Some basic questions about two definition of limit point in Zorich‘s "Mathematical Analysis I"

66 Views Asked by At

I'm new at the mathematic analysis and currently reading Zorich's book. When I read the definition about the limit point, I noticed that it's a bit different than Rudin's "Mathematical Principle" Rudin's definition is

A point $p$ $\in$ $R$ is a limit point of $X\subset R$ if every neiborhood of the point $p$ contains an at least one point different from $p$ itself.

While the Zorich's definition is

A point $p$ $\in$ $R$ is a limit point of $X\subset R$ if every neiborhood of the point $p$ contains an infinite subset of $X$.

The book of Zorich then mentions Rudin's definition and says these two are equivalent and asks for verification. Here is what I tried.

From Zorich's definition, $\forall N(p),\exists S\subset X(S\ is\ infinite)$, the Rudin's definition is quite obvious, just find another point in $S$

Here is what really have confused me.

From Rudin's definition, I begin with finding a subset $S$ of $N(p)$ that contains $p$, and then try to prove such $S$ can not be finite by contradiction.

Here is what I did, Let $S$ be a subset of $X$ such that $q\in S\subset X$, then assume $S$ is finite. Since $S$ is finite, there exists such $q^\prime\in S$ such that $d(q^\prime,p)=d(q,p)_{min}$, Then for the neiborhood of $p$ with radius $r<d(q^\prime,p)$, there is no such $q\in N(p)$ exists then contradict.

But then I realize that my proof is some sort of prove for a $S$ which is the set containing all $q$, not for some specific $q$. Since there might be infinite $q$, my proof is wrong.(from my understading)

Is it right or wrong, and why. I am really new at this. And it's my first question in this site, if I did something wrong pls tell me. THX.

1

There are 1 best solutions below

2
On

I don't understand your proof, and therefore I cannot comment on it. However, if $p\in\mathbb R$ is such that some neighborhood $U$ of $p$ only has finitely many elements of $X$, then $p$ is not a limit point of $X$. In fact, let $F=U\cap X$. I am assuming that it is finite. Take $\varepsilon>0$ such that $(x-\varepsilon,x+\varepsilon)\cap F=\emptyset$. Then $U\cap(x-\varepsilon,x+\varepsilon)$ is a neighborhood of $x$ which has no element of $X$.