Sequence such that every subsequence can have a different real limit [duplicate]












8















This question already has an answer here:




  • Give an example of a sequence of real numbers with subsequences converging to every real number

    3 answers




I would like to find a sequence of real numbers $(a_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ with this property: for any $Linmathbb{R}$ there is a subsequence $a_{k_n}$ such that $$lim_{ntoinfty} a_{k_n} = L$$ Does such a sequence exist?










share|cite|improve this question















marked as duplicate by Martin R, Community Dec 9 at 14:29


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.















  • Otherwise said, the set ${ a_n | ninmathbb N}$ should be dense in $mathbb R$.
    – Giuseppe Negro
    Dec 9 at 11:49
















8















This question already has an answer here:




  • Give an example of a sequence of real numbers with subsequences converging to every real number

    3 answers




I would like to find a sequence of real numbers $(a_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ with this property: for any $Linmathbb{R}$ there is a subsequence $a_{k_n}$ such that $$lim_{ntoinfty} a_{k_n} = L$$ Does such a sequence exist?










share|cite|improve this question















marked as duplicate by Martin R, Community Dec 9 at 14:29


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.















  • Otherwise said, the set ${ a_n | ninmathbb N}$ should be dense in $mathbb R$.
    – Giuseppe Negro
    Dec 9 at 11:49














8












8








8


1






This question already has an answer here:




  • Give an example of a sequence of real numbers with subsequences converging to every real number

    3 answers




I would like to find a sequence of real numbers $(a_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ with this property: for any $Linmathbb{R}$ there is a subsequence $a_{k_n}$ such that $$lim_{ntoinfty} a_{k_n} = L$$ Does such a sequence exist?










share|cite|improve this question
















This question already has an answer here:




  • Give an example of a sequence of real numbers with subsequences converging to every real number

    3 answers




I would like to find a sequence of real numbers $(a_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ with this property: for any $Linmathbb{R}$ there is a subsequence $a_{k_n}$ such that $$lim_{ntoinfty} a_{k_n} = L$$ Does such a sequence exist?





This question already has an answer here:




  • Give an example of a sequence of real numbers with subsequences converging to every real number

    3 answers








sequences-and-series limits analysis






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 9 at 11:46









Especially Lime

21.6k22858




21.6k22858










asked Dec 9 at 11:31









Riccardo Cazzin

1905




1905




marked as duplicate by Martin R, Community Dec 9 at 14:29


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






marked as duplicate by Martin R, Community Dec 9 at 14:29


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.














  • Otherwise said, the set ${ a_n | ninmathbb N}$ should be dense in $mathbb R$.
    – Giuseppe Negro
    Dec 9 at 11:49


















  • Otherwise said, the set ${ a_n | ninmathbb N}$ should be dense in $mathbb R$.
    – Giuseppe Negro
    Dec 9 at 11:49
















Otherwise said, the set ${ a_n | ninmathbb N}$ should be dense in $mathbb R$.
– Giuseppe Negro
Dec 9 at 11:49




Otherwise said, the set ${ a_n | ninmathbb N}$ should be dense in $mathbb R$.
– Giuseppe Negro
Dec 9 at 11:49










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















9














Just arrange the set of rational numbers in a sequence ${a_n}$. Given any real number $L$ and any positive integer $n$ there are infinitely many rationals in $(L-frac 1 n, L+frac 1 n)$. Pick $a_{n_1}$ in this interval with $n=1$. Then consider the case $n=2$. You can surely find $n_2 >n_1$ such that $a_{n_2} in (L-frac 1 2, L+frac 1 2)$. Use induction to construct a subsequence $a_{n_k}$ such that $|a_{n_k}-L| <frac 1 k$ for all $k$. Then $a_{n_k} to L$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Could you please explain better how it would work? Thanks
    – gimusi
    Dec 9 at 11:40










  • That's nice, we are then using that rationals are countable. Thanks for the clarification. Regards
    – gimusi
    Dec 9 at 12:00










  • Most welcome, @gimusi !
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Dec 9 at 12:04



















4














Take the sequence that sweep the interval $[-1,1]$ by $1/2$ steps, then the interval $[-2,2]$ by $1/2^2$ steps, then the interval $[-n,n]$ by $1/2^n$ steps... and so on.



