3

Suppose that we have a non-empty set called $X\subseteq \Bbb R$. The derivative $DX\neq \emptyset$ (I not want to consider particular cases - see the comments -) of a set is constituted by the accumulation points of $X$. But if I consider $D(D(X))$, i.e. the derivative of the derivative of $X$, surely it's still a derivative set.

Is it possible it could be $D(D(X))\subseteq DX$? What happens if is there a sequence of derivative sets? In other words, is it possible that $$D(D(D(\cdots(X))))=\emptyset$$ if $X\neq \emptyset$ or is there always an empty-set $Y=D(D(D(\cdots(X))))\neq\emptyset$?

Calvin Khor
  • 34,903
Sebastiano
  • 7,649

1 Answers1

4

As mentioned in the comment, googling Cantor-Bendixson rank may help you, and if you know something about ordinal numbers you may find it easier to understand.

I don't understand your question very well. $D(D(X))\subseteq D(X)$ always holds for $X\subseteq\mathbb{R}$ because $D(X)$ is a closed set. I guess you may be asking whether for any $n$ there exists some $X$ such that $D^{(n)}(X)\neq\emptyset$, where $D^{(n)}(X)$ means taking derivative repeatedly for $n$ times. This is indeed possible. For some complicated $X$ it may even happen that $D^{(n)}(X)\neq\emptyset$ for every $n$; furthermore the intersection of all these things, namely $\bigcap_{n=1}^{\infty}D^{(n)}(X)$, could be non-empty; call this intersection $D^{(\omega)}(X)$ and we can keep iterating, obtaining $D^{(\omega+1)}(X)$, $D^{(\omega+2)}(X)$, $D^{(\omega+\omega)}(X)$, etc.

To see why is that possible, let us first consider the simplest case when $D(X)$ contains exactly one point. An example is $X=\{-1,-\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{4},...,-\frac{1}{2^m},...\}\cup\{0\}$. All those negative points are isolated, though they become closer and closer to each other until they "cluster" at $0$. Now $D(X)$ means to throw away all isolated points, so we have the point $0$ left, i.e., $D(X)=\{0\}.$ If we take the derivative of $D(X)$, since $0$ is clearly isolated in $\{0\}$, we have nothing left, $D(D(X))=\emptyset$.

Now to get some $Y$ such that $D(D(Y))\neq\emptyset$, we "place a copy of $X$ at every isolated point of $X$" ($X$ is same as before). It is better to imagine the picture; if written down $Y$ could be something like $X\cup\{-\frac{1}{2^m}-\frac{1}{2^{m+k}}\mid m,k\geq 1\}$. Every point in the original $X$, say $-\frac{1}{2^m}$, becomes non-isolated because it is approached by the sequence $(-\frac{1}{2^{m+k}})_{k\geq 1}$ from the left ($0$ of course remains non-isolated in $Y$), while all these new points $-\frac{1}{2^{m+k}}$ are isolated. Therefore $D(Y)=X$, and by previous paragraph we see $D(D(Y))=D(X)=\{0\}$, and $D(D(D(Y)))=\emptyset$. Using this method we can obtain set $Z$ such that $D^{(n)}(Z)$ vanishes exactly at any desired stage $n$.

To get an $X$ such that $D^{(n)}(X)$ is non-empty for every $n$, we just take the union of previously constructed $X_n$ such that $D^{(n)}(X_n)$ is non-empty, that is $X=\bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty}X_n$ ,and notice that since $X\supseteq X_{n}$ for every $n$, and since $A\supseteq B$ implies $D(A)\supseteq D(B)$, we have $D^{(n)}(X)$ non-empty for every $n$.

In essence, what we are doing is just mapping countable ordinal numbers into the real line. The order type of the $X$ defined above is called $\omega+1$, because there are $\omega$ or infinitely many points (those $-\frac{1}{2^{m}}$'s) followed by one point (which is $0$). The order type of $Y$ is $\omega$-many $X$'s followed by a point, and therefore is $\omega\times\omega+1$, also denoted as $\omega^{2}+1$, etc. By the so called transfinite induction we can map any countable ordinal $\alpha$ into the real line, and thus obtain $X$ such that $D^{(\alpha)}(X)$ vanishes exactly at any desired stage $\alpha$.

183orbco3
  • 1,441
  • 1
    +1 for a nice answer that I didn't have time to attempt, and apparently which no one else did until now. Possibly you already know this, but this idea of limit points of limit points of limit points etc. is the actual concept G. Cantor was dealing with when he began his excursions into transfinite notions in the early 1870s. See the references in these comments. – Dave L. Renfro Aug 19 '20 at 07:39
  • Thank you very much...for your answer. I have not understood nothing...But it is not important ahah. :-) and I have appreciated also your effort. – Sebastiano Aug 19 '20 at 12:10