Cantor's intersection theorem (Apostol)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion revolves around Cantor's intersection theorem as presented in "Mathematical Analysis" by Apostol, specifically theorem 3.25. The theorem asserts that if a sequence of nested sets contains infinitely many points, their intersection is non-empty. If any of the nested sets are finite, the intersection becomes trivial as the sets eventually stabilize, leading to a non-empty intersection. The key takeaway is that the proof hinges on the assumption of infinite sets to avoid triviality.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of nested sets in set theory
  • Familiarity with Cantor's intersection theorem
  • Basic concepts of mathematical analysis
  • Knowledge of finite and infinite sets
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof of Cantor's intersection theorem in detail
  • Explore the implications of nested sets in topology
  • Learn about the properties of infinite sets in set theory
  • Investigate related theorems in mathematical analysis
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematical analysis, mathematicians interested in set theory, and anyone studying Cantor's intersection theorem and its implications.

mr.tea
Messages
101
Reaction score
12
Hi,

I am reading "mathematical analysis" by Apostol right now for a course in analysis. Since I am trying to understand the author's proof of the above theorem(3.25 in the book), but I have something that I can't understand.
He assumes that each of the nested sets contains infinitely many points, "...otherwise, the proof is trivial". I can't see why it's trivial and how to prove it. I would be grateful to understand why an infinite intersection of finite sets is non-empty.

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mr.tea said:
Hi,

I am reading "mathematical analysis" by Apostol right now for a course in analysis. Since I am trying to understand the author's proof of the above theorem(3.25 in the book), but I have something that I can't understand.
He assumes that each of the nested sets contains infinitely many points, "...otherwise, the proof is trivial". I can't see why it's trivial and how to prove it. I would be grateful to understand why an infinite intersection of finite sets is non-empty.

Thank you.
You have the non-empty nested sets ##C_0 ⊇ C_1 ⊇ ... ⊇ C_k ⊇ ...##.
Assume ##C_k## is finite for some k. Then all the ##C_j## with ##j>k## will also be finite, and equal to or smaller than ##C_k##. As the number of elements in the sets of the sequence is decreasing, at a certain point in the sequence the number of elements will decrease no more (as it can't become 0).
From that point, all ##C_j## will be equal.
Hence the intersection will trivially not be empty
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mr.tea
Samy_A said:
You have the non-empty nested sets ##C_0 ⊇ C_1 ⊇ ... ⊇ C_k ⊇ ...##.
Assume ##C_k## is finite for some k. Then all the ##C_j## with ##j>k## will also be finite, and equal to or smaller than ##C_k##. As the number of elements in the sequence is decreasing, at a certain point in the sequence the number of elements will decrease no more (as it can't become 0).
From that point, all ##C_j## will be equal.
Hence the intersection will trivially not be empty

Wow, thank you. What I missed was your note in the parenthesis. I feel embarrassed not noticing it.

Thank you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K