User:IssaRice/Adherent point and limit point: Difference between revisions

From Machinelearning
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 25: Line 25:
<math>x_0</math> is a limit point of <math>(x_n)_{n=1}^\infty</math> iff for every <math>\varepsilon > 0</math> and every <math>N\geq 1</math> there exists <math>n \geq N</math> such that <math>d(x_n,x) \leq \varepsilon</math>
<math>x_0</math> is a limit point of <math>(x_n)_{n=1}^\infty</math> iff for every <math>\varepsilon > 0</math> and every <math>N\geq 1</math> there exists <math>n \geq N</math> such that <math>d(x_n,x) \leq \varepsilon</math>


<math>x_0</math> is a limit point of <math>(x_n)_{n=1}^\infty</math> iff for every <math>N\geq 1</math>, <math>x_0</math> is an adherent point of <math>\{a_n : n \geq N\}</math>
<math>x_0</math> is a limit point of <math>(x_n)_{n=1}^\infty</math> iff for every <math>N\geq 1</math>, <math>x_0</math> is an adherent point of <math>\{x_n : n \geq N\}</math>


(replacing "<math>x_0</math> is an adherent point of <math>\{a_n : n \geq N\}</math>" with "<math>x_0</math> is a limit point of <math>\{a_n : n \geq N\}</math>" does not work. why not?)
(replacing "<math>x_0</math> is an adherent point of <math>\{x_n : n \geq N\}</math>" with "<math>x_0</math> is a limit point of <math>\{x_n : n \geq N\}</math>" does not work. why not?)


<math>x_0</math> is a limit point of <math>(x_n)_{n=1}^\infty</math> iff there are infinitely many <math>N\geq 1</math> for which <math>x_0</math> is an adherent point of <math>\{a_n : n \geq N\}</math>
<math>x_0</math> is a limit point of <math>(x_n)_{n=1}^\infty</math> iff there are infinitely many <math>N\geq 1</math> for which <math>x_0</math> is an adherent point of <math>\{x_n : n \geq N\}</math>
 
If <math>x_0</math> is a limit point of <math>\{x_n : n \geq 1\}</math>, then <math>x_0</math> is a limit point of <math>(x_n)_{n=1}^\infty</math>.
 
also limit point iff some subsequence converges to it


In the case of sequences, the notions of adherent and limit points collapses into the same idea, because isolated points are particularly useless. (the "image" of the sequence keeps shifting, so isolated points disappear after a finite amount of time. this is similar to how the starting index of a sequence is unimportant for convergence.)
In the case of sequences, the notions of adherent and limit points collapses into the same idea, because isolated points are particularly useless. (the "image" of the sequence keeps shifting, so isolated points disappear after a finite amount of time. this is similar to how the starting index of a sequence is unimportant for convergence.)


In the case of sequences, a set like <math>\{1\}</math>, where <math>1</math> appears "isolated", might not be, since the sequence could be <math>(1,1,1,\ldots)</math>. In other words, there could be infinitely many points bunched up on top of each other.
In the case of sequences, a set like <math>\{1\}</math>, where <math>1</math> appears "isolated", might not be, since the sequence could be <math>(1,1,1,\ldots)</math>. In other words, there could be infinitely many points bunched up on top of each other.
Can a sequence have infinitely many limit points? I think so; just enumerate the rationals

Latest revision as of 05:02, 6 July 2019

Let be a metric space, let be a subset of , and let be a point.

Adherent point

  • there exists a sequence of points in which converges to
  • for every radius the ball has nonempty intersection with
  • is an interior point of or is a boundary point of
  • for every open set such that one has

Limit point

  • for every open set such that there is some such that
  • for every open set such that , the set has infinitely many points
  • there exists a sequence of distinct points in (i.e. for all and for all ) which converges to
  • there exists a sequence of points in , none of which are equal to , which converges to

Relationship between adherent point and limit point

is a limit point of iff it is an adherent point of

Every limit point of is an adherent point of , but the converse is false. Limit points which are not adherent points are called isolated points.

Limit point of a sequence

is a limit point of iff for every and every there exists such that

is a limit point of iff for every , is an adherent point of

(replacing " is an adherent point of " with " is a limit point of " does not work. why not?)

is a limit point of iff there are infinitely many for which is an adherent point of

If is a limit point of , then is a limit point of .

also limit point iff some subsequence converges to it

In the case of sequences, the notions of adherent and limit points collapses into the same idea, because isolated points are particularly useless. (the "image" of the sequence keeps shifting, so isolated points disappear after a finite amount of time. this is similar to how the starting index of a sequence is unimportant for convergence.)

In the case of sequences, a set like , where appears "isolated", might not be, since the sequence could be . In other words, there could be infinitely many points bunched up on top of each other.

Can a sequence have infinitely many limit points? I think so; just enumerate the rationals