Proving Limit Points in Point Sets for Scientists

AI Thread Summary
To prove that if point p is a limit point of the union of point sets H and K, then p must be a limit point of either H or K, one can use the definition of limit points. If p is not a limit point of H, there exists a region around p that contains no points from H, implying it must contain points from K since p is a limit point of H U K. The discussion also touches on the necessity of proving that the intersection of two regions is itself a region. This approach utilizes standard proof techniques by assuming one condition is false to demonstrate the other must hold true. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding topology in relation to limit points.
Timberwoods
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
i just ran into a hard problem, may be any of you guy can help...
prove that if the point p is a limit point of H U K where H and K are point sets, then p is a limit point of H or p is a limit point of K.
Given definition of a limit point is: a point p is said to be a limit point of a point set M if every region containing p contains a point of M distinct from p.
Thanks for your time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So there is a sequence in HuK tending to p. It must have a subsequnce lying in either H or K, musn't it?
 
Not really a "set" problem is it? I assume you have a topology on a set having H and K as subsets and a "region" is an open set in that topology.

Suppose p is a limit point of HUK. Then, by definition, each region of p (every open set containing p) contains a point of HUK different from p.

If p is a limit point of H, we are done so we can assume that is not true.
(This is a standard technique: we are asked to prove "a OR b" so we assume a is NOT true and prove b must be true.)

If p is NOT a limit point of H, there exist a region V containing p which contains no member of H (other than, possibly, p itself). Of course, since p is a limit point of HUK, V must contain a member of HUK which means it must contain a member of K. Let U be any region containing p and look at U intersect V (which is non-empty).
 
thanks, it helps a lot, but in doing so, i still need to prove that the intersection of 2 regions is a region, which i haven't proved it yet, would you give me a hand on that?
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top