Prove x belongs to the set or is an accumulation point.

  • Thread starter Thread starter jrsweet
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Point Set
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that if \( x = \sup S \) for a nonempty set \( S \) of real numbers bounded from above, then \( x \) either belongs to \( S \) or is an accumulation point of \( S \). The proof utilizes a contradiction approach, assuming \( x \) is not in \( S \) and not an accumulation point, leading to a contradiction with \( x \) being the least upper bound. The conclusion confirms that \( x \) must be an accumulation point if it is not a member of \( S \).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of supremum and infimum in real analysis
  • Knowledge of accumulation points and neighborhoods in topology
  • Familiarity with proof by contradiction techniques
  • Basic concepts of bounded sets in real numbers
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem and its implications for bounded sequences
  • Explore the properties of accumulation points in metric spaces
  • Learn about the completeness of the real numbers and its role in analysis
  • Review examples of supremum and infimum in various sets of real numbers
USEFUL FOR

Students of real analysis, mathematicians focusing on topology, and anyone interested in understanding the properties of bounded sets and accumulation points.

jrsweet
Messages
31
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let S be a nonempty set of real numbers bounded from above and let x=supS. Prove x either belongs to the set or is an accumulation point of S.


Homework Equations


x is an accumulation point of S iff each neighborhood of x contains a member of S different from x. That is, every neighborhood of x contains infinitely many points of S.


The Attempt at a Solution


So, do I need to prove that if x is not a member of S, then it is an accumulation point? I am a little confused about how to go about this.

So, there would obviously be two possibilities. Either x is a member of S, or it is not. If not, we need to prove x is an accumulation point. Wouldn't we need to know that S is infinite though? Is so, wouldn't it be much like the proof of the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem?

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So, I might have got it...

I tried it by contradiction.
Assume x is not a member of S and assume it is not an accumulation point of S. If there is a neighborhood (x - epsilon, x + epsilon) containing x that does not have a point of S, then (x - epsilon) is an upper bound of S that's less than x. This contradicts x being the LEAST upper bound of S. Therefore, we have found a contradiction and x is indeed an accumulation point of S.

Just a thought. Let me know if it's right!
 
jrsweet said:
So, I might have got it...

I tried it by contradiction.
Assume x is not a member of S and assume it is not an accumulation point of S. If there is a neighborhood (x - epsilon, x + epsilon) containing x that does not have a point of S, then (x - epsilon) is an upper bound of S that's less than x. This contradicts x being the LEAST upper bound of S. Therefore, we have found a contradiction and x is indeed an accumulation point of S.

Just a thought. Let me know if it's right!

That's it exactly.
 
Thanks Dick! :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
4K