both a point in U (and in \mathbb{R}^{n}\setminus U but we don't care about that here). Let p\in \partial U and assume there exists a neighborhood V of p in \mathbb{R}^{n} such that V\cap U = \left \{ p \right \} (we know of course that U\supset \left \{ p \right \}). This implies \left \{ p \right \} is a non - empty proper clopen subset of U which is a contradiction because U is connected. Thus, p is a limit point of U.

Unfortunately this does not work since open sets will not contain their boundary points. Luckily that observation gives us a way to fix the proof. All we now have to note is that the boundary point condition implies that every nbhd of p non-trivially intersects U - {p} = U.
 
jgens said:
Unfortunately this does not work since open sets will not contain their boundary points.
Totally missed that detail haha. Maybe the OP didn't mean to say open but another class of subsets because he was trying to use connectedness explicitly. Anyways, I got to go to class now so cheers!
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
990
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K