MHB Continuous Functions - Thomae's Function ....

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading "Introduction to Real Analysis" (Fourth Edition) b Robert G Bartle and Donald R Sherbert ...

I am focused on Chapter 5: Continuous Functions ...

I need help in fully understanding an aspect of Example 5.1.6 (h) ...Example 5.1.6 (h) ... ... reads as follows:
View attachment 7262In the above text from Bartle and Sherbert, we read the following:

" ... ... There are only a finite number of rationals with denominator less than $$n_0 $$in the interval $$( b - 1, b + 1)$$. (Why? ) ... ... Can someone explain to me why the above statement holds true?Help will be appreciated ... ...

Peter*** EDIT ***

... oh ... just realized that if denominator has to be less than $$n_0$$ then there can only be, at most, $$n_0 -1$$ of these rational numbers ... that is ... a finite number! ... ... ... Is that correct!

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose that $k$ is a positive integer less than $n_0$. The distance between consecutive rational numbers with denominator $k$ is $1/k$. So there at most $k$ such numbers in an interval of length $1$. Therefore there are at most $2k$ such numbers in the interval $(b-1,b+1)$, which has length $2$.

Thus for each of the finitely many numbers $k$ ($1\leqslant k\leqslant n_0$) there are only finitely many rational numbers with denominator $k$ in the interval $(b-1,b+1)$. But a finite union of finite sets is finite. Thus there are only finitely many rational numbers with denominator $\leqslant n_0$ in the interval $(b-1,b+1)$.
 
Opalg said:
Suppose that $k$ is a positive integer less than $n_0$. The distance between consecutive rational numbers with denominator $k$ is $1/k$. So there at most $k$ such numbers in an interval of length $1$. Therefore there are at most $2k$ such numbers in the interval $(b-1,b+1)$, which has length $2$.

Thus for each of the finitely many numbers $k$ ($1\leqslant k\leqslant n_0$) there are only finitely many rational numbers with denominator $k$ in the interval $(b-1,b+1)$. But a finite union of finite sets is finite. Thus there are only finitely many rational numbers with denominator $\leqslant n_0$ in the interval $(b-1,b+1)$.
Hmm ... really interesting ...

Required a more thoughtful analysis than my first intuitive reaction ...:( ...

Thanks for the help ... enables me to see what is required in analysis ...

Peter
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

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