Why Is Every Point of P a Limit Point of P?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jecharla
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Condensation Points
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of condensation points in a metric space, specifically focusing on proving that the set of all condensation points, denoted as P, is perfect. Participants explore the definitions and implications of being a limit point within this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines a condensation point and poses a problem regarding the proof that every point in P is a limit point of P.
  • Another participant requests clarification on the definition of a perfect set, which is subsequently provided.
  • A participant argues that if a point x in P is isolated, it leads to a contradiction by showing that there must be uncountably many points of E in any neighborhood of x, thus implying x cannot be isolated.
  • Another participant reiterates the definition of a perfect set and proposes a method involving open balls to demonstrate that there are sufficient points in P to form a sequence converging to p.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on how to approach the proof that every point of P is a limit point of P. There is no consensus on a definitive method or resolution to the problem presented.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on the properties of compactness and the countability of certain sets, but these points remain unresolved and depend on specific assumptions about the metric space and the nature of the set E.

jecharla
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
1st part of Exercise #27 is:

Define a point p in a metric space X to be a condensation point of a set E in X if every neighborhood of p contains uncountably many points of E. Suppose E is in R^k, E is uncountable and let P be the set of all condensation points of E. Prove P is perfect.

Obviously, P is closed. But I cannot figure out why every point of P is a limit point of P. There are several supposed solutions to this in the internet, but each of them only shows that if x is in P, x is a limit point of E(which is obvious since x is a condensation point of E). But the exercise asks us to prove that P is perfect, so if x is in P, x must be a limit point of P right? Could anyone offer any guidance to what such a proof would look like?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Could you define perfect please?
 
A set S is perfect if S is closed and if every point of S is a limit point of S.
 
Suppose a point x in P is isolated. Then there's an \epsilon > 0 so that B(x; \epsilon) contains no other point of P. Since x is in P, this ball contains uncountably many points of E. Note that we may write B(x; \epsilon) = \bigcup_{j \in J} B(x_j; r_j) for each r_j < \epsilon and x_j with rational coordinates where J is countable. Thus for at least some j we must have that B(x_j; r_j) contains uncountably many points of E (countable unions of countable sets are countable).

Fix this j. Since B(x_j ; r_j) = \bigcup_{q < r_j, q \in \mathbb{Q}} B(x_j; q) and this is once again a countable union, we must have again that there is some q_1 < r_j so that B(x_j; q_1) contains uncountably many points of E. Proceeding by induction, we may construct a decreasing sequence of rational numbers so that the ball centered at x_j of each of these radii contains uncountably many points of E. This shows that x_j is in P, contrary to our assumption.

Edit: thinking about it, I don't think you can easily show that \{q_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty} tends to 0 the way this is set up, which is required for the contradiction.
 
Last edited:
jecharla said:
A set S is perfect if S is closed and if every point of S is a limit point of S.


Take \,p\in P\, and let \,U:=B_\epsilon(p)\, be any open ball of positive radius around \,p\, and

let \overline{U} be its closure.

By definition, \,\overline{U}\, contains uncountable many points of \,E\, , and since it is a compact

set then for any \,\epsilon>0\, there exist only a finite number of balls of radius \,\epsilon\, covering it. This means that there can be only

at most a countable number of points in \,U\, which are not elements of \,P\, (why? Something must be argued here!)

Thus, as in U we have uncountable points of E and only countably many of them are

not in P there are left enough points from which we can form a sequence in P that converges to p.

DonAntonio
 
Thanks guys!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K