Associated Topics || Dr. Math Home || Search Dr. Math

### Compact Sets

```
Date: 02/04/2001 at 12:39:35
From: Paul
Subject: Introduction to Topology - compact sets

Let A be an infinite set in R^1 (the real numbers) with a single
accumulation point in A. Must A be compact?

Here's what I have come up with:

The first example of such a set that I thought of was as follows:

A = {0} U {1/n | n is a natural number}

Here, the single accumulation point is {0} and this set is indeed
compact (the proof is given as an example of a compact set in the
textbook).

To show A is compact, I need to show that A is closed and bounded.

Since A has only one accumulation point and this accumulation point
is contained in A, it follows trivially that A contains all of its
accumulation points. This means that A must be closed (we proved in
class that a set A is closed iff A contains all of its accumulation
points).

The answer for this problem in the back of the book says "No."

Since I've shown that A must be closed (and I don't think there's
anything wrong with my argument there), the problem must be that A
doesn't have to be bounded. But I'm having a hard time envisioning a
set which is closed but not bounded. It seems to me that closed would
imply bounded. Here's my argument:

A set A in R^1 is bounded if there exists r > 0 such that A is a
subset of [-r,r].

Let [a,b] be a closed set in R^1.  Let x = (a+b)/2  and let
y = d(a,b) = the distance from a to b. Then [x-y, x+y] contains [a,b]
and it follows that [a,b] is bounded.

Maybe the problem with this argument is that [a,b] contains an
infinite number of accumulation points and so this argument doesn't
hold for the type of set I've been asked to consider.

But I don't know how to modify my argument for the appropriate kind
of set.
```

```
Date: 02/04/2001 at 20:30:00
From: Doctor Schwa
Subject: Re: Introduction to Topology - compact sets

Hi Paul,

I agree with your argument that it's closed.

As for the boundedness, your assumption of "let [a,b] be a closed set"
is assuming way too much! If it's not bounded, then certainly the set
can't be written in interval notation.

Here's what occurs to me: take the set that you had (of 1/n, together
with 0) and add to it some ISOLATED points, infinitely many of them,
that are not bounded but are still closed. A good example of that
would be the integers. Since they are isolated, the integers have no
extra accumulation points. Also since they are isolated, they are a
closed set. And of course they are not bounded. In fact I think I've
solved the problem!

- Doctor Schwa, The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
```
Associated Topics:
College Analysis

Search the Dr. Math Library:

 Find items containing (put spaces between keywords):   Click only once for faster results: [ Choose "whole words" when searching for a word like age.] all keywords, in any order at least one, that exact phrase parts of words whole words

Submit your own question to Dr. Math
Math Forum Home || Math Library || Quick Reference || Math Forum Search