How Is the Length of Material Removed Calculated in a Generalized Cantor Set?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kingwinner
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cantor generalized Set
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the calculation of the length of material removed in a generalized Cantor set, specifically examining the implications of removing fractions of intervals at each stage of the construction. Participants explore the mathematical reasoning behind the lengths of intervals remaining and the total length removed, with a focus on the specific case where the fraction removed at each stage is defined as rn = 1/5n.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states that at the n-th stage, the material removed has length < 1/5n, leading to a total length removed of < 1/4, suggesting the length of the Cantor set is > 3/4.
  • Another participant questions the claim about the length removed at the n-th stage, arguing that since 2n-1 pieces are removed, the calculation should involve multiplying by the number of pieces.
  • A participant clarifies that while 2^{n-1} intervals are removed, the length of each interval removed is based on the fraction of the preceding stage's intervals, leading to a maximum length removed of 1/5^{n+1} at stage n+1.
  • Further discussion reveals confusion about the number of intervals remaining and their lengths, with one participant seeking clarification on why there are 2n intervals remaining and questioning the uniformity of their lengths.
  • Another participant explains that the process is symmetric, resulting in all intervals at the end of a stage having the same length, which cannot exceed 1/2^n.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the calculations related to the lengths of intervals and the total material removed. There is no consensus on the reasoning behind the lengths at each stage, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the specifics of the calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the assumptions about the lengths of intervals and the fractions removed, as well as the dependence on the definitions of the intervals at each stage.

kingwinner
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
0
"Given (rn), rn E (0,1), define a generalized Cantor set E by removing the middle r1 fraction of an interval, then remove the middle r2 fraction of the remaining 2 intervals, etc.

Start with [0,1]. Take rn=1/5n. Then the material removed at the n-th stage has length < 1/5n, so the total length removed is < 1/5 + 1/52 + 1/53 +... = 1/4
Thus the length of E is >3/4. "
=========================

I don't understand why the material removed at the n-th stage has length < 1/5n. How can we derive this? At the n-th stage, we are removing 2n-1 pieces, so don't we have to multiply that by 2n-1?
I sat down and thought about this for half an hour, but I still can't figure it out.

I hope someone can explain this! Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kingwinner said:
"Given (rn), rn E (0,1), define a generalized Cantor set E by removing the middle r1 fraction of an interval, then remove the middle r2 fraction of the remaining 2 intervals, etc.

Start with [0,1]. Take rn=1/5n. Then the material removed at the n-th stage has length < 1/5n, so the total length removed is < 1/5 + 1/52 + 1/53 +... = 1/4
Thus the length of E is >3/4. "
=========================

I don't understand why the material removed at the n-th stage has length < 1/5n. How can we derive this? At the n-th stage, we are removing 2n-1 pieces, so don't we have to multiply that by 2n-1?
I sat down and thought about this for half an hour, but I still can't figure it out.

I hope someone can explain this! Thank you!

It's true that you are removing [itex]2^{n-1}[/itex] intervals at stage [itex]n[/itex], but what is the LENGTH of each interval? It's not simply [itex]1/5^n[/itex], right? That is the FRACTION that you are removing from the preceding stage's intervals, so you have to multiply by the length of the preceding stage's intervals.

Since there are [itex]2^{n}[/itex] intervals remaining at the end of stage [itex]n[/itex], each one has length at MOST equal to [itex]1/2^{n}[/itex]. In reality the lengths are smaller because this assumes no material has been removed.

Therefore at stage [itex]n+1[/itex], you remove at most a length of [itex]2^n * (1/5^{n+1}) * (1/2^n) = 1/5^{n+1}[/itex]. (In reality you remove less.)
 
jbunniii said:
Since there are [itex]2^{n}[/itex] intervals remaining at the end of stage [itex]n[/itex], each one has length at MOST equal to [itex]1/2^{n}[/itex]. In reality the lengths are smaller because this assumes no material has been removed.

I see what you're saying now: it is the FRACTION that you are removing from the preceding stage's intervals.

But I don't follow the reasoning here. Why are there 2n intervals remaining at the end of stage n?

And why each one has length at MOST equal to 1/2n? Can't it be the case that some of them has length less than 1/2n and some GREATER than 1/2n?

Thanks for explaining!
 
kingwinner said:
I see what you're saying now: it is the FRACTION that you are removing from the preceding stage's intervals.

But I don't follow the reasoning here. Why are there 2n intervals remaining at the end of stage n?

You start with one interval. In stage 1, you remove the middle part of that interval so at the end of stage 1 there are [itex]2 = 2^1[/itex] intervals left.

In stage 2, you start with 2 intervals, and you remove the middle parts of each, so you are left with [itex]4 = 2^2[/itex] intervals at the end of stage 2. And so on.

And why each one has length at MOST equal to 1/2n? Can't it be the case that some of them has length less than 1/2n and some GREATER than 1/2n?

No, because the way the process works is symmetric - in a given stage, you are removing the MIDDLE part of each interval, and you are removing the same FRACTION of each interval. So all of the intervals at the end of a given stage have the same length. And that length cannot be more than [itex]1/2^n[/itex] because there are [itex]2^n[/itex] intervals and the original interval had length 1.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K