You’ll be able to prove that every real is a limit point of that sequence.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • That's less intuitive at first!
    – gimusi
    Dec 9 at 12:01



















3














Rephrasing:



Consider $a_n$, $n=1,2,3,3,....,$ the sequence of rational numbers. Recall that $mathbb{Q}$ is countable, hence can be written as a sequence $a_n$, $nin mathbb{N}$.



Let $L in mathbb{R}$.



Since $mathbb{Q}$ is dense in $mathbb{R}$, we can construct a subsequence $a_{n_k}$ that converges to $L$.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    1














    Consider a general topological space $(X, mathscr{T})$ and a sequence of points $x in X^{mathbb{N}}$. One says that point $t in X$ is adherent to the sequence $x$ (some authors use the terminology 'cluster-point', but I don't fancy it so much) if:



    $$(forall V, n)(V in mathscr{V}_{mathscr{T}}(x) wedge n in mathbb{N} implies (exists m)(m geqslant n wedge x_m in V ))$$



    where $mathscr{V}_{mathscr{T}}(x)$ symbolizes the filter of neighbourhoods of point $x$ induced by the topology $mathscr{T}$. In a more descriptive fashion, $t$ is adherent to sequence $x$ if any neighbourhood of $t$ contains terms of arbitrarily high rank from the sequence $x$. If the filter of neighbourhoods of $t$ admits a countable base, then $t$ can be expressed as the limit of a subsequence of $x$. Therefore, in a space satisfying the First Axiom of Countability (i.e. all points have a countable base of neighbourhoods), the points adherent to a given sequence $x$ can be equivalently characterised as limits of subsequences of $x$.



    Now, if the space $X$ is non-empty and separable, let us fix a certain dense subset $T subseteq X$. As $X$ is non-empty, so must $T$ be. It is not difficult to show that a non-empty countable set $M$ admits a surjection $sigma: mathbb{N} rightarrow M$ such that for each $t in M$ the fibre $sigma^{-1}({t})$ be infinite.



    Consider such a surjection $sigma: mathbb{N} rightarrow T$ and define the sequence $t=(sigma(n))_{n in mathbb{N}}$ (which is actually the graphic of map $sigma$). The condition on the cardinality of the fibers ensures that any element $x in T$ is the limit of a (constant) subsequence of $t$. If we furthermore assume that the space $(X, mathscr{T})$ is $T_1$, then any $x in X setminus T$ will be an accumulation point of $T$ and thus necessarily adherent to sequence $t$.



    To conclude, given a topological space $(X, mathscr{T})$ that is non-empty, separable, first countable and $T_1$, one can always find a sequence $t$ of points within the space such that each element $x in X$ be expressible as the limit of a subsequence of $t$. This applies in particular to the topological space $(mathbb{R}, mathscr{O})$, where $mathscr{O}$ denotes the (usual) order topology.






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      9














      Just arrange the set of rational numbers in a sequence ${a_n}$. Given any real number $L$ and any positive integer $n$ there are infinitely many rationals in $(L-frac 1 n, L+frac 1 n)$. Pick $a_{n_1}$ in this interval with $n=1$. Then consider the case $n=2$. You can surely find $n_2 >n_1$ such that $a_{n_2} in (L-frac 1 2, L+frac 1 2)$. Use induction to construct a subsequence $a_{n_k}$ such that $|a_{n_k}-L| <frac 1 k$ for all $k$. Then $a_{n_k} to L$.






      share|cite|improve this answer























      • Could you please explain better how it would work? Thanks
        – gimusi
        Dec 9 at 11:40










      • That's nice, we are then using that rationals are countable. Thanks for the clarification. Regards
        – gimusi
        Dec 9 at 12:00










