MHB [a,b) and (a,b) are equinumerous

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on demonstrating that the interval [a,b) is equinumerous with (a,b) by finding a bijective function. It is noted that while the inclusion mapping from (a,b) to [a,b) is injective, it is not surjective since it cannot map to the endpoint a. A suggestion is made to simplify the problem by considering the specific case where a = 0 and b = 1. A piecewise-defined function is proposed to create a bijection, specifically mapping 0 to 1/2 and 1/n to 1/(n+1) for n ≥ 2, while leaving all other numbers unchanged. This approach aims to establish the desired equivalence between the two intervals.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hi! (Smile)

I want to show that the interval $[a,b)$ is equinumerous with this one: $(a,b)$.
How could we find a bijective function from $[a,b)$ to $(a,b)$? (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, $(a,b) \subset [a,b)$. Wouldn't this solve everything?
 
Fantini said:
Well, $(a,b) \subset [a,b)$. Wouldn't this solve everything?

Not exactly. The inclusion mapping $i : (a,b)\to [a,b)$, although injective, is not surjective: there is no $x \in (a,b)$ such that $i(x) = a$.

Evinda, I suggest first considering the case $a = 0$ and $b = 1$. Construct a bijection $f : [0,1) \to (0,1)$ using a piecewise-defined function.
 
Euge said:
Evinda, I suggest first considering the case $a = 0$ and $b = 1$. Construct a bijection $f : [0,1) \to (0,1)$ using a piecewise-defined function.

What piecewise-defined function could we use? :confused:
 
Map $0$ to $1/2$ and $1/n$ to $1/(n+1)$ for $n\ge2$. All other numbers are mapped to themselves.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K