My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
December 13th, 2016, 04:10 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: USA

Posts: 308
Thanks: 21

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:
|$\mathbb{R}(0,1)$| = |$\mathbb{R}$| = |$\mathbb{N}$| = |$\mathbb{Z}$|.
AplanisTophet is offline  
 
December 14th, 2016, 09:05 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: USA

Posts: 308
Thanks: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by AplanisTophet View Post
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.
AplanisTophet is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Tags
continuum, hypothesis



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question about continuum hypothesis WHapp Number Theory 4 June 22nd, 2016 05:39 AM
Continuous set and continuum hypothesis Pengkuan Math 11 December 14th, 2015 02:17 PM
A word in favor of Continuum Hypothesis hofhile Applied Math 10 May 25th, 2014 12:38 PM
Disproof of Continuum Hypothesis - cardinality is continuous BenFRayfield Number Theory 4 May 23rd, 2013 04:58 AM
Questions on infinities order and Continuum hypothesis. Eureka Applied Math 6 November 22nd, 2011 08:55 AM





Copyright © 2017 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.