Accumulation point of a net (topological spaces)

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of accumulation points of nets and the relation between accumulation points and subnets. The problem is to prove that a point is an accumulation point if and only if there exists a subnet of the net that converges to that point. One approach is to use the definition of cofinal sets and try to construct a subnet that converges to the point. The other approach is to start with a subnet that converges to the point and try to prove that the corresponding set is cofinal.
  • #1
mahler1
222
0
Homework Statement .

If ##(x_{\alpha})_{\alpha \in \Lambda}## is a net, we say that ##x \in X## is an accumulation point of the net if and only if for evey ##A \in \mathcal F_x##, the set ##\{\alpha \in \Lambda : x_{\alpha} \in A\}## is cofinal in ##Lambda##. Prove that ##x## is an accumulation point of the net if and only if there is a subnet of ##(x_{\alpha})_{\alpha \in \Lambda}## that converges to ##x##.

The attempt at a solution

I am having some difficulty proving the two implications.

→ If the set ##A=\{\alpha \in \Lambda : x_{\alpha} \in A\}## is cofinal in ##\Lambda##, then for every ##\alpha \in \Lambda## there exists ##\beta \in A## such that ##\beta \geq \alpha##. I want to construct a subnet that converges to ##x##, first I thought of constructing a subnet ##(y_{\beta_A})_{\beta_{A} \in \Lambda}## defined as ##y_{\beta_A}## an element of the set ##A=\{\alpha \in \Lambda : x_{\alpha} \in A\}## which is nonempty. It is clear that it "converges" to ##x##, but I am not so sure if this is a subnet.

For the other implication I have no idea how to start, I would appreciate suggestions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'm not familiar with these definitions, but the problem interests me since I was wondering yesterday how a subnet is defined. I had to look up "cofinal" at Wikipedia. The sentence
Cofinal subsets are very important in the theory of directed sets and nets, where “cofinal subnet” is the appropriate generalization of “subsequence”.​
makes me believe that a set ##B\subseteq\Lambda## is cofinal with respect to the partial order on ##\Lambda## if and only if ##(x_\alpha)_{\alpha\in B}## is a subnet. (Isn't this the definition of "subnet"?). It seems to me that this observation makes the problem rather trivial? Do you disagree? (Did I perhaps guess the definition of "subnet" wrong?)

Edit I see now that I made a blunder. The problem is not trivial, even if I have understood the definitions correctly. I will think about this some more, and edit this post or make a new one when I'm done.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #3
I gave it a shot, but I haven't gotten any further than you did. When I say "open nhood", I always mean "open neighborhood of x". For all open nhoods F, I will use the notation ##\Lambda_F=\{\alpha\in\Lambda|x_\alpha\in F\}##.

Suppose that x is an accumulation point. For all open nhoods F, ##\Lambda_F## is cofinal. Since cofinal sets are non-empty, this implies that we can define a set S that consists of one element from each ##\Lambda_F##. For each open nhood F, denote the element chosen from ##\Lambda_F## by ##\alpha_F##.

For each ##\alpha\in S##, there's an open nhood F such that ##\alpha=\alpha_F\in\Lambda_F## and ##x_\alpha\in F##. The map ##F\mapsto \alpha_F## is a net that seems to converge to x, but that's not the net we need to converge. I think we're interested in the map ##\alpha_F\to x_{\alpha_F}## with domain S, i.e. the net ##(x_\alpha)_{\alpha\in S}##. Can we prove that S is cofinal, and that the convergence of the former net implies the convergence of the latter?

I haven't made a really serious attempt to complete this approach, so I don't know if I'm on the right track.

The other implication seemed like a straightforward application of the definitions at first, but at the end I got stuck attempting to prove that a certain set is cofinal. I'll take another look tomorrow, if you haven't figured these things out for yourself by then.
 
  • #4
I think I have proved the other implication, i.e. that if ##(x_\alpha)## has a subnet that converges to x, then ##\Lambda_E## is cofinal for all open nhoods E. It was helpful to prove this as a warm-up first: Let I be a directed set. Let J be an arbitrary subset of I. Let ##i_0\in I## be arbitrary.
(a) If J is cofinal, then J is a directed set.
(b) ##\{i\in I|i\geq i_0\}## is cofinal.

Since this is the homework forum, I can't just type up the proof. At this point I can only encourage you to do the above as an exercise, and then apply the definitions carefully. What does it mean to say that ##(x_\alpha)## has a subnet that converges to x? Write that down and then try to prove that for all open neighborhoods E, ##\Lambda_E## is cofinal.
 

FAQ: Accumulation point of a net (topological spaces)

1. What is an accumulation point in a topological space?

An accumulation point, also known as a limit point, is a point in a topological space where every neighborhood of the point contains infinitely many points of the given net.

2. How is an accumulation point different from a limit point?

An accumulation point and a limit point are essentially the same concept, except that an accumulation point is defined for nets in topological spaces, while a limit point is defined for sequences in metric spaces.

3. What is the importance of accumulation points in topology?

Accumulation points play a crucial role in topology as they help define important concepts such as closed sets and compactness. They also provide a way to understand the behavior of a net in a topological space.

4. Can a point be both an accumulation point and an isolated point?

No, a point cannot be both an accumulation point and an isolated point. An accumulation point is a point where every neighborhood contains infinitely many points of the net, while an isolated point has a neighborhood that contains only the point itself.

5. How do accumulation points relate to convergence of a net?

If a net in a topological space has an accumulation point, then the net does not converge to a single point. However, if a net does not have any accumulation points, then it may converge to a single point. Therefore, accumulation points give us information about the convergence or non-convergence of a net.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top