I've read in several places that the boundary of the rational numbers is the empty set. I feel I must be misinterpreting the definition of a boundary, because this doesn't seem right to me.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

My understanding of the boundary of a set S is that it is the set of all elements which can be approached from both the inside and the outside. That is, the set of all r such that r is the limit of a sequence in S and also the limit of a sequence outside of S.

We know of course that every real number is the limit of a sequence of rational numbers. We know also that every real number r is the limit of the constant sequence (r). So shouldn't the boundary of the rationals be the set of all irrational numbers?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Boundary of the rationals

Loading...

Similar Threads - Boundary rationals | Date |
---|---|

I A question about the log of a rational function | Aug 7, 2016 |

Green's first identity at the boundary | Jan 10, 2016 |

Calculus of variations with circular boundary conditions | Dec 6, 2015 |

Poisson equation with three boundary conditions | Nov 20, 2014 |

Moving boundary diffusion equation (transformation of coordinates) | Jan 19, 2014 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**