My Math Forum Continuum Hypothesis

 Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum

 December 13th, 2016, 05:10 AM #1 Senior Member   Joined: Jun 2014 From: USA Posts: 256 Thanks: 12 Continuum Hypothesis 1) Let $q_1, q_2, q_3,$ … be an enumeration of $A = \mathbb{Q} \cap \mathbb{R}(0, 1)$. 2) For any $r \in \mathbb{R}(0, 1)$, let $B_r = \mathbb{Q} \cap \mathbb{R}(-r, 1-r)$. 3) For each $r \in \mathbb{R}(0,1)$, there exists one and only one $k_r \in A$ such that $f:A \rightarrow B_r$ is a bijection where $f(a) = a - k_r$. Note that $z:\mathbb{R}(0, 1) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}(-r, 1-r)$ is a bijection where $z(x) = x – r$. If $q \in A \land r \notin A$, then $z(q) = q – r \notin B_r$ because the difference between a rational number and an irrational number is not a rational number. Therefore, $f(q) \neq z(q) \Rightarrow k_r – r = t \land t \neq 0$. 4) If $r, s \in \mathbb{R}(0,1)$, then $r \neq s \Rightarrow k_r \neq k_s$. 5) If $r, s \in \mathbb{R}(0,1)$, then $k_r \neq k_s \Rightarrow r \neq s$. 6) Therefore, $r, s \in \mathbb{R}(0,1) \land r \neq s \iff k_r \neq k_s$. Let $g(k_r) = r$ for any $r \in \mathbb{R}(0, 1)$. 7) Let $C = g(q_1), g(q_2), g(q_3),$ … = $\mathbb{R}(0,1)$. The Continuum Hypothesis states “there is no set whose cardinality is strictly between that of the integers and the real numbers.” Where $C = \mathbb{R}(0, 1)$, this statement is true because: |$\mathbb{R}(0,1)$| = |$\mathbb{R}$| = |$\mathbb{N}$| = |$\mathbb{Z}$|.
December 14th, 2016, 10:05 AM   #2
Senior Member

Joined: Jun 2014
From: USA

Posts: 256
Thanks: 12

Quote:
 Originally Posted by AplanisTophet 3) For each $r \in \mathbb{R}(0,1)$, there exists one and only one $k_r \in A$ such that $f:A \rightarrow B_r$ is a bijection where $f(a) = a - k_r$. Note that $z:\mathbb{R}(0, 1) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}(-r, 1-r)$ is a bijection where $z(x) = x – r$. If $q \in A \land r \notin A$, then $z(q) = q – r \notin B_r$ because the difference between a rational number and an irrational number is not a rational number. Therefore, $f(q) \neq z(q) \Rightarrow k_r – r = t \land t \neq 0$.
This appears to be the faulty statement. I apologize for not putting a crankery warning on this post as I should have. I'm not so naive to think there wasn't something wrong and I thank everyone here for not jumping on me for it. I got caught up in a line of thinking over the past few days that blinded me a little (odd how that works) so will take some time to think it over more.

 Tags continuum, hypothesis

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post WHapp Number Theory 4 June 22nd, 2016 05:39 AM Pengkuan Math 11 December 14th, 2015 03:17 PM hofhile Applied Math 10 May 25th, 2014 12:38 PM BenFRayfield Number Theory 4 May 23rd, 2013 04:58 AM Eureka Applied Math 6 November 22nd, 2011 09:55 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top