Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $(M,d)$ be a metric space and $\{x_n\}_{n=1}^\infty\subset M$ be a sequence. Prove that $$\forall n\in\mathbb N,\quad\exists \varepsilon> 0 \;B(x_n,\varepsilon)\cap \{x_n\}_{n=1}^\infty = \{x_n\}$$

Any hint? I don't know how to start this proof. Maybe reductio ad absurdum? Counterexamples?

share|cite|improve this question
What exactly is $A$? – Nameless Dec 16 '12 at 11:28
Corrected, thanks – user50554 Dec 16 '12 at 11:30
What if $M=\mathbb R$ with standard metric and the sequence is an enumeration of $\mathbb Q$? – Hagen von Eitzen Dec 16 '12 at 11:32
Hint:Consider a sequence that limits to a certain value and then add that value as the first term of the sequence. – Grumpy Parsnip Dec 16 '12 at 11:32
up vote 5 down vote accepted

Consider the sequence $$ x_n = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{k} & n=2k \\ 0 & n=2k+1 \end{cases}$$

The idea is that if $x_n \to \ell$ and there exists $k$ such that $x_k=\ell$ then the property you say is definitely false.

share|cite|improve this answer

This is not generally true.

If the sequence is constant or finally constant your claim is true and follows easily.

If this sequence is non constant for $n\ge N$ then

1) $x_n\nrightarrow x_N$. Thus, $$\exists \epsilon>0\forall k\in \mathbb{N}\ n\ge k\Rightarrow \left|x_n-x_N\right|>\epsilon$$ and...

2)$x_n\to x_N$. Then you can't continue. Such sequences exist as pointed out by Beni Bogosel.

share|cite|improve this answer
If the sequence is constant or finally constant then on the contrary, the claim is true. In the first case $\{x_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}=\{x_{n}\}$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, and on the latter case $\{x_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is a finite set. – T. Eskin Dec 16 '12 at 11:52
@ThomasE. That's what I meant by "follows easily" – Nameless Dec 16 '12 at 11:53
Now after the edit I see what you meant. It seemed first that the proposition being generally not true follows easily by considering a sequence that is constant or finally constant. Thanks for clarifying it. – T. Eskin Dec 16 '12 at 11:55

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.