Limits of functions and sequences

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the limits of functions and sequences, exploring whether functions or sequences can exist without limits at any point. Participants consider various types of functions, including continuous and discontinuous functions, and delve into the implications of topological spaces on limits.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire whether there exist functions or sequences that have no limits at any point, particularly in the context of topological spaces.
  • A specific example of a function, f(x), defined as 1 for rational numbers and 0 for irrational numbers, is presented to illustrate a function with no limit at any point.
  • There is a discussion about the relationship between continuity and limits, with some participants suggesting that discontinuous functions may or may not have limits at certain points.
  • Some participants propose that functions can have limits even if they are discontinuous, as long as the limit exists and differs from the function's value at that point.
  • The concept of subsequences and their limits is introduced, with examples provided to illustrate sequences that can converge to different limits.
  • Participants discuss the role of nets in general topological spaces, suggesting that they may be more useful than sequences for understanding convergence and limits.
  • The Zariski topology is mentioned as a context where sequences may converge to every point, raising questions about the nature of limits in this topology.
  • There are references to theorems regarding limits and cluster points in topological spaces, with some participants expressing uncertainty about the existence of multiple limits for sequences.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the existence of limits for functions and sequences, with some agreeing that discontinuous functions can have limits while others challenge this notion. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of topological spaces on limits and the nature of convergence.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of continuity and convergence in various topological spaces, as well as unresolved mathematical steps regarding the conditions under which limits exist.

  • #31
WWGD said:
Or is ze risky ( Zariski ;) ) topology the same in the spaces in question as the finite complement topology?
On the real line this is true, because there is a one-to-one correspondence between zero sets of polynomials and finite sets. Whether this is true in full generality, I do not know by heart. Probably @mathwonk knows.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
S.G. Janssens said:
On the real line this is true, because there is a one-to-one correspondence between zero sets of polynomials and finite sets. Whether this is true in full generality, I do not know by heart. Probably @mathwonk knows.
Actually, I was just thinking about it and the zero locus over 2+ dimensions can be ( uncountably) infinite, as in ##x^2+y^2+z^2-1## so likely the two topologies are not equal.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: S.G. Janssens
  • #33
WWGD said:
Actually, I was just thinking about it and the zero locus over 2+ dimensions can be ( uncountably) infinite, as in ##x^2+y^2+z^2-1## so likely the two topologies are not equal.
I don't think multivariates qualify, because if they would qualify, then I do not see how every sequence consisting of distinct points would have to converge to every point in the space:
mathwonk said:
You have made me realize another odd fact about the zariski topology that we use in algebraic geometry. On any affine space, say the real line, zariski closed sets are zero loci of polynomials, hence either the whole line, or finite sets. Hence every sequence consisting of distinct points, converges in this topology to every point of the line. Needless to say we don't use sequences much in this topology.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD
  • #34
Very observant. Indeed what seems to be true in more variables is that any sequence of distinct points that eventually lies entirely on an algebraic curve, converges to every point of that curve.
 
  • #35
mathwonk said:
Very observant. Indeed what seems to be true in more variables is that any sequence of distinct points that eventually lies entirely on an algebraic curve, converges to every point of that curve.

Suppose that ##C## and ##D## are two distinct algebraic curves in the (real) plane and let ##x \in C \setminus D##. If I understand you correctly, then any sequence of distinct points in ##C## should eventually be in ##C \setminus D##, for that sequence to converge to ##x##. However, what if ##C## and ##D## have a common component ##E## and the sequence in question lies entirely in ##E##?

I understand that the case of ##C## and ##D## having a common component is "non-generic", but the definition of convergence requires that it works in this case, too, doesn't it?
 
  • #36
excellent point! you are quite right that one should consider also possibly reducible curves, but i tend to think of irreducible ones. So, good point well taken, a closed subset of a reducible curve may not be finite, it might be a whole component! so maybe add "irreducible" to my statements about curves.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: S.G. Janssens
  • #37
mathwonk said:
but i tend to think of irreducible ones.
I think this makes a lot of sense, given your background.

Thank you, and also @WWGD, for the little discussion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K