Constructive bijection between [0,1] and R?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nomadreid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bijection
Click For Summary
A bijection between the closed interval [0,1] and the real numbers ℝ can be constructed using a defined function g that maps real numbers while avoiding specific integers. By combining g with an existing bijection f from the open interval (0,1) to ℝ, a new function h is created that serves as a bijection from [0,1] to ℝ. This construction demonstrates that while the bijection is not continuous, it is still valid. The approach is appreciated for its elegance and simplicity. The discussion highlights the feasibility of such a bijection in set theory.
nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,762
Reaction score
248
It is easy to construct a bijection between the open interval (0,1) and ℝ, and (if one isn't an intuitionist) it is easy to prove that there exists a bijection between [0,1] and ℝ, but is it possible to construct such a bijection between [0,1] and ℝ? Obviously it won't be continuous, but that's OK.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Define g: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} by <br /> g : x \mapsto \begin{cases} x, &amp; x \neq 0, 1, 2, 3, \dots, \\<br /> x + 2, &amp; x = 0, 1, 2, 3, \dots .\end{cases} Note that g is an injection and its image is \mathbb{R} \setminus \{0,1\}.

Now take any bijection f: (0,1) \to \mathbb{R}, and define h: [0,1] \to \mathbb{R} by <br /> h: x \mapsto \begin{cases} (g \circ f)(x), &amp; x \in (0,1), \\<br /> 0, &amp; x = 0, \\<br /> 1, &amp; x = 1.\end{cases} Then h is a bijection.
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara, nomadreid and FactChecker
Ooooh, that's elegant. I like it! Thanks very much, pasmith. :smile:
 
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 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K