logo

Neighborhood, Limit Point, Open, Closed in Metric Space 📂MetricSpace

Neighborhood, Limit Point, Open, Closed in Metric Space

Definition

Let’s say (X,d)(X,d) is a metric space. Suppose pXp \in X and EXE \subset X.

  • The set that includes all qqs satisfying d(q,p)<rd(q,p)<r is defined as the neighborhood of point pp and is denoted as Nr(p)N_{r}(p). Here, rr is called the radius of Nr(p)N_{r}(p). If the distance can be omitted, it may also be denoted as NpN_{p}.

  • If all neighborhoods of pp contain qq, which is qpq\ne p and qEq\in E, then pp is called a limit point of EE.

  • If pEp\in E and pp is not a limit point of EE, then pp is called an isolated point of EE.

  • If all limit points of EE are included in EE, then EE is said to be closed.

  • If there exists a neighborhood NN satisfying NEN\subset E, then pp is called an interior point of EE.

  • If every point of EE is an interior point of EE, then EE is said to be open.

  • The set that includes all pps that are pXp \in X and pEp \notin E is called the complement of EE and is denoted as EcE^{c}.

  • If EE is closed and every point of EE is a limit point of EE, then EE is said to be perfect.

  • If there exists a point qXq\in X and a real number MM satisfying pE, d(p,q)<M\forall p\in E,\ d(p,q)<M, then EE is said to be bounded.

  • If every point of XX is either a limit point of EE or a point of EE, then EE is said to be dense in XX.

  • The set of all limit points of EE is called the derived set of EE and is denoted as EE^{\prime}.

  • The union of EE and EE^{\prime} is called the closure and is denoted as E=EE\overline{E}=E\cup E^{\prime}.

Explanation

The concepts of openness, limit points, denseness, interior points, etc., mentioned above can be defined through different statements but are essentially the same. Why each concept is defined and named as such can be easily grasped by directly drawing them in one or two dimensions. An isolated point is defined as a point that is not a limit point, so it cannot be both an isolated and a limit point at the same time. Conversely, open and closed sets are defined based on separate conditions, so contrary to the intuitive feeling their names might convey, there can exist sets that are both open and closed, or neither open nor closed. An example of the former is R2\mathbb{R}^{2}, and an example of the latter is {1n  nN}\left\{ {\textstyle \frac{1}{n}}\ |\ n\in \mathbb{N} \right\}. Considering the definitions of interior points and neighborhoods, the condition for xx to be an interior point of EE is the same as the existence of some positive number ε>0\varepsilon>0 such that

d(x,p)<ε    xE d(x,p) <\varepsilon \implies x \in E

is satisfied. Several theorems and proofs related to the above concepts are introduced, following the notation from the definitions.

Theorem 1

All neighborhoods are open sets.

Proof

Let’s say E=Nr(p)E=N_{r}(p). Also, consider any qEq \in E. Then, by the definition of a neighborhood, there must exist a positive real number hh that satisfies the following equation:

d(p,q)=rh<r d(p,q)=r-h<r

Then, by the definition of distance, for all ss that satisfy d(q,s)<hd(q,s)<h, the following equation holds:

d(p,s)d(p,q)+d(q,s)<(rh)+h=r d(p,s)\le d(p,q)+d(q,s)<(r-h)+h=r

Therefore, by the definition of a neighborhood, sEs \in E is true. This shows that any point ss within the neighborhood Nh(q)N_{h}(q) of qq is an element of EE. Hence, Nh(q)EN_{h}(q) \subset E, meaning qq is an interior point of EE. Since we initially considered qq to be any point of EE, all points of EE are interior points. Therefore, EE is an open set.

Theorem 2

A set EE being an open set is equivalent to EcE^c being a closed set.

Proof

  • (    )(\impliedby)

    Assume EcE^c is closed. Now, for any pEp\in E, since pEcp \notin E^c and by the definition of being closed, pp is not a limit point of EcE^c. Thus, there exists a neighborhood NN satisfying NEc=N \cap E^c=\varnothing. This implies NEN \subset E and, by the definition of an interior point, pp is an interior point of EE. Since any pEp\in E is an interior point of EE, by definition, EE is an open set.

  • (    )(\implies)

    Assume EE is open. And let pp be a limit point of EcE^{c}. Then, by the definition of a limit point, every neighborhood of pp contains at least one point of EcE^{c}. Thus, every neighborhood of pp does not include EE, which means pp is not an interior point of EE. Since we assumed EE is open, pEp\notin E is true. Therefore, since all limit points pp of EcE^{c} are included in EcE^{c}, EcE^{c} is closed.

Theorem 3

Let’s say pp is a limit point of EE. Then, the neighborhood of pp contains infinitely many points of EE.

This can be expressed differently as ‘A finite set does not have a limit point’, ‘A set with a limit point is an infinite set’.

Proof

Assume the neighborhood NN of pp includes only a finite number of elements of EE. And let q1,q2,,qnq_{1},q_{2},\cdots,q_{n} be points of NEN\cap E that are not pp. Also, let rr be the minimum of the distances between pp and qiq_{i}.

r=min1ind(p,qi) r= \min \limits _{1\le i \le n}d(p,q_{i})

Since each qiq_{i} is different from pp, all distances are positive, and the minimum of positive numbers is also positive, thus r>0r>0 is true. Now, consider another neighborhood Nr(p)N_{r}(p) of pp. Then, by the definitions of neighborhood and distance, Nr(p)N_{r}(p) contains no qiq_{i}. Thus, by the definition of a limit point, pp is not a limit point of EE. This contradicts the fact that pp is a limit point of EE. Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, the assumption is incorrect, proving the theorem.

Corollary

A set with only a finite number of points does not have a limit point.

Theorem 4

For a metric space (X,d)(X,d) and EXE \subset X, the following facts hold: (a)(a) E\overline{E} is closed.(b)(b) Being E=EE=\overline{E} is equivalent to EE being closed.(c)(c) For all closed sets FXF\subset X satisfying EFE\subset F, EF\overline{E} \subset F holds.

(a)(a) and (c)(c) imply that E\overline{E} is the smallest closed subset of XX that contains EE.