A convergent sequence has precisely one accumulation point












4














As a step in a proof I've been trying to show that convergence of a sequence implies it must have precisely one accumulation point. This is the definition we use for an accumulation point



Let $S$ be a set of real numbers. A real number is an accumulation point $s_0$ of $S$ if and only if for any $epsilon > 0$, there exists at least one point $t$ of $S$ such that $0 < |t-s_0| < epsilon$.



I wish to prove:




Lemma: A convergent sequence has precisely one accumulation point.




My thoughts: Since the limit of the sequence exists we know that the set cannot have 2 accumulation points or more, we will show by contradiction.



If we would have multiple accumulation points the limit does not exist because we can never get arbitrarily close to a single point (within ϵ), because there exist certain subsequences that each get arbitrarily close to at least two accumulation points, which determine the minimum distance a sequence can be from an accumulation point (so we get a lower bound and therefore we do not get convergence). There must be precisely one accumulation point.



I do not know how to make this more precise of a statement, there are a lot of words and it's not really structured. I'm looking for some help making a more rigourous argument.






real-analysis sequences-and-series limits







share|cite|improve this question



























    4














    As a step in a proof I've been trying to show that convergence of a sequence implies it must have precisely one accumulation point. This is the definition we use for an accumulation point



    Let $S$ be a set of real numbers. A real number is an accumulation point $s_0$ of $S$ if and only if for any $epsilon > 0$, there exists at least one point $t$ of $S$ such that $0 < |t-s_0| < epsilon$.



    I wish to prove:




    Lemma: A convergent sequence has precisely one accumulation point.




    My thoughts: Since the limit of the sequence exists we know that the set cannot have 2 accumulation points or more, we will show by contradiction.



    If we would have multiple accumulation points the limit does not exist because we can never get arbitrarily close to a single point (within ϵ), because there exist certain subsequences that each get arbitrarily close to at least two accumulation points, which determine the minimum distance a sequence can be from an accumulation point (so we get a lower bound and therefore we do not get convergence). There must be precisely one accumulation point.



    I do not know how to make this more precise of a statement, there are a lot of words and it's not really structured. I'm looking for some help making a more rigourous argument.






    real-analysis sequences-and-series limits







    share|cite|improve this question

























      4












      4








      4







      As a step in a proof I've been trying to show that convergence of a sequence implies it must have precisely one accumulation point. This is the definition we use for an accumulation point



      Let $S$ be a set of real numbers. A real number is an accumulation point $s_0$ of $S$ if and only if for any $epsilon > 0$, there exists at least one point $t$ of $S$ such that $0 < |t-s_0| < epsilon$.



      I wish to prove:




      Lemma: A convergent sequence has precisely one accumulation point.




      My thoughts: Since the limit of the sequence exists we know that the set cannot have 2 accumulation points or more, we will show by contradiction.



      If we would have multiple accumulation points the limit does not exist because we can never get arbitrarily close to a single point (within ϵ), because there exist certain subsequences that each get arbitrarily close to at least two accumulation points, which determine the minimum distance a sequence can be from an accumulation point (so we get a lower bound and therefore we do not get convergence). There must be precisely one accumulation point.



      I do not know how to make this more precise of a statement, there are a lot of words and it's not really structured. I'm looking for some help making a more rigourous argument.






      real-analysis sequences-and-series limits







      share|cite|improve this question













      As a step in a proof I've been trying to show that convergence of a sequence implies it must have precisely one accumulation point. This is the definition we use for an accumulation point



      Let $S$ be a set of real numbers. A real number is an accumulation point $s_0$ of $S$ if and only if for any $epsilon > 0$, there exists at least one point $t$ of $S$ such that $0 < |t-s_0| < epsilon$.



      I wish to prove:




      Lemma: A convergent sequence has precisely one accumulation point.




      My thoughts: Since the limit of the sequence exists we know that the set cannot have 2 accumulation points or more, we will show by contradiction.



      If we would have multiple accumulation points the limit does not exist because we can never get arbitrarily close to a single point (within ϵ), because there exist certain subsequences that each get arbitrarily close to at least two accumulation points, which determine the minimum distance a sequence can be from an accumulation point (so we get a lower bound and therefore we do not get convergence). There must be precisely one accumulation point.



