The usual definition of a limit point is as follows
Wikipedia said:
Let S be a subset of a topological space X. A point x in X is a limit point of S if every open set containing x contains at least one point of S different from x itself.
Negating that statement: a point x in X is
not a limit point of S, if there exists
an open set containing x, but no other points of S.
If you think about a metric space (as I like to do, because I have good intuition for those), this is like saying that
x is some finite distance away from all other points, so you will never find a Cauchy sequence converging to it.
I think your statement is not necessarily true, as you can take V = E (let the neighbourhood be all of the space) and E in general contains infinitely many points.*
* I was wondering if [itex]X = (0, 1) \cup \{ 2 \}[/itex] is a counterexample... at first I thought X is not a neighbourhood of 2, but then I was wondering if {2} is not an open set in the inherited topology (it is (1.5, 2.5) intersected with X, for example) which would make X a neighbourhood... it's been a long time since I did topology, so I'm in doubt now
[/size]