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 $A$ be a set, $X$ a metric space, $x$ an accumulation point of $A$ that is, every nbhood of $x$ contains a point $a \in A$, $a \neq x$.

I wrote a proof of the fact "every nbhood of $x$ contains infinitely many points of $A$". But for one I don't know if it is correct and also if it is correct whether it can be improved. Here is my proof:

The open ball $B(x,\varepsilon)$ is a neighbd of $x$ and by assumption contains $a \in A, a \neq x$. Since $B(x, \varepsilon)$ is open there is $\delta$ such that $B(x, \delta) \subseteq B(x, \varepsilon)$ and $a \notin B(x, \delta)$. Since $B(x, \delta)$ is a nbhood of $x_0$ by assumption there is $a' \in A$ with $a' \in B(x, \delta)$.

Then I wrote: "Repeat process to obtain infinitely many points $a \in A$ in $B(x, \varepsilon)$".

Is this valid? And if it is not: how to finish the proof? And if it is correct: is there a neater way to write this proof? Thank you.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

The idea is sort of OK, but can be made more formally correct.

Assume there is a neighbourhood $U = B(x_0, \epsilon)$ such that $U \cap A$ is a finite set, (and we leave out $x_0$ if $x_0 \in A$) say it equals $\{ a_1,\ldots, a_k\}$ for some finite $k$. We have to show this leads to a contradiction. We now apply the idea you also use: take a ball around $x_0$ with radius $r < \min(d(x_0,a_1), d(x_0,a_1),\ldots,d(x_0, a_k))$. Then $B(x_0,r) \subset U$ and by construction the $a_i$ are not in this ball, but there must be some $a \neq x_0$ with $a \in A$ in this ball, as $x_0$ is an accumulation point. This shows that $A \cap U$ could not have been this finite set (we have found a new point). Contradiction.

We can avoid radii and metric, by noting that a finite set is closed (so we need $T_1$ in a general topology setting) and note that $U \setminus (A \cap U)$ is also open and should contain some new point of $A$.

share|cite|improve this answer
In $T_1$ space singleton sets are closed? I thought this was only true for Hausdorff space (=$T_2$). – blue Feb 28 '13 at 17:02
Yes, this is exactly equivalent to $T_1$. Say we have $\{p\}$, then for each $q \neq p$, $p,q \in X$, we have some $U_q$ that contains $q$ but misses $p$, using $T_1$. Then $X\setminus\{p\} = \cup_{q \neq p} U_q$, showing the complement of a singleton is open. And if singletons are closed, so are finite sets. – Henno Brandsma Feb 28 '13 at 17:57

It's fairly good, though there are a few issues to fix (subscripts, and the like).

Alternatively, and more simply, you could show that if there is a neighborhood of $x_0$ with only finitely-many points of $A$, then $x_0$ is not an accumulation point of $A$--in particular, there is an open ball about $x_0$ with no points of $A$ in it (except $x_0$, in the case that $x_0\in A$)--proving the desired result by contrapositive.

share|cite|improve this answer

I use the method...

A $\subset$ (X,d) and $x_0$ $\epsilon$ X then by def U $\subset$ X is called neighborhood of $x_o$ if there exist G $\epsilon$ $\tau$ $x_o$ $\epsilon$ G $\subset$ U

as $x_o$ is an accumulation point of A then

$G | ${x$_o$}$ $ $\bigcap$ A $\neq$ $\phi$

A $\subset$ (X,d)

and U $\subset$ X


A $\subset$ U

Tell me if my method is correct....

share|cite|improve this answer

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.