      I do not know how to make this more precise of a statement, there are a lot of words and it's not really structured. I'm looking for some help making a more rigourous argument.






      real-analysis sequences-and-series limits




      real-analysis sequences-and-series limits






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 2 days ago









      Wesley StrikWesley Strik

      1,635423




      1,635423






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          5














          Suppose the sequence converges to $x$. Clearly $x$ is an accumulation point.



          Suppose on the contrary that we have a second accumulation point, $y$. Let $r = frac{|x-y|}{2}$.



          Notice that there exists $N>0$, such that for all $n>N$, then $|x_n -x|<r$.



          That is when $n>N$, we have $$|x_n - y|=|x_n-x+x-y| ge ||x_n-x|-|x-y||=||x_n-x|-2r|=2r-|x_n-x|>r$$



          Hence we cannot have infinitely many points that get arbitrarily close to $y$, hence $y$ can't be an accumulation point.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Beautiful. You always come up with such nice and pretty arguments, this is precisely the technical argument I was thinking of but I was not sure how to formulate it so impeccably, thank you.
            – Wesley Strik
            2 days ago





















          5














          An accumulation point of a sequence $(a_n)_n$ is not the same as the accumulation point of its set of values ${a_n : n in mathbb{N}}$.



          Indeed, consider the constant sequence $a_n = a, forall n in mathbb{N}$. Clearly $(a_n)_n$ converges to $a$, but the set ${a_n : n in mathbb{N}} = {a}$ has no accumulation points by your definition.



          The proper definition is:




          $x in mathbb{R}$ is an accumulation point of a sequence $(a_n)_n$ if for every $varepsilon > 0$ the interval $langle x-varepsilon, x+varepsilonrangle$ contains infinitely many terms of the sequence $(a_n)_n$, i.e. for every $n in mathbb{N}$ there exists $m in mathbb{N}, m > n$ such that $|x-a_m| < varepsilon$.




          Try to show your lemma now.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Ah, very useful answer indeed. That's a very good point you make. I din't know that actually, thank you.
            – Wesley Strik
            2 days ago













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3066203%2fa-convergent-sequence-has-precisely-one-accumulation-point%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          5














          Suppose the sequence converges to $x$. Clearly $x$ is an accumulation point.



          Suppose on the contrary that we have a second accumulation point, $y$. Let $r = frac{|x-y|}{2}$.



          Notice that there exists $N>0$, such that for all $n>N$, then $|x_n -x|<r$.



          That is when $n>N$, we have $$|x_n - y|=|x_n-x+x-y| ge ||x_n-x|-|x-y||=||x_n-x|-2r|=2r-|x_n-x|>r$$



          Hence we cannot have infinitely many points that get arbitrarily close to $y$, hence $y$ can't be an accumulation point.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Beautiful. You always come up with such nice and pretty arguments, this is precisely the technical argument I was thinking of but I was not sure how to formulate it so impeccably, thank you.
            – Wesley Strik
            2 days ago


















          5














          Suppose the sequence converges to $x$. Clearly $x$ is an accumulation point.



          Suppose on the contrary that we have a second accumulation point, $y$. Let $r = frac{|x-y|}{2}$.



          Notice that there exists $N>0$, such that for all $n>N$, then $|x_n -x|<r$.



          That is when $n>N$, we have $$|x_n - y|=|x_n-x+x-y| ge ||x_n-x|-|x-y||=||x_n-x|-2r|=2r-|x_n-x|>r$$



          Hence we cannot have infinitely many points that get arbitrarily close to $y$, hence $y$ can't be an accumulation point.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Beautiful. You always come up with such nice and pretty arguments, this is precisely the technical argument I was thinking of but I was not sure how to formulate it so impeccably, thank you.
            – Wesley Strik
            2 days ago
















          5












          5








          5






          Suppose the sequence converges to $x$. Clearly $x$ is an accumulation point.



          Suppose on the contrary that we have a second accumulation point, $y$. Let $r = frac{|x-y|}{2}$.



          Notice that there exists $N>0$, such that for all $n>N$, then $|x_n -x|<r$.



          That is when $n>N$, we have $$|x_n - y|=|x_n-x+x-y| ge ||x_n-x|-|x-y||=||x_n-x|-2r|=2r-|x_n-x|>r$$



          Hence we cannot have infinitely many points that get arbitrarily close to $y$, hence $y$ can't be an accumulation point.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Suppose the sequence converges to $x$. Clearly $x$ is an accumulation point.



