My Math Forum  

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

Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
June 28th, 2013, 10:37 AM   #1
 
Joined: Nov 2011

Posts: 599
Thanks: 0

Question

Let D = { 0.1011..., 0.110111..., 0.1110111..., ... }

Let E = { 0.111..., 0.1011..., 0.110111..., 0.1110111..., ... }

Both sets have a cardinality equal to aleph null.

If E is well ordered, then does it have a last element?

Does well ordering E change its cardinality?
krausebj0 is offline  
 
June 28th, 2013, 10:43 AM   #2
Global Moderator
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 12,864
Thanks: 95

Re: Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by krausebj0
Let D = { 0.1011..., 0.110111..., 0.1110111..., }

Let E = { 0.111..., 0.1011..., 0.110111..., 0.1110111..., }

Both sets have a cardinality equal to aleph null.

If E is well ordered, then does it have a last element?
What is a "last element"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by krausebj0
Does well ordering E change its cardinality?
No.
CRGreathouse is offline  
June 28th, 2013, 10:44 AM   #3
 
Joined: Nov 2011

Posts: 599
Thanks: 0

Re: Question

0.111... would be greater than any element of D. If E is well ordered, then D is a subset of E (D is a subset of E regardless). 0.111... would be the last element of E, right?
krausebj0 is offline  
June 28th, 2013, 10:55 AM   #4
 
Joined: Nov 2011

Posts: 599
Thanks: 0

Re: Question

Here is what you are not realizing.

D = E
krausebj0 is offline  
June 28th, 2013, 10:58 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 385
Thanks: 3

Re: Question

I better get in quick before this thread gets locked.

@krausebj0, I was amused by your thread over at Physicsforum. They not only locked your thread, they deleted it entirely. That's pretty rare even for the moderators over at that place. I don't even post there anymore because their moderators are so quick to lock threads they don't like. But getting your entire thread actually deleted as if it never existed ... that's pretty impressivel

I did find it interesting that you got one poster to read your stuff in detail, and he came up with the same concern I did ... namely, that your assignment of a sequence of "random" reals to subsets of D is not well defined and does not yield a bijection.

In fact by considering the infinite binary tree of zeros and ones I convinced myself that you can never biject the reals to the dyadics that way. In other words if you take a real .0101001100101... and assign it to the subset of its "go to the next 1" initial sequences .01, .0101, ... you can never get a bijection that way.

It's true that since D is countable, you can biject it to any countable set of reals. However the "initial segment" correspondence can never be a bijection, as you can see from contemplating the infinite binary tree. I think there's a diagonal argument in there but I didn't work out all the details.

So if you take a countable set of reals and biject it to D, that bijection can never be compatible with the "initial segment" correspondence you are considering.

You really should carefully reconsider your steps 3 and 4, because your process is not well-defined and in fact can never result in a bijection. That's the heart of the failure of your argument.
Maschke is offline  
June 28th, 2013, 11:09 AM   #6
 
Joined: Nov 2011

Posts: 599
Thanks: 0

Re: Question

Ai is bounded.

If Ai is not bounded, then Ai = 0.10111..., 0.110111..., 0.1110111..., is an infinite sequence.

If Ai is bounded, then the above is not an infinite sequence.

Ai is only infinitely large if A = D.
krausebj0 is offline  
June 28th, 2013, 11:10 AM   #7
 
Joined: Nov 2011

Posts: 599
Thanks: 0

Re: Question

If you wish to discuss my previous paper here, I can make a surjection from D onto RI just by making sure A = D. Ai is bounded.
krausebj0 is offline  
June 28th, 2013, 11:11 AM   #8
 
Joined: Nov 2011

Posts: 599
Thanks: 0

Re: Question

Back to the point.

Can anyone prove that E does not equal D?
krausebj0 is offline  
June 28th, 2013, 11:13 AM   #9
Global Moderator
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 12,864
Thanks: 95

Re: Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by krausebj0
0.111... would be greater than any element of D. If E is well ordered, then D is a subset of E (D is a subset of E regardless). 0.111... would be the last element of E, right?
You haven't defined "last element", nor explained its connection to your other question.
CRGreathouse is offline  
June 28th, 2013, 11:14 AM   #10
 
Joined: Nov 2011

Posts: 599
Thanks: 0

Re: Question

If nobody can prove that E does not equal D, then I assert E equals D. Once I assert that, you guys better stop locking my threads.
krausebj0 is offline  
June 28th, 2013, 11:15 AM   #11
Global Moderator
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 12,864
Thanks: 95

Re: Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by krausebj0
If you wish to discuss my previous paper here
Not allowed. But so far we've managed to keep this thread separate and I have high hopes that it can continue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krausebj0
Can anyone prove that E does not equal D?
You haven't defined them.
CRGreathouse is offline  
June 28th, 2013, 11:16 AM   #12
 
Joined: Nov 2011

Posts: 599
Thanks: 0

Re: Question

Both E and D are defined. I am using only induction, if you must get really technical.
krausebj0 is offline  
June 28th, 2013, 11:23 AM   #13
 
Joined: Nov 2011

Posts: 599
Thanks: 0

Re: Question

Sorry CRG. I just do not cough up edited posts every time.

Let D = { 0.1011..., 0.110111..., 0.1110111..., ... }

Let E = { 0.111..., 0.1011..., 0.110111..., 0.1110111..., ... }


I put the ... in each set. Is that better?
krausebj0 is offline  
June 28th, 2013, 11:24 AM   #14
Global Moderator
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 12,864
Thanks: 95

Re: Question

Giving examples separated by ellipses is not the same as a definition.
CRGreathouse is offline  
June 28th, 2013, 11:27 AM   #15
 
Joined: Nov 2011

Posts: 599
Thanks: 0

Re: Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse
Giving examples separated by ellipses is not the same as a definition.
Then for crying out loud. What is your definition of E and D?
krausebj0 is offline  
Closed Thread

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Tags
question


Thread Tools
Display Modes






Copyright © 2014 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.