Set Theory Proof: Proving Accumulation Point is Interior/Boundary

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that an accumulation point of a set S is either an interior point or a boundary point of S. The original poster attempts to utilize definitions related to accumulation points and neighborhoods to formulate their proof.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definitions of accumulation points and neighborhoods, with some questioning the implications if the point is not contained in S or its boundary. Others suggest a proof by contradiction to clarify the relationship between accumulation points and the exterior of S.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing guidance on how to approach the proof. There are multiple interpretations of the original post's notation and intent, and suggestions are made to clarify the definitions and logical structure of the argument.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding notation and definitions, particularly concerning the nature of neighborhoods and the classification of points in relation to the set S. The original poster's attempt is noted as being syntactically unclear, which may affect the discussion's progression.

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.
 

Similar threads

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