          Suppose on the contrary that we have a second accumulation point, $y$. Let $r = frac{|x-y|}{2}$.



          Notice that there exists $N>0$, such that for all $n>N$, then $|x_n -x|<r$.



          That is when $n>N$, we have $$|x_n - y|=|x_n-x+x-y| ge ||x_n-x|-|x-y||=||x_n-x|-2r|=2r-|x_n-x|>r$$



          Hence we cannot have infinitely many points that get arbitrarily close to $y$, hence $y$ can't be an accumulation point.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 2 days ago









          Siong Thye GohSiong Thye Goh

          100k1465117




          100k1465117












          • Beautiful. You always come up with such nice and pretty arguments, this is precisely the technical argument I was thinking of but I was not sure how to formulate it so impeccably, thank you.
            – Wesley Strik
            2 days ago




















          • Beautiful. You always come up with such nice and pretty arguments, this is precisely the technical argument I was thinking of but I was not sure how to formulate it so impeccably, thank you.
            – Wesley Strik
            2 days ago


















          Beautiful. You always come up with such nice and pretty arguments, this is precisely the technical argument I was thinking of but I was not sure how to formulate it so impeccably, thank you.
          – Wesley Strik
          2 days ago






          Beautiful. You always come up with such nice and pretty arguments, this is precisely the technical argument I was thinking of but I was not sure how to formulate it so impeccably, thank you.
          – Wesley Strik
          2 days ago













          5














          An accumulation point of a sequence $(a_n)_n$ is not the same as the accumulation point of its set of values ${a_n : n in mathbb{N}}$.



          Indeed, consider the constant sequence $a_n = a, forall n in mathbb{N}$. Clearly $(a_n)_n$ converges to $a$, but the set ${a_n : n in mathbb{N}} = {a}$ has no accumulation points by your definition.



          The proper definition is:




          $x in mathbb{R}$ is an accumulation point of a sequence $(a_n)_n$ if for every $varepsilon > 0$ the interval $langle x-varepsilon, x+varepsilonrangle$ contains infinitely many terms of the sequence $(a_n)_n$, i.e. for every $n in mathbb{N}$ there exists $m in mathbb{N}, m > n$ such that $|x-a_m| < varepsilon$.




          Try to show your lemma now.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Ah, very useful answer indeed. That's a very good point you make. I din't know that actually, thank you.
            – Wesley Strik
            2 days ago


















          5














          An accumulation point of a sequence $(a_n)_n$ is not the same as the accumulation point of its set of values ${a_n : n in mathbb{N}}$.



          Indeed, consider the constant sequence $a_n = a, forall n in mathbb{N}$. Clearly $(a_n)_n$ converges to $a$, but the set ${a_n : n in mathbb{N}} = {a}$ has no accumulation points by your definition.



          The proper definition is:




          $x in mathbb{R}$ is an accumulation point of a sequence $(a_n)_n$ if for every $varepsilon > 0$ the interval $langle x-varepsilon, x+varepsilonrangle$ contains infinitely many terms of the sequence $(a_n)_n$, i.e. for every $n in mathbb{N}$ there exists $m in mathbb{N}, m > n$ such that $|x-a_m| < varepsilon$.




          Try to show your lemma now.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Ah, very useful answer indeed. That's a very good point you make. I din't know that actually, thank you.
            – Wesley Strik
            2 days ago
















          5












          5








          5






          An accumulation point of a sequence $(a_n)_n$ is not the same as the accumulation point of its set of values ${a_n : n in mathbb{N}}$.



          Indeed, consider the constant sequence $a_n = a, forall n in mathbb{N}$. Clearly $(a_n)_n$ converges to $a$, but the set ${a_n : n in mathbb{N}} = {a}$ has no accumulation points by your definition.



          The proper definition is:




          $x in mathbb{R}$ is an accumulation point of a sequence $(a_n)_n$ if for every $varepsilon > 0$ the interval $langle x-varepsilon, x+varepsilonrangle$ contains infinitely many terms of the sequence $(a_n)_n$, i.e. for every $n in mathbb{N}$ there exists $m in mathbb{N}, m > n$ such that $|x-a_m| < varepsilon$.




