How can I express the endpoints of the Cantor set construction in closed form?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dragonfall
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cantor Set
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around expressing the endpoints of the Cantor set construction in closed form. Participants explore the nature of these endpoints, which include values like 0, 1, 1/3, 2/3, and others, while considering their density within the Cantor set.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss potential patterns in the endpoints and question the validity of proposed closed forms. There are attempts to relate the endpoints to their representations in base 3 and to explore the implications of removing the middle third of intervals.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants offering different perspectives on the closed form and its correctness. Some have provided insights into the relationship between the endpoints and their base 3 representations, while others have raised questions about the assumptions underlying the proposed expressions.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of proving the density of certain numbers within the Cantor set and constraints related to the representation of numbers in base 3. Some participants express confusion about the notation and its implications for higher values of n.

Dragonfall
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
5
How can I write down a closed form expression for the endpoints used in the construction of the Cantor set? i.e., 0, 1, 1/3, 2/3, 1/9, 2/9, 7/9, 8/9, etc.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You don't see any patterns there? Try writing down more terms. Or is it that you're trying to prove some expression is correct?
 
I have to show that these numbers are dense in the Cantor set. I found another way without using the closed form.
 
The closed form is k/3n for all n, and for all 0 < k < 3n.
 
AKG said:
The closed form is k/3n for all n, and for all 0 < k < 3n.
No, it isn't. when n= 1, the first "cut", the enpoints are 1/3 and 2/3 so that the intervals left are [0, 1/3], [2/3, 1] but when you remove the middle third of those, the endpoint are 0, 1/9, 2/9, 1/3= 3/9, 2/3= 6/9, 7/9, 8/9, 1. In your notation, k/3n, with n= 2, k is not 4 or 5. It gets worse with higher values of n.

Dragonfall, think in terms of base 3. Writing a number between 0 and 1 in base 3, the first "digit" (trigit?) may be 0, 1, or 2. If 0, the number is between 0 and 1/3; if 1, between 1/3 and 2/3; if 2, between 2/3 and 1. When you remove the middle third you remove all numbers have a "1" as first digit. Now, all numbers between 0 and 1/3 must have .00, .01, or .02 as first two digits, all numbers between 2/3 and 1 must have .20, .21, or .22 as first two digits. When you remove the middle third of each you remove all numbers that have 1 as the second digit. Do you see what happens in the limit?
 
Sorry, just wasn't thinking.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Dragonfall, think in terms of base 3. Writing a number between 0 and 1 in base 3, the first "digit" (trigit?) may be 0, 1, or 2. If 0, the number is between 0 and 1/3; if 1, between 1/3 and 2/3; if 2, between 2/3 and 1. When you remove the middle third you remove all numbers have a "1" as first digit. Now, all numbers between 0 and 1/3 must have .00, .01, or .02 as first two digits, all numbers between 2/3 and 1 must have .20, .21, or .22 as first two digits. When you remove the middle third of each you remove all numbers that have 1 as the second digit. Do you see what happens in the limit?

Yes, I was able to prove that the Cantor set contains those and only those numbers whose triadic expansion contains only 0 or 2. I did not use this fact for the denseness; however, but I did use it to prove that any number in [0,2] can be written as a sum of 2 'Cantor numbers'.

For denseness, I simply showed that since anything between two endpoints is either entirely in or out of the Cantor set, and if there exists a non-endpoint such that some closed ball of radius e about it contains no endpoint, then the Cantor set has at least length 2e, which is impossible.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K