Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around proving that the set of natural numbers not divisible by 3 is countable. Participants explore various approaches to establish a suitable mapping to or from the natural numbers, addressing both the need for a bijection and the implications of countability.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Mathematical reasoning
- Debate/contested
Main Points Raised
- One participant requests a hint for proving that the set of natural numbers not divisible by 3 is countable by providing a suitable map.
- Another participant questions the notation used, seeking clarification on the meaning of symbols like E and Z in the context of natural numbers.
- A clarification is made regarding the notation, indicating that N refers to the set of natural numbers and nEN means 'n is an element of N'.
- One participant suggests that the set of natural numbers not divisible by 3 is an infinite subset of the naturals and thus countably infinite, implying a bijection exists without explicitly providing one.
- Another participant emphasizes that the question explicitly asks for a suitable map as part of the proof.
- A proposed mapping is presented, where natural numbers not divisible by 3 are expressed in terms of two distinct forms (3n-1 and 3n-2) based on whether n is even or odd, with a function defined to demonstrate this mapping.
- A participant asks for a proof that the proposed function is a bijection.
- Another participant states that since the set in question is a subset of the naturals, it is countable, referencing a theorem that any subset of a countable set is also countable, suggesting that a bijection is not necessary to demonstrate countability.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on the necessity of providing a bijection to prove countability. While some argue that a bijection is required, others contend that the set being a subset of the naturals suffices to establish countability without one.
Contextual Notes
There are unresolved questions regarding the notation used and the clarity of the original problem statement. Additionally, the discussion reflects varying levels of mathematical sophistication among participants.