How Can I Prove There Are c Sequences of Rational Numbers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MathematicalPhysicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sequences Set
MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
i need to prove that there are c sqequences of rational numbers.
basically, i need to show that |Q^N|=c.
here, are a few attempts from my behalf:
i thought that Q^N is a subset of R^N, so |Q^N|<=c, but this doesn't help here, so i thought perhaps to find a bijection from {0,1}^N to Q^N.
i know that each rational number can be represented in base 2 by the digits 0,1, but I am having difficulty to formalise this idea.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Any real number can be identified with a specific sequence of rational numbers. For example, the real number \pi can be identified with the sequence 3, 3.1, 3.14, 3.141, 3.1415, 3.14159, 3.141592, with each term (a rational number because it is a terminating decimal) being one more decimal place in the decimal expansion of \pi. This gives a one-to-one function from the set set of real numbers to the set of all sequences of rational numbers and so shows that c\le |Q^N|.
 
Grr. If I remember correctly, it's a theorem that for infinite c:

a^c = b^c

whenever a \leq b \leq c. The proof isn't immediately leaping to mind, though. :frown:

Oh, bother, I just checked Wikipedia, and it looks like you need the axiom of choice to prove that, so the proof won't be as easy as I had hoped.

Anyways, LQG, remember that |Q| = |N|. It might be easier to try and prove |N||N| = 2|N| or |N||N| = |R| instead.

But, we see HoI seems to have proven it directly, so don't listen to me. :wink:
 
Last edited:
Oh, Hurkyl, I'm blushing.


By the way, I had a friend who, on another forum, used the name "Hog on Ice" which was regularly abbreviated "HOI". So whenever I see "HOI" used for "HallsofIvy", I'm surprized!
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top