Help understanding a proof

  • Thread starter trash
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, the conversation discusses a proof that the set of functions from the integers to the interval [0,1] is uncountable. The proof involves constructing a new function that is different from every function in an assumed countable list of functions. However, the proof is incorrect as it does not properly define the constructed function and does not consider the domain of the functions. A corrected version of the proof is provided, which uses a bijection to construct a function that is not in the list. Another example is given to show that a set of functions from [0,1] to the integers can be defined in an uncountable manner.
  • #1
trash
14
0
I'm reading about countable and uncountable sets, I found the following statement: "The set of the functions from [itex]\mathbb{Z}[/itex] to [itex][0,1][/itex] is uncountable" with the following proof: "To see that, suppose the set countable having the list [itex]\{f_1,f_2,\dots\}[/itex] and define [itex]f(x) = f_n(1/n)[/itex] if [itex]x=1/n[/itex] and [itex]f(x)=0[/itex] if [itex]x\neq 1/n[/itex] for any n".

Could someone explain this proof further?. It seems to me that he is trying to construct a function that is different from every [itex]f_i[/itex], but I don't see how the new function is necessarily different from every [itex]f_i[/itex], can't we have the possibility that all the functions have the same values at [itex]1/n[/itex] for every [itex]n[/itex] but they are different for other values?.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The proof doesn't make any sense. The function ##f## being constructed does not even appear to be defined on the correct domain, ##\mathbb{Z}##.

Try the following instead. Suppose that we have an enumeration ##\{f_1, f_2, \ldots\}##. We now construct ##f : \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow [0,1]## that is not in the list.

First, let ##g : \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}^{+}## be any bijection. For each ##n \in \mathbb{Z}##, set ##f(n)## equal to any value in ##[0,1]## other than ##f_{g(n)}(n)##. If we want to be concrete (to avoid invoking the axiom of choice), put
$$f(n) = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{ if }f_{g(n)}(n) = 0 \\
0 & \text{ otherwise} \\
\end{cases}$$
Now given any ##m \in \mathbb{Z}^+##, we see that ##f## cannot equal ##f_m## because it differs from ##f_m## at the point ##n = g^{-1}(m)##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #3
jbunniii said:
The proof doesn't make any sense. The function ##f## being constructed does not even appear to be defined on the correct domain, ##\mathbb{Z}##.
Thanks a lot.
But that was my mistake. The proposition is about the set of functions from [itex][0,1][/itex] to [itex]\mathbb{Z}[/itex]
 
  • #4
trash said:
Thanks a lot.
But that was my mistake. The proposition is about the set of functions from [itex][0,1][/itex] to [itex]\mathbb{Z}[/itex]
OK, the proof is still incorrect as stated. It would be OK if it said

##f(x) = \text{ any value except } f_n(1/n)## if ##x=1/n##
Perhaps for concreteness, something like
##f(x) = f_n(1/n) + 1## if ##x=1/n##
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #5
Assuming you know [0, 1] is uncountable:

[tex]f_a(a) = 1 \ and \ f_a(x) = 0 \ otherwise[/tex]
Defines an uncountable set of functions: one for each a in [0, 1]
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #6
Thanks a lot, now that makes sense.
Still, for the last example if [itex]f_1(1)=1[/itex] wouldn't be [itex]f(1)=2[/itex] which exceeds the domain?, maybe something like [itex]f(x)=[f_n(1/n)]/2[/itex] would work better?.
 
  • #7
trash said:
Thanks a lot, now that makes sense.
Still, for the last example if [itex]f_1(1)=1[/itex] wouldn't be [itex]f(1)=2[/itex] which exceeds the domain?, maybe something like [itex]f(x)=[f_n(1/n)]/2[/itex] would work better?.
I thought you wanted to map from ##[0,1]## to ##\mathbb{Z}##. So the value of ##f(x)## can be as big as we like, but you can't divide by 2, because the result may not be an integer.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #8
jbunniii said:
I thought you wanted to map from ##[0,1]## to ##\mathbb{Z}##. So the value of ##f(x)## can be as big as we like, but you can't divide by 2, because the result may not be an integer.

Yes, you're right. I'm sorry, I read it too fast and didn't think it through :frown:
 

1. How do I know if a proof is correct?

The best way to determine if a proof is correct is to carefully follow each step and make sure that the logic is sound. You can also try using different examples or counterexamples to test the validity of the proof.

2. What should I do if I don't understand a specific step in a proof?

If you don't understand a specific step in a proof, try breaking it down into smaller parts and analyzing each part separately. You can also consult with a colleague or reference material to gain a better understanding of the step.

3. How can I improve my understanding of proofs?

The best way to improve your understanding of proofs is to practice solving different types of problems and proofs. You can also read textbooks or attend workshops on proof techniques. Additionally, working with a mentor or seeking guidance from experienced mathematicians can also be helpful.

4. Are there any common mistakes to watch out for when understanding a proof?

Yes, there are a few common mistakes to watch out for when understanding a proof. These include overlooking small details, making incorrect assumptions, and not fully understanding the definitions and concepts used in the proof. It's important to pay close attention to each step and carefully analyze the logic behind it.

5. How can I check my work when writing a proof?

One way to check your work when writing a proof is to go through each step and make sure that it follows logically from the previous step. You can also try using different examples or counterexamples to test the validity of your proof. Additionally, asking a colleague or mentor to review your proof can also help identify any errors or areas for improvement.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
503
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
923
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
6
Views
678
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top