According to the document, if H is a point set, K is a finite point set, and p is a limit point of the union of H and K, then p must be a limit point of H. This is because finite point sets do not have limit points based on Corollary 1. And since any segment containing p cannot contain another point from the finite set K, p satisfies the definition of being a limit point for the set H. Therefore, if p is a limit point of H union K, it specifically must be a limit point of H.
According to the document, if H is a point set, K is a finite point set, and p is a limit point of the union of H and K, then p must be a limit point of H. This is because finite point sets do not have limit points based on Corollary 1. And since any segment containing p cannot contain another point from the finite set K, p satisfies the definition of being a limit point for the set H. Therefore, if p is a limit point of H union K, it specifically must be a limit point of H.
According to the document, if H is a point set, K is a finite point set, and p is a limit point of the union of H and K, then p must be a limit point of H. This is because finite point sets do not have limit points based on Corollary 1. And since any segment containing p cannot contain another point from the finite set K, p satisfies the definition of being a limit point for the set H. Therefore, if p is a limit point of H union K, it specifically must be a limit point of H.
Let H be a point set and K be a nite point set. Let p be a limit point of H K. According to corollary 1, nite point sets do not have limit points. Thus there exists a segment (u,v) containing p that does not contain a distinct point from P. Denition 5 states that the point p is a limit point of an arbitrary set if each segment containing p contains a point in the set distinct from p. If the arbitrary segment (a, b) (u, v ), then p must be a limit point of (a,b) or (u,v). Since p cannot be a limit point of K, then p must be a limit point of H.