I can't understand a proof in the Theorem 2.27, part (a).(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

If [itex]X[/itex] is a metric space, [itex]E[/itex] a subspace of X, and [itex]E'[/itex] the set of all limit points of [itex]E[/itex], we denote by [itex]\bar{E}[/itex] the set: [itex]\bar{E}=E \cup E'[/itex]

We need to prove that [itex]\bar{E}[/itex] is a closed set. Rudin's proof is this:

If [itex]x\in X[/itex] and [itex]x \notin \bar{E}[/itex] then [itex]p[/itex] is neither a point of [itex]E[/itex] nor a limit point. Hence, [itex]p[/itex] has a neighborhood which does not intersect [itex]E[/itex]. Therefore, the complement of [itex]\bar{E}[/itex] is closed.

My question is this: How do we prove that there exists a neighborhood that does not contain any limit points of [itex]E[/itex]?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

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

# Can't understand a proof in Rudin

Loading...

Similar Threads for Can't understand proof |
---|

I Proof of Alternating Series Test |

I Proof that a sequence has two subsequential limits |

I Proof that a quantity is greater than 1/2 |

I Understanding metric space definition through concrete examples |

I Help me understand a part of a proof |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**