MHB What Are the Accumulation Points of the Sequence $1/n$?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dustinsfl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Points
Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
All numbers of the form $1/n$, $(n = 1,2,3,\ldots)$.$1/n = (0,1)$
The accumulation points are $x\in [0,1]$.
This set is open.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dwsmith said:
All numbers of the form $1/n$, $(n = 1,2,3,\ldots)$.$1/n = (0,1)$
The accumulation points are $x\in [0,1]$.
This set is open.

Hi dwsmith, :)

So the set under consideration is, \(S=\{\frac{1}{n}:n\in\mathbb{Z}^+\}\). The definition of a limit point (accumulation point) taking the set of real numbers as the reference space is given >>here<<. If you go by that definition you can prove that the only accumulation point of \(S\) is zero.

Kind Regards,
Sudharaka.
 
dwsmith said:
All numbers of the form $1/n$, $(n = 1,2,3,\ldots)$.$1/n = (0,1)$
The accumulation points are $x\in [0,1]$.
This set is open.

$1/n = (0,1)$ this is not true
 
Sudharaka said:
Hi dwsmith, :)

So the set under consideration is, \(S=\{\frac{1}{n}:n\in\mathbb{Z}^+\}\). The definition of a limit point (accumulation point) taking the set of real numbers as the reference space is given >>here<<. If you go by that definition you can prove that the only accumulation point of \(S\) is zero.

Kind Regards,
Sudharaka.

As with the complex example, why aren't the points of $1/n$ accumulation points as well?
 
dwsmith said:
As with the complex example, why aren't the points of $1/n$ accumulation points as well?

Let me try to visualize things for you. The neighboring points of \(\frac{1}{n}\) are \(\frac{1}{n+1}\) and \(\frac{1}{n-1}\). You can take a neibourhood around \(\frac{1}{n}\) such that both of these points are not included. But to be a limit point every neighborhood of \(\frac{1}{n}\) should contain at least one point (in \(S\)) distinct from \(\frac{1}{n}\), which is not the case here. Does this clarify things for you?

Kind Regards,
Sudharaka.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
5K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K