# Thread:

1. ## Principles of Mathematical Analysis - Ch2 Basic Topology

Hi,

Here I am reading Rudin's Book(3rd).
I encountered some problems in Theorem 2.20, page 32.

Theorem 2.20
If p is a limit point of a set E, then every neighborhood of p contains infinitely many points of E.

By intutition or imagination, I can understand the theorem, but I just don't understand why it says,

"The neighborhood Nr(p) contains no point q of E such that p=/=q (not equal), so that p is not a limit point of E." in the proof.

I think it would be that Nr(p) contains some q when r is in some range, but in other range of r, there is no q of E such that p=/=q. In other words, not every neighborhood of p contains a q of E, such that p=/=q.

Is there anyone who has the book on hands?

2. So he has supposed there is only a finite number of points in a neighborhood around a limit point of the set, and basically taken a smaller neighborhood such that those points aren't there anymore. Since we don't know a priori whether or not p is an element of E, the statement you are questioning is simply stating we exhibit a neighborhood of p with no elements of E other than possibly p, which contradicts the definition of a limit point.

3. If there are only a finite number of points of E in a neighborhood of p, the there is a closest such point. Take $\epsilon$ to be half that distance.

4. Originally Posted by siclar
So he has supposed there is only a finite number of points in a neighborhood around a limit point of the set, andbasically taken a smaller neighborhood such that those points aren't there anymore. Since we don't know a priori whether or not p is an element of E, the statement you are questioning is simply stating we exhibit a neighborhood of p with no elements of E other than possibly p, which contradicts the definition of a limit point.
So he took another r' smaller than the min(r)? Because by the text I couldn't tell. As for the statement, it was obviously volative of the definition of a limit point. I have no idea why I made it I. I guess I was just so confused by the r.

Thank you very much! I've known what my problem is!

5. Originally Posted by HallsofIvy
If there are only a finite number of points of E in a neighborhood of p, the there is a closest such point. Take $\epsilon$ to be half that distance.
Thank you very much. I got it!
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 0, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 2, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "github"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9728860855102539, "perplexity_flag": "head"}