Set Theory Proof: Proving Accumulation Point is Interior/Boundary

Click For Summary
An accumulation point of a set S is defined as a point where every neighborhood contains points from S. The discussion emphasizes proving that such a point must either be an interior point or a boundary point of S, rather than an exterior point. A suggested approach is to use proof by contradiction, assuming the accumulation point lies in the exterior and demonstrating that this leads to a contradiction. Clarification on notation and definitions is also sought to ensure accurate understanding of the concepts involved. The key takeaway is that to prove the statement, one must show that every neighborhood of the accumulation point intersects with S.
dgonnella89
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I have been asked to prove the following statement:
An accumulation point of a set S is either an interior point or a boundary point of S.

Here is my attempt at a solution:
I started from the definition of accumulation points:
A point is an accumulation point (x_0) when \forall\epsilon > 0, N_{\epsilon}'(x_0)\capA\neqempty set

By using the definition of a deleted neighborhood:
(N_\epsilon(x_0)-\{x_0\})\capA\neqempty set

so \forall a \in S' a\inN_\epsilon(x_0), a \notin\{x_0\}, a \inAand that's as far as I got. I'm not sure where to go from here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure of all your notation but what would happen if x_{0} were not contained in S or its boundary? Specifically, what would the intersections of sufficiently small neighborhoods of x_{0} with S be?
 
It appears you are speaking of relative deleted neighborhoods. I.e. N'_\epsilon(x_0) = \{x \in S-\{x_0\}: |x-x_0| < \epsilon \}.

The last line in the original post unfortunately is not syntactically well formed. What was the intended meaning? Was it close to:

\forall a \in S' a \in N_\epsilon(x_0), a \notin \{x_0\}, a \in A? (Modified from OP)


Recommendation: Attack this by contradiction. You are asked to show that an accumulation point of S must either lie in the interior of S or on its boundary. The only other possible place it could be is in its exterior (the complement of the closure of S). I'd start with:

"Assume otherwise. Let x be an accumulation point of S that lies in the exterior of S..." and show this leads to contradiction. (Hint: think closed vs. open sets).

--Elucidus
 
Given a set S, every point, p, in the "universal set" is either an interior point of S (there is a neighborhood of p contained in S) or an exterior point of S (there is a neighborhood of p that contains no point of S) or a boundary point of S (neither of the above is true). To show that such a point is "either an interior point or a boundary point of S" means to show it is NOT an exterior point of S. You must show that every neighborhood of the point contains at least one point in S.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

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