      • Most welcome, @gimusi !
        – Kavi Rama Murthy
        Dec 9 at 12:04
















      9














      Just arrange the set of rational numbers in a sequence ${a_n}$. Given any real number $L$ and any positive integer $n$ there are infinitely many rationals in $(L-frac 1 n, L+frac 1 n)$. Pick $a_{n_1}$ in this interval with $n=1$. Then consider the case $n=2$. You can surely find $n_2 >n_1$ such that $a_{n_2} in (L-frac 1 2, L+frac 1 2)$. Use induction to construct a subsequence $a_{n_k}$ such that $|a_{n_k}-L| <frac 1 k$ for all $k$. Then $a_{n_k} to L$.






      share|cite|improve this answer























      • Could you please explain better how it would work? Thanks
        – gimusi
        Dec 9 at 11:40










      • That's nice, we are then using that rationals are countable. Thanks for the clarification. Regards
        – gimusi
        Dec 9 at 12:00










      • Most welcome, @gimusi !
        – Kavi Rama Murthy
        Dec 9 at 12:04














      9












      9








      9






      Just arrange the set of rational numbers in a sequence ${a_n}$. Given any real number $L$ and any positive integer $n$ there are infinitely many rationals in $(L-frac 1 n, L+frac 1 n)$. Pick $a_{n_1}$ in this interval with $n=1$. Then consider the case $n=2$. You can surely find $n_2 >n_1$ such that $a_{n_2} in (L-frac 1 2, L+frac 1 2)$. Use induction to construct a subsequence $a_{n_k}$ such that $|a_{n_k}-L| <frac 1 k$ for all $k$. Then $a_{n_k} to L$.






      share|cite|improve this answer














      Just arrange the set of rational numbers in a sequence ${a_n}$. Given any real number $L$ and any positive integer $n$ there are infinitely many rationals in $(L-frac 1 n, L+frac 1 n)$. Pick $a_{n_1}$ in this interval with $n=1$. Then consider the case $n=2$. You can surely find $n_2 >n_1$ such that $a_{n_2} in (L-frac 1 2, L+frac 1 2)$. Use induction to construct a subsequence $a_{n_k}$ such that $|a_{n_k}-L| <frac 1 k$ for all $k$. Then $a_{n_k} to L$.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Dec 9 at 11:45

























      answered Dec 9 at 11:37









      Kavi Rama Murthy

      49.6k31854




      49.6k31854












      • Could you please explain better how it would work? Thanks
        – gimusi
        Dec 9 at 11:40










      • That's nice, we are then using that rationals are countable. Thanks for the clarification. Regards
        – gimusi
        Dec 9 at 12:00










      • Most welcome, @gimusi !
        – Kavi Rama Murthy
        Dec 9 at 12:04


















      • Could you please explain better how it would work? Thanks
        – gimusi
        Dec 9 at 11:40










      • That's nice, we are then using that rationals are countable. Thanks for the clarification. Regards
        – gimusi
        Dec 9 at 12:00










      • Most welcome, @gimusi !
        – Kavi Rama Murthy
        Dec 9 at 12:04
















      Could you please explain better how it would work? Thanks
      – gimusi
      Dec 9 at 11:40




      Could you please explain better how it would work? Thanks
      – gimusi
      Dec 9 at 11:40












      That's nice, we are then using that rationals are countable. Thanks for the clarification. Regards
      – gimusi
      Dec 9 at 12:00




      That's nice, we are then using that rationals are countable. Thanks for the clarification. Regards
      – gimusi
      Dec 9 at 12:00












      Most welcome, @gimusi !
      – Kavi Rama Murthy
      Dec 9 at 12:04




      Most welcome, @gimusi !
      – Kavi Rama Murthy
      Dec 9 at 12:04











      4














      Take the sequence that sweep the interval $[-1,1]$ by $1/2$ steps, then the interval $[-2,2]$ by $1/2^2$ steps, then the interval $[-n,n]$ by $1/2^n$ steps... and so on.



      You’ll be able to prove that every real is a limit point of that sequence.






      share|cite|improve this answer





















      • That's less intuitive at first!
        – gimusi
        Dec 9 at 12:01
















      4














      Take the sequence that sweep the interval $[-1,1]$ by $1/2$ steps, then the interval $[-2,2]$ by $1/2^2$ steps, then the interval $[-n,n]$ by $1/2^n$ steps... and so on.



