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