Neighborhood, Limit Point, Open, Closed in Metric Space
Definition
Let’s say is a metric space. Suppose and .
The set that includes all s satisfying is defined as the neighborhood of point and is denoted as . Here, is called the radius of . If the distance can be omitted, it may also be denoted as .
If all neighborhoods of contain , which is and , then is called a limit point of .
If and is not a limit point of , then is called an isolated point of .
If all limit points of are included in , then is said to be closed.
If there exists a neighborhood satisfying , then is called an interior point of .
If every point of is an interior point of , then is said to be open.
The set that includes all s that are and is called the complement of and is denoted as .
If is closed and every point of is a limit point of , then is said to be perfect.
If there exists a point and a real number satisfying , then is said to be bounded.
If every point of is either a limit point of or a point of , then is said to be dense in .
The set of all limit points of is called the derived set of and is denoted as .
The union of and is called the closure and is denoted as .
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 , and an example of the latter is . Considering the definitions of interior points and neighborhoods, the condition for to be an interior point of is the same as the existence of some positive number such that
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 . Also, consider any . Then, by the definition of a neighborhood, there must exist a positive real number that satisfies the following equation:
Then, by the definition of distance, for all that satisfy , the following equation holds:
Therefore, by the definition of a neighborhood, is true. This shows that any point within the neighborhood of is an element of . Hence, , meaning is an interior point of . Since we initially considered to be any point of , all points of are interior points. Therefore, is an open set.
■
Theorem 2
A set being an open set is equivalent to being a closed set.
Proof
Assume is closed. Now, for any , since and by the definition of being closed, is not a limit point of . Thus, there exists a neighborhood satisfying . This implies and, by the definition of an interior point, is an interior point of . Since any is an interior point of , by definition, is an open set.
Assume is open. And let be a limit point of . Then, by the definition of a limit point, every neighborhood of contains at least one point of . Thus, every neighborhood of does not include , which means is not an interior point of . Since we assumed is open, is true. Therefore, since all limit points of are included in , is closed.
■
Theorem 3
Let’s say is a limit point of . Then, the neighborhood of contains infinitely many points of .
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 of includes only a finite number of elements of . And let be points of that are not . Also, let be the minimum of the distances between and .
Since each is different from , all distances are positive, and the minimum of positive numbers is also positive, thus is true. Now, consider another neighborhood of . Then, by the definitions of neighborhood and distance, contains no . Thus, by the definition of a limit point, is not a limit point of . This contradicts the fact that is a limit point of . 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 and , the following facts hold: is closed. Being is equivalent to being closed. For all closed sets satisfying , holds.
and imply that is the smallest closed subset of that contains .