      You’ll be able to prove that every real is a limit point of that sequence.






      share|cite|improve this answer





















      • That's less intuitive at first!
        – gimusi
        Dec 9 at 12:01














      4












      4








      4






      Take the sequence that sweep the interval $[-1,1]$ by $1/2$ steps, then the interval $[-2,2]$ by $1/2^2$ steps, then the interval $[-n,n]$ by $1/2^n$ steps... and so on.



      You’ll be able to prove that every real is a limit point of that sequence.






      share|cite|improve this answer












      Take the sequence that sweep the interval $[-1,1]$ by $1/2$ steps, then the interval $[-2,2]$ by $1/2^2$ steps, then the interval $[-n,n]$ by $1/2^n$ steps... and so on.



      You’ll be able to prove that every real is a limit point of that sequence.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered Dec 9 at 11:42









      mathcounterexamples.net

      24.1k21753




      24.1k21753












      • That's less intuitive at first!
        – gimusi
        Dec 9 at 12:01


















      • That's less intuitive at first!
        – gimusi
        Dec 9 at 12:01
















      That's less intuitive at first!
      – gimusi
      Dec 9 at 12:01




      That's less intuitive at first!
      – gimusi
      Dec 9 at 12:01











      3














      Rephrasing:



      Consider $a_n$, $n=1,2,3,3,....,$ the sequence of rational numbers. Recall that $mathbb{Q}$ is countable, hence can be written as a sequence $a_n$, $nin mathbb{N}$.



      Let $L in mathbb{R}$.



      Since $mathbb{Q}$ is dense in $mathbb{R}$, we can construct a subsequence $a_{n_k}$ that converges to $L$.






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        3














        Rephrasing:



        Consider $a_n$, $n=1,2,3,3,....,$ the sequence of rational numbers. Recall that $mathbb{Q}$ is countable, hence can be written as a sequence $a_n$, $nin mathbb{N}$.



        Let $L in mathbb{R}$.



        Since $mathbb{Q}$ is dense in $mathbb{R}$, we can construct a subsequence $a_{n_k}$ that converges to $L$.






        share|cite|improve this answer
























          3












          3








          3






          Rephrasing:



          Consider $a_n$, $n=1,2,3,3,....,$ the sequence of rational numbers. Recall that $mathbb{Q}$ is countable, hence can be written as a sequence $a_n$, $nin mathbb{N}$.



          Let $L in mathbb{R}$.



          Since $mathbb{Q}$ is dense in $mathbb{R}$, we can construct a subsequence $a_{n_k}$ that converges to $L$.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Rephrasing:



          Consider $a_n$, $n=1,2,3,3,....,$ the sequence of rational numbers. Recall that $mathbb{Q}$ is countable, hence can be written as a sequence $a_n$, $nin mathbb{N}$.



          Let $L in mathbb{R}$.



          Since $mathbb{Q}$ is dense in $mathbb{R}$, we can construct a subsequence $a_{n_k}$ that converges to $L$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 9 at 11:51









          Peter Szilas

          10.6k2720




          10.6k2720























              1














              Consider a general topological space $(X, mathscr{T})$ and a sequence of points $x in X^{mathbb{N}}$. One says that point $t in X$ is adherent to the sequence $x$ (some authors use the terminology 'cluster-point', but I don't fancy it so much) if:



              $$(forall V, n)(V in mathscr{V}_{mathscr{T}}(x) wedge n in mathbb{N} implies (exists m)(m geqslant n wedge x_m in V ))$$



              where $mathscr{V}_{mathscr{T}}(x)$ symbolizes the filter of neighbourhoods of point $x$ induced by the topology $mathscr{T}$. In a more descriptive fashion, $t$ is adherent to sequence $x$ if any neighbourhood of $t$ contains terms of arbitrarily high rank from the sequence $x$. If the filter of neighbourhoods of $t$ admits a countable base, then $t$ can be expressed as the limit of a subsequence of $x$. Therefore, in a space satisfying the First Axiom of Countability (i.e. all points have a countable base of neighbourhoods), the points adherent to a given sequence $x$ can be equivalently characterised as limits of subsequences of $x$.



