5
$\begingroup$

I was wondering

if a set $A$ has no accumulation point, is this set $A$ closed?

I think this is true, but I'm not quite sure.

Here's my thinking:

By closed set definition: A set $A$ is closed if every accumulation point of $A$ is a point of $A$.

Since $A$ has no accumulation points, it is closed. Am I saying this right?

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You have $\text{cl}(A) = A \cup A' = A \cup \emptyset = A.$ $\endgroup$ – IAmNoOne Oct 26 '14 at 3:09
  • $\begingroup$ Whenever you say "open" or "closed", you must say it in relation to some specific topology. Each A is always open and closed in relation to A. $\endgroup$ – Ivan Kuckir Oct 26 '14 at 9:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @IvanKuckir Actually, one should also talk about accumulation points with respect to a specific topology. Given this, the only reasonable reading of the submitter's statement is "If a set A has no accumulation points with respect to a topology T, is the set A closed with respect to the same topology T?" The answer is of course "yes". $\endgroup$ – cefstat Oct 26 '14 at 11:37
8
$\begingroup$

Well, we need to be a little careful with our wording.

Consider the set $S = \{\frac{1}{n} : n \in \mathbb{N} \}$. Certainly $0$ is an accumulation point, but $0 \not\in S$. Therefore, $S$ has no accumulation point within $S$, but $S$ is certainly not closed relative to the larger metric space $\mathbb{R}$. However, as cesfat was saying below, if we look at $S$ in its own right with the subspace topology induced from $\mathbb{R}$, then $S$ is closed relative to itself (since it contains no accumulation points within itself).

Bottom line: when we talk about closure, we do so relative to a given metric space.

So to answer your question, if a set $A$ is embedded in a larger metric space $X$ and $A$ has no accumulation point anywhere in $X$, then it is vacuously true that $A$ is closed in $X$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $S$ is certainly closed in itself. If you restrict your attention to $S$ with the subspace topology induced from $\mathbb{R}$ then $S$ has no accumulation points (in itself) and it is closed. If now you see $S$ as a subset of $\mathbb{R}$ and you work with the standard topology in $\mathbb{R}$ then $S$ has the accumulation point $0 \not\in S$ and $S$ is not closed. One should be careful to discuss accumulation points and closedness with respect to the same topology. $\endgroup$ – cefstat Oct 26 '14 at 11:47
  • $\begingroup$ Good point @cefstat. That was kind of the idea I was trying to convey. I'll edit my post shortly to better reflect what you're saying. $\endgroup$ – Kaj Hansen Oct 26 '14 at 19:45
3
$\begingroup$

The set of all accumulation points of S is the empty set and every set has the empty set as a subset. Therefore, S contains all its accumulation pointz and thus S is closed. Very simple.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Yes it is just a consequence of logic and has nothing to do with the properties of closed sets, which may be why you find it strange. Anyway for instance an empty set is closed.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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