How many elements are in a set of unique rational numbers from 1 to 9?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Born
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Counting Set
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the number of unique rational numbers formed by fractions with numerators and denominators ranging from 1 to 9, excluding repetitions like 2/2 or 3/3. Participants explore whether there is a more efficient method than simply counting and eliminating duplicates. One contributor suggests using prime factorization to categorize the numbers, which could streamline the counting process for larger sets. However, there is a consensus that no significantly simpler method exists for this specific case. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment of the complexity involved in counting unique elements in the set.
Born
Messages
31
Reaction score
1
Let ##T = \{ \frac{n}{m}\in \mathbb{Q} \vert n, m \in \{ 1, 2, ..., 9 \} \}##

No values can repeat (e.g. ##\frac{2}{2},\frac{3}{3},...##)

How many elements does the set have. I could just go ahead and count the elements and eliminate the repeats, but I'm wondering if there is a simpler (and more elegant) way to do it?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Born said:
Let ##T = \{ \frac{n}{m}\in \mathbb{Q} \vert n, m \in \{ 1, 2, ..., 9 \} \}##

No values can repeat (e.g. ##\frac{2}{2},frac{3}{3},...##

What is the question?
 
Sorry, edited the mistake. The question would be; is there a simpler (and more elegant) way to count the number of elements in the set?
 
I don't believe there is a more elegant way. At least I can't think of one.
 
I think this way is more "elegant", but is probably a slower way of counting elements in ##T_9##. I think this does provide a faster way of counting ##T_k = \left\{\dfrac{n}{m}: \enspace n,m\in\{1,...,k\}\right\}## for larger ##k\in \mathbb N##.

Let ##P=\{2,3,5,7\}##, the set of primes that divide ##9##. For each ##D\subseteq P##, let ##M_D## denote the set of numbers whose prime factorization has positive exponents for exactly the primes ##D##. Let ##\mathcal D = \{(D,E): \enspace D,E\subseteq P, \enspace D\cap E=\emptyset\}##.

Then ##T_9 = \bigcup_{(D,E)\in \mathcal D} \left\{ \dfrac{n}{m}: \enspace n\in M_D, m\in M_E \right\}##, and the last expression has no repetition anywhere.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Born said:
Let ##T = \{ \frac{n}{m}\in \mathbb{Q} \vert n, m \in \{ 1, 2, ..., 9 \} \}##

No values can repeat (e.g. ##\frac{2}{2},\frac{3}{3},...##)

How many elements does the set have. I could just go ahead and count the elements and eliminate the repeats, but I'm wondering if there is a simpler (and more elegant) way to do it?

Thanks

I don't think there is as simpler way, but you never know...
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.