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

From Machinelearning
Line 27: Line 27:
<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>\{a_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>.


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.

Revision as of 04:57, 6 July 2019

Let (X,d) be a metric space, let E be a subset of X, and let x0X be a point.

Adherent point

  • there exists a sequence (xn)n=1 of points in E which converges to x0
  • for every radius r>0 the ball B(x0,r) has nonempty intersection with E
  • x0 is an interior point of E or is a boundary point of E
  • for every open set U such that xU one has UE

Limit point

  • for every open set U such that xU there is some yUE such that yx
  • for every open set U such that xU, the set UE has infinitely many points
  • there exists a sequence (xn)n=1 of distinct points in E (i.e. xnE for all n1 and xnxm for all nm) which converges to x0
  • there exists a sequence (xn)n=1 of points in E, none of which are equal to x0, which converges to x0

Relationship between adherent point and limit point

x0 is a limit point of E iff it is an adherent point of E{x0}

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

Limit point of a sequence

x0 is a limit point of (xn)n=1 iff for every ε>0 and every N1 there exists nN such that d(xn,x)ε

x0 is a limit point of (xn)n=1 iff for every N1, x0 is an adherent point of {an:nN}

(replacing "x0 is an adherent point of {xn:nN}" with "x0 is a limit point of {xn:nN}" does not work. why not?)

x0 is a limit point of (xn)n=1 iff there are infinitely many N1 for which x0 is an adherent point of {xn:nN}

If x0 is a limit point of {xn:n1}, then x0 is a limit point of (xn)n=1.

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 {1}, where 1 appears "isolated", might not be, since the sequence could be (1,1,1,). In other words, there could be infinitely many points bunched up on top of each other.