          Try to show your lemma now.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          An accumulation point of a sequence $(a_n)_n$ is not the same as the accumulation point of its set of values ${a_n : n in mathbb{N}}$.



          Indeed, consider the constant sequence $a_n = a, forall n in mathbb{N}$. Clearly $(a_n)_n$ converges to $a$, but the set ${a_n : n in mathbb{N}} = {a}$ has no accumulation points by your definition.



          The proper definition is:




          $x in mathbb{R}$ is an accumulation point of a sequence $(a_n)_n$ if for every $varepsilon > 0$ the interval $langle x-varepsilon, x+varepsilonrangle$ contains infinitely many terms of the sequence $(a_n)_n$, i.e. for every $n in mathbb{N}$ there exists $m in mathbb{N}, m > n$ such that $|x-a_m| < varepsilon$.




          Try to show your lemma now.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 2 days ago









          mechanodroidmechanodroid

          27k62446




          27k62446












          • Ah, very useful answer indeed. That's a very good point you make. I din't know that actually, thank you.
            – Wesley Strik
            2 days ago




















          • Ah, very useful answer indeed. That's a very good point you make. I din't know that actually, thank you.
            – Wesley Strik
            2 days ago


















          Ah, very useful answer indeed. That's a very good point you make. I din't know that actually, thank you.
          – Wesley Strik
          2 days ago






          Ah, very useful answer indeed. That's a very good point you make. I din't know that actually, thank you.
          – Wesley Strik
          2 days ago




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3066203%2fa-convergent-sequence-has-precisely-one-accumulation-point%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Список кардиналов, возведённых папой римским Каликстом III

          Image
          Папа Каликст III Кардиналы, возведённые Папой римским Каликстом III  — 9 прелатов и мирян были возведены в сан кардинала на двух Консисториях за трёхлетний понтификат Каликста III. Самой крупной консисторией были Консистория от 17 декабря 1456 года, на которой было возведено шесть кардиналов. Папа Каллист III хотел назвать отца Жан Сорета, O.Carm., епископом или кардиналом, но он отказался, потому что хотел посвятить себя своему ордену и продвижению религиозного рвения и соблюдения устава монашеского ордена. Консистория от 17 сентября 1456 года | Луис Хуан дель Мила, племянник Его Святейшества, епископ Сегорбе (королевство Арагон); Жайме Португальский, администратор архиепархии Лиссабона (королевство Португалия); Родриго де Борха-и-Борха, племянник Его Святейшества, ризничий Валенсии (Папская область). Консистория от 17 декабря 1456 года | Ринальдо Пишичелло, архиепископ Неаполя (Неаполитанское королевство); Хуан де Мелья, епископ Саморы (королевство Ка
          Read more

          Deduzione

          Image
          .mw-parser-output .nota-disambigua{clear:both;margin-bottom:.5em;border:1px solid #CCC;padding-left:4px}.mw-parser-output .nota-disambigua i{vertical-align:middle} Disambiguazione – Se stai cercando il teorema, vedi Teorema di deduzione . Disambiguazione – Se stai cercando il concetto di deduzione in economia, vedi deduzione fiscale . Il ragionamento deduttivo umano assimilato a un meccanismo Il metodo deduttivo o deduzione è il procedimento razionale che fa derivare una certa conclusione da premesse più generiche, dentro cui quella conclusione è implicita. Il termine significa letteralmente «condurre da», perché proviene dal latino "de" (traducibile con da , preposizione indicante provenienza, o moto di discesa dall'alto verso il basso) e "ducere" ( condurre ). Questo metodo parte da postulati e princìpi primi e, attraverso una serie di rigorose concatenazioni logiche, procede verso determinazioni più particolari attinenti alla realtà tangi
          Read more

          Mysql.sock missing - “Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket”

          Image
          .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 0 Operating System - OSX 10.11.2 MAMP version - 3.5 I'm following along with this guide, setting up wordpress with Xammp on PC and MAMP on Mac, where I'm in step "Mac - 4" is asked to input: "In the Terminal run: /Applications/MAMP/Library/bin/mysqladmin -u root -p password {Your Windows MySQL password here}" However, this (with out bracket text) results in error message: error: 'Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/Applications/MAMP/tmp/mysql/mysql.sock' (2)' Check that mysqld is running and that the socket: '/Applications/MAMP/tmp/mysql/mysql.sock'
          Read more