              Now, if the space $X$ is non-empty and separable, let us fix a certain dense subset $T subseteq X$. As $X$ is non-empty, so must $T$ be. It is not difficult to show that a non-empty countable set $M$ admits a surjection $sigma: mathbb{N} rightarrow M$ such that for each $t in M$ the fibre $sigma^{-1}({t})$ be infinite.



              Consider such a surjection $sigma: mathbb{N} rightarrow T$ and define the sequence $t=(sigma(n))_{n in mathbb{N}}$ (which is actually the graphic of map $sigma$). The condition on the cardinality of the fibers ensures that any element $x in T$ is the limit of a (constant) subsequence of $t$. If we furthermore assume that the space $(X, mathscr{T})$ is $T_1$, then any $x in X setminus T$ will be an accumulation point of $T$ and thus necessarily adherent to sequence $t$.



              To conclude, given a topological space $(X, mathscr{T})$ that is non-empty, separable, first countable and $T_1$, one can always find a sequence $t$ of points within the space such that each element $x in X$ be expressible as the limit of a subsequence of $t$. This applies in particular to the topological space $(mathbb{R}, mathscr{O})$, where $mathscr{O}$ denotes the (usual) order topology.






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                1














                Consider a general topological space $(X, mathscr{T})$ and a sequence of points $x in X^{mathbb{N}}$. One says that point $t in X$ is adherent to the sequence $x$ (some authors use the terminology 'cluster-point', but I don't fancy it so much) if:



                $$(forall V, n)(V in mathscr{V}_{mathscr{T}}(x) wedge n in mathbb{N} implies (exists m)(m geqslant n wedge x_m in V ))$$



                where $mathscr{V}_{mathscr{T}}(x)$ symbolizes the filter of neighbourhoods of point $x$ induced by the topology $mathscr{T}$. In a more descriptive fashion, $t$ is adherent to sequence $x$ if any neighbourhood of $t$ contains terms of arbitrarily high rank from the sequence $x$. If the filter of neighbourhoods of $t$ admits a countable base, then $t$ can be expressed as the limit of a subsequence of $x$. Therefore, in a space satisfying the First Axiom of Countability (i.e. all points have a countable base of neighbourhoods), the points adherent to a given sequence $x$ can be equivalently characterised as limits of subsequences of $x$.



                Now, if the space $X$ is non-empty and separable, let us fix a certain dense subset $T subseteq X$. As $X$ is non-empty, so must $T$ be. It is not difficult to show that a non-empty countable set $M$ admits a surjection $sigma: mathbb{N} rightarrow M$ such that for each $t in M$ the fibre $sigma^{-1}({t})$ be infinite.



                Consider such a surjection $sigma: mathbb{N} rightarrow T$ and define the sequence $t=(sigma(n))_{n in mathbb{N}}$ (which is actually the graphic of map $sigma$). The condition on the cardinality of the fibers ensures that any element $x in T$ is the limit of a (constant) subsequence of $t$. If we furthermore assume that the space $(X, mathscr{T})$ is $T_1$, then any $x in X setminus T$ will be an accumulation point of $T$ and thus necessarily adherent to sequence $t$.



                To conclude, given a topological space $(X, mathscr{T})$ that is non-empty, separable, first countable and $T_1$, one can always find a sequence $t$ of points within the space such that each element $x in X$ be expressible as the limit of a subsequence of $t$. This applies in particular to the topological space $(mathbb{R}, mathscr{O})$, where $mathscr{O}$ denotes the (usual) order topology.






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  1












                  1








                  1






                  Consider a general topological space $(X, mathscr{T})$ and a sequence of points $x in X^{mathbb{N}}$. One says that point $t in X$ is adherent to the sequence $x$ (some authors use the terminology 'cluster-point', but I don't fancy it so much) if:



                  $$(forall V, n)(V in mathscr{V}_{mathscr{T}}(x) wedge n in mathbb{N} implies (exists m)(m geqslant n wedge x_m in V ))$$



                  where $mathscr{V}_{mathscr{T}}(x)$ symbolizes the filter of neighbourhoods of point $x$ induced by the topology $mathscr{T}$. In a more descriptive fashion, $t$ is adherent to sequence $x$ if any neighbourhood of $t$ contains terms of arbitrarily high rank from the sequence $x$. If the filter of neighbourhoods of $t$ admits a countable base, then $t$ can be expressed as the limit of a subsequence of $x$. Therefore, in a space satisfying the First Axiom of Countability (i.e. all points have a countable base of neighbourhoods), the points adherent to a given sequence $x$ can be equivalently characterised as limits of subsequences of $x$.



