how can you prove this theorem from the book?

A finite set has no accumulation points.

I know that it's true, but fail to show it mathematically :(

Printable View

- September 23rd 2010, 09:10 PMEmmWalferaccumulation points
how can you prove this theorem from the book?

A finite set has no accumulation points.

I know that it's true, but fail to show it mathematically :( - September 24th 2010, 06:13 AMAckbeet
Are you working in the real numbers? What ideas have you had so far?

- September 24th 2010, 11:03 AMDanneedshelp

Well, if you construct an epsilon neighborhood around a proposed limit point x in your finite set, then the intersection of your set with the epsilon neighborhood of x must contain points in your finite set other than x for x to be a limit point (accumulation point). If you can show this doesn't hold, then you are done. - September 25th 2010, 05:26 AMHallsofIvy
The

**definition**of "accumulation point" is: p is an accumulation point of set A if and only if**every**neighborhood of p contains at least one point of A (other than p itself). Suppose A is finite. Then the set of all**distances**from p to points in A (other that p itself) is finite and so contains a smallest value. Take the radius of your neighborhood to be smaller than that value.

(I notice now, that is pretty much what Danneedshelp said!) - September 25th 2010, 09:44 AMDanneedshelp
I am not a 100% this correct, but I recall a lemma from my intro to real analysis book that stated something along to lines of: a point is a limit point (accumulation point) of a set iff for every , the neighborhood contains infinitly many points of the set .

I think you would have to prove this to use it, but it answers your original question rather quickly.