Constructing an Open Cover for the Rational Numbers in the Interval [0, 1]

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bachelier
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around constructing an open cover for the rational numbers in the interval [0, 1] and [0, 2], specifically focusing on covers that do not have finite subcovers. Participants explore various approaches and mathematical constructs related to open covers in topology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests an open cover defined by intervals A_n = (1/(sqrt(2^n)) - 1/(2^10), 3) for the set of rational numbers in [0, 2].
  • Another participant critiques this approach, noting that it does not cover x=0 and x=2, proposing a modification to A_n = (-1, X_n) with a different scaling factor.
  • Some participants point out that the entire set of real numbers, R, serves as an open cover, but they emphasize the need for a cover without finite subcovers.
  • One participant proposes using disjoint open intervals to cover the set, defining r_n as a series that converges to a limit r.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of the intervals proposed, with one participant questioning the validity of using closed intervals as open sets.
  • Another participant clarifies that the limit r_n approaches sqrt(2), raising questions about the intuition behind using sqrt(2) in the context of the cover.
  • Participants discuss the implications of using irrational numbers in their proposed covers, noting that these numbers would not be included in the set of rational numbers.
  • One participant suggests a different cover for the set of rational numbers in [0, 1], using a union of intervals defined in relation to sqrt(2).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the construction of open covers, with no consensus reached on the best approach. There are multiple competing ideas and modifications proposed throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants assume specific topological properties of the rational numbers within the real numbers, which may influence their proposed covers. The discussion also highlights the challenge of ensuring that proposed covers consist solely of rational numbers.

Bachelier
Messages
375
Reaction score
0
Need an open cover with NO FINITE subcovers

{x ∈ Q : 0 ≤ x ≤ 2}

I was thinking: {A_n} n = 1 to infinity s.t.

A_n = (1/(sqrt 2^n) - 1/(2^10) , 3)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The following answer was given, I think it's wrong, for one, x=0 is not covered, and x= 2 is not neither. I think a way to correct it would be to choose A_n = (-1, X_n) and instead of √2 we should choose 2√2. What do you think?

The answer:
Because the rationals are dense in R we can construct an infinite collection of rational points that
get close to √2, but never reach it. Let x1 = 1/2 . Since x1 and √2 are real numbers, there is a rational number between them, call it x2. Now since x2 ∈ R, there is some rational number between x2 and √2, call it x3. Continue to get x1 < x2 < x3 < · · · < xn < · · · < √2. Now let An = (1, xn). Then J = {An} is an open cover of our set, but it has no finite subcover.
 
Bachelier said:
{x ∈ Q : 0 ≤ x ≤ 2}

I was thinking: {A_n} n = 1 to infinity s.t.

A_n = (1/(sqrt 2^n) - 1/(2^10) , 3)

Hmmm...well, [itex]\mathbb R[/itex] is an open cover of this set! After all, an open cover of [itex]S[/itex] is just a collection [itex]U_\alpha[/itex] of open sets such that [itex]S\subset \bigcup_\alpha U_\alpha[/itex]. Are you looking for an open cover with no finite subcover?
 
AxiomOfChoice said:
Hmmm...well, [itex]\mathbb R[/itex] is an open cover of this set! After all, an open cover of [itex]S[/itex] is just a collection [itex]U_\alpha[/itex] of open sets such that [itex]S\subset \bigcup_\alpha U_\alpha[/itex]. Are you looking for an open cover with no finite subcover?

exactly. With no finite subcovers
 
Try covering it with disjoint open intervals. E.g. ( [0,r_1) U (r_1,r_2) U (r_2,r_3) U ... ) U (r,2].

[tex]r_n = \sum^{n}_{k=1}sqrt(2)/2^k, \ \ r = \lim r_n[/tex]
 
Jarle said:
Try covering it with disjoint open intervals. E.g. ( [0,r_1) U (r_1,r_2) U (r_2,r_3) U ... ) U (r,2].

[tex]r_n = \sum^{n}_{k=1}sqrt(2)/2^k, \ \ r = \lim r_n[/tex]

How does that work? [itex][0,r_1)[/itex] and [itex](r,2][/itex] are not open sets. (By the way...what's your [itex]r[/itex] there?)
 
AxiomOfChoice said:
How does that work? [itex][0,r_1)[/itex] and [itex](r,2][/itex] are not open sets. (By the way...what's your [itex]r[/itex] there?)

I assume he is giving [0,2] cap Q the subspace topology of R. In which case e.g. [0,r_1) = (-1,r_1) cap ([0,2] cap Q), where (-1,r_1) is an open interval in R. Or just: if [0,2] cap Q has the order topology, then [0,a) is open since 0 is the least element.

I defined r as the limit of the r_n's above.
 
Jarle said:
I assume he is giving [0,2] cap Q the subspace topology of R. In which case e.g. [0,r_1) = (-1,r_1) cap ([0,2] cap Q), where (-1,r_1) is an open interval in R. Or just: if [0,2] cap Q has the order topology, then [0,a) is open since 0 is the least element.

I defined r as the limit of the r_n's above.

So the limit r in this case will approach sqrt 2, right?
 
Is there an intuition behind using the Sqrt 2?
 
  • #10
What would you recommend for {x ∈ Q : 0 ≤ x ≤ 1}?

with respect to another summation series
 
  • #11
[tex] r_n = \sum^{n}_{k=1}sqrt(2)/2^k * 1/1.4141..., \ \ r = \lim r_n[/tex]

to cover interval [0,1]
 
  • #12
Bachelier said:
Is there an intuition behind using the Sqrt 2?

The r_n's and r are irrational, so they are not in your set. If they were, it wouldn't be a cover. And yes, r = sqrt(2).

For your other set you could just divide the r_n's by 2...

Bachelier said:
[tex] r_n = \sum^{n}_{k=1}sqrt(2)/2^k * 1/1.4141..., \ \ r = \lim r_n[/tex]

to cover interval [0,1]



I don't know what you're trying to say here.
 
  • #13
Jarle said:
The r_n's and r are irrational, so they are not in your set. If they were, it wouldn't be a cover. And yes, r = sqrt(2).

For your other set you could just divide the r_n's by 2...I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Thanks Jarle. great work.

I think I found another cover for {x ∈ Q : 0 ≤ x ≤ 1}

Basically the union of R_n U R_0 such that R_n = (-1 , 1/sqrt(2) - 1/n ) and R_0 = ( 1/sqrt(2) , 2)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K