                  Now, if the space $X$ is non-empty and separable, let us fix a certain dense subset $T subseteq X$. As $X$ is non-empty, so must $T$ be. It is not difficult to show that a non-empty countable set $M$ admits a surjection $sigma: mathbb{N} rightarrow M$ such that for each $t in M$ the fibre $sigma^{-1}({t})$ be infinite.



                  Consider such a surjection $sigma: mathbb{N} rightarrow T$ and define the sequence $t=(sigma(n))_{n in mathbb{N}}$ (which is actually the graphic of map $sigma$). The condition on the cardinality of the fibers ensures that any element $x in T$ is the limit of a (constant) subsequence of $t$. If we furthermore assume that the space $(X, mathscr{T})$ is $T_1$, then any $x in X setminus T$ will be an accumulation point of $T$ and thus necessarily adherent to sequence $t$.



                  To conclude, given a topological space $(X, mathscr{T})$ that is non-empty, separable, first countable and $T_1$, one can always find a sequence $t$ of points within the space such that each element $x in X$ be expressible as the limit of a subsequence of $t$. This applies in particular to the topological space $(mathbb{R}, mathscr{O})$, where $mathscr{O}$ denotes the (usual) order topology.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  Consider a general topological space $(X, mathscr{T})$ and a sequence of points $x in X^{mathbb{N}}$. One says that point $t in X$ is adherent to the sequence $x$ (some authors use the terminology 'cluster-point', but I don't fancy it so much) if:



                  $$(forall V, n)(V in mathscr{V}_{mathscr{T}}(x) wedge n in mathbb{N} implies (exists m)(m geqslant n wedge x_m in V ))$$



                  where $mathscr{V}_{mathscr{T}}(x)$ symbolizes the filter of neighbourhoods of point $x$ induced by the topology $mathscr{T}$. In a more descriptive fashion, $t$ is adherent to sequence $x$ if any neighbourhood of $t$ contains terms of arbitrarily high rank from the sequence $x$. If the filter of neighbourhoods of $t$ admits a countable base, then $t$ can be expressed as the limit of a subsequence of $x$. Therefore, in a space satisfying the First Axiom of Countability (i.e. all points have a countable base of neighbourhoods), the points adherent to a given sequence $x$ can be equivalently characterised as limits of subsequences of $x$.



                  Now, if the space $X$ is non-empty and separable, let us fix a certain dense subset $T subseteq X$. As $X$ is non-empty, so must $T$ be. It is not difficult to show that a non-empty countable set $M$ admits a surjection $sigma: mathbb{N} rightarrow M$ such that for each $t in M$ the fibre $sigma^{-1}({t})$ be infinite.



                  Consider such a surjection $sigma: mathbb{N} rightarrow T$ and define the sequence $t=(sigma(n))_{n in mathbb{N}}$ (which is actually the graphic of map $sigma$). The condition on the cardinality of the fibers ensures that any element $x in T$ is the limit of a (constant) subsequence of $t$. If we furthermore assume that the space $(X, mathscr{T})$ is $T_1$, then any $x in X setminus T$ will be an accumulation point of $T$ and thus necessarily adherent to sequence $t$.



                  To conclude, given a topological space $(X, mathscr{T})$ that is non-empty, separable, first countable and $T_1$, one can always find a sequence $t$ of points within the space such that each element $x in X$ be expressible as the limit of a subsequence of $t$. This applies in particular to the topological space $(mathbb{R}, mathscr{O})$, where $mathscr{O}$ denotes the (usual) order topology.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 9 at 14:09









                  ΑΘΩ

                  2363




                  2363















                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

                      ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

                      Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?