Construct uncountably dense and holes everywhere

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jostpuur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Holes
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the construction of a set X within the interval [0,1] that is uncountably dense and has the property that both the intersection and complement of X with any subinterval [a,b] are uncountable. Participants explore various definitions and properties of such a set, particularly focusing on the measure of X and its complement.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant initially seeks to define a set X without using the axiom of choice, aiming for both [a,b]∩X and [a,b]\X to be uncountable for all subintervals [a,b] within [0,1].
  • Another participant proposes a specific definition for X, consisting of irrationals whose decimal expansions contain only finitely many 0s and 9s, claiming it is uncountably dense in [0,1].
  • There is a discussion on the measure of the proposed set, with one participant suggesting that the measure m*(X) could be 0, while another expresses interest in whether it can be defined such that 0 < m*(X) < 1.
  • Participants engage in a technical exploration of how to calculate the measure of X by removing segments from [0,1], leading to confusion about the implications of removing these segments on the density of X.
  • One participant acknowledges the need to reintegrate the rationals after removing segments, noting that the rationals have measure zero and questioning how this affects the measure of X.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the definition of X, with one participant correcting their earlier misunderstanding about the nature of the elements in X.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the properties and measure of the set X, with no consensus reached on the exact measure or the implications of removing segments from [0,1]. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the optimal definition of X that satisfies the initial conditions.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of defining the measure of X and its complement, as well as the implications of including or excluding certain segments from the interval [0,1]. There is an ongoing uncertainty about how these definitions interact with the properties of density and measure.

jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
I want to define a set X\subset [0,1], without using the axiom of choice, with the following property: Both [a,b]\cap X and [a,b]\backslash X are uncountable for all [a,b]\subset [0,1] where a&lt;b.

I don't know how to define X so that [a,b]\cap X would always be uncountable without X containing some interval. But if it contains some interval, then [a,b]\backslash X will be empty sometimes.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Never mind. I invented a solution now.

Now the problem is left as a challenge to the rest.
 
My solution has the property m^*(X)=0. I'm still interested to know if the X can be defined in such way that 0&lt;m^*(X)&lt; 1.
 
jostpuur said:
I want to define a set X\subset [0,1], without using the axiom of choice, with the following property: Both [a,b]\cap X and [a,b]\backslash X are uncountable for all [a,b]\subset [0,1] where a&lt;b.

I don't know how to define X so that [a,b]\cap X would always be uncountable without X containing some interval. But if it contains some interval, then [a,b]\backslash X will be empty sometimes.

Consider X:=\{x\in[0,1]\backslash \mathbb{Q}: \text{the decimal expansion of } x \text{ contains only finitely many, say, }0\text{&#039;s and }9\text{&#039;s}\}. This set is uncountably dense in [0,1] and so is its complement, though I'm not sure about their measures.
 
jibbles said:
Consider X:=\{x\in[0,1]\backslash \mathbb{Q}: \text{the decimal expansion of } x \text{ contains only finitely many, say, }0\text{&#039;s and }9\text{&#039;s}\}. This set is uncountably dense in [0,1] and so is its complement, though I'm not sure about their measures.

I think you can calculate its measure like this:

Start with 0: if there are no 0's in the expansion, then you remove from [0,1]:

i.1)The segment from 0 to 0.1 , with measure 0.1

ii.1)The segment from 0.1 to 0.11 , with measure 0.01

n.1)The segment from 0.11111 ( n 1's) to 0.111111 (n+1-ones)

i.2) The segment from 0.2 to 0.21

...

And you do the same thing by removing the segments :

i.1') From 0.9 to 1

ii.1') From 0.09 to 0.1

etc.
 
Bacle2 said:
I think you can calculate its measure like this:

Start with 0: if there are no 0's in the expansion, then you remove from [0,1]:

i.1)The segment from 0 to 0.1 , with measure 0.1

ii.1)The segment from 0.1 to 0.11 , with measure 0.01

n.1)The segment from 0.11111 ( n 1's) to 0.111111 (n+1-ones)

i.2) The segment from 0.2 to 0.21

...

And you do the same thing by removing the segments :

i.1') From 0.9 to 1

ii.1') From 0.09 to 0.1

etc.

I'm confused. If X is dense in [0,1], wouldn't removing segments of [0,1] also be removing chunks of X? ... or maybe I'm the one being dense.
 
jibbles said:
I'm confused. If X is dense in [0,1], wouldn't removing segments of [0,1] also be removing chunks of X? ... or maybe I'm the one being dense.

Actually, you are right in that I should throw the rationals back-in after removing all the
other parts. If this is what you meant, you're right --but remember that the Rationals
have measure zero. If not, please read-on:

Modulo the above, I don't think so; you are removing chunks of [0,1] itself, and X is what remains after all these parts are removed and you throw Q back-in. After you remove all the chunks between a_n=0 and a_(n+1) for n≥1 , same for a_n=9 , then removing all the points in
the segment/interval [an,an+1 ], you will remove all the Irrationals
with either 0-or-9 in their decimal expansion, BUT you will also remove the Rationals in the segment. Then you can throw the Rationals back-in. But remember that the Rationals have
Lebesgue measure zero, so removing the whole chunk with Rationals included will not affect
the measure of the remaining set.
 
Bacle2 said:
Actually, you are right in that I should throw the rationals back-in after removing all the
other parts. If this is what you meant, you're right --but remember that the Rationals
have measure zero. If not, please read-on:

Modulo the above, I don't think so; you are removing chunks of [0,1] itself, and X is what remains after all these parts are removed and you throw Q back-in. After you remove all the chunks between a_n=0 and a_(n+1) for n≥1 , same for a_n=9 , then removing all the points in
the segment/interval [an,an+1 ], you will remove all the Irrationals
with either 0-or-9 in their decimal expansion, BUT you will also remove the Rationals in the segment. Then you can throw the Rationals back-in. But remember that the Rationals have
Lebesgue measure zero, so removing the whole chunk with Rationals included will not affect
the measure of the remaining set.
But there are elements of X in all those segments you're removing. Let me repeat: X is the set of all irrationals whose decimal expansion contains at most finitely many 0s and 9s. So, for example, 0.00125225222522225 ... (nonrepeating sequence) is an element of X in [0, 0.1].
 
Sorry, I misread the definition of your set; I thought it was the collection of irrationals that contained neither a zero nor a nine in their expansion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K