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

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving that for a nonempty set of real numbers \( S \) that is bounded from above, the supremum \( x = \sup S \) either belongs to the set or is an accumulation point of \( S \).

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to clarify whether they need to prove that if \( x \) is not in \( S \), it must be an accumulation point, expressing confusion about the necessity of \( S \) being infinite.
  • Another participant explores a proof by contradiction, questioning the implications of \( x \) not being a member of \( S \) and its relationship to upper bounds.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring different approaches to the problem, with one suggesting a proof by contradiction and another seeking clarification on the requirements for the proof. There is no explicit consensus yet, but productive lines of reasoning are being developed.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, indicating that some participants are considering the implications of the set being infinite. The discussion also reflects on the definitions of upper bounds 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
7K
  • · 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
5K