Does Anyone Understand the Conway Base 13 Function?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LukeD
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Base Function
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Conway base 13 function serves as a counterexample to the converse of the Intermediate Value Theorem, demonstrating that a function can be discontinuous while still mapping between two values in the interval (0,1). The Wikipedia article lacks clarity in defining the function, leading to confusion regarding its properties, including whether it is a surjection to (0,1). For a more detailed understanding, readers are encouraged to refer to the elaborated paper linked in the discussion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Intermediate Value Theorem
  • Familiarity with the concepts of continuity and discontinuity in functions
  • Basic knowledge of real analysis
  • Ability to interpret mathematical definitions and theorems
NEXT STEPS
  • Read the elaborated paper on the Conway base 13 function for a comprehensive definition
  • Explore the implications of discontinuous functions in real analysis
  • Investigate other counterexamples to the Intermediate Value Theorem
  • Study the properties of surjective functions and their relevance in mathematical analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and educators seeking to deepen their understanding of discontinuous functions and their implications in the context of the Intermediate Value Theorem.

LukeD
Messages
354
Reaction score
3
So I was browsing Wikipedia, and I stumbled across this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway_base_13_function

The article claims that the Conway base 13 function, as a function from (0,1) to the reals is a counter example to the converse of the Intermediate Value Theorem (i.e., that for any a, b in (0,1) if f(a) < f(b), then for any c between f(a) and f(b), there is an x between a and b such that f(x) = c, but the function is not continuous)

The function sounds like it is very interesting; however, the article as written is very sparse and the definition of the function is not very clear to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the definition, but as it's written, it doesn't even seem to be a surjection to (0,1) though the article claims that it is.

Unfortunately, a google search of the function didn't bring anything up other than the wikipedia article. Is there anyone who understands this function who could give clear definition of it?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Here is a more elaborated paper:
https://www.uccs.edu/Documents/goman/Converse%20of%20IVT.pdf
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K