How to avoid rounding off in binary representation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the function defined from the power set of natural numbers to the interval [0,1] using binary representation. The original poster questions whether this function is one-to-one, noting issues with certain inputs leading to the same output due to rounding off in binary representation.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the nature of the function and its surjectivity, with some suggesting modifications to achieve a one-to-one mapping. There are discussions about categorizing sets based on their elements and potential bijections between the power set and the interval [0,1].

Discussion Status

Several participants have proposed ideas for modifying the function to avoid rounding issues, including expanding the codomain and categorizing sets. There is an ongoing exploration of these concepts, with no explicit consensus reached on a single approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering the implications of defining a function that avoids rounding off in binary representation and the constraints of the original mapping. The discussion includes the potential need for an expanded codomain to accommodate problematic cases.

julypraise
Messages
104
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Is the fundtion defined [itex]f:P(\mathbb{N}) \to [0,1][/itex] by

[itex]f(X) = 0.a_{1} a_{2} \dots[/itex] in binary representation where [itex]a_{k}=1[/itex] if [itex]k\in X[/itex] and otherwise [itex]0[/itex] one-to-one?

(*note: N does not have 0)

If not, can you change bit so that the changed funtion becomes one-to-one?



Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I know this function is surjective if I interpret the decimal expression in binary representation. But then in this case f({1}) = f(Z\{1}) as 0.100000.. = 0.011111111..., therefore not one-to-one. (Am I right?)

So can I in some way make a function that is one-to-one and similar to this one by somehow avoiding the rounding off problem? Could you give me just a hint? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
julypraise said:
So can I in some way make a function that is one-to-one and similar to this one by somehow avoiding the rounding off problem? Could you give me just a hint? Thanks.

I have a way of doing this, but it is pretty inelegant. Are you alright with expanding the codomain of the function?
 
jgens said:
I have a way of doing this, but it is pretty inelegant. Are you alright with expanding the codomain of the function?

Well, yes. Just give me a brief idea of it, please. And also.. as an extra question, well... do you have another idea of making bijection between two sets? This binary representation thing is not the best idea on making bijection between P(N) and [0,1].. right?
 
I haven't completely figured it out, but you can make a distinction between 3 types of sets:
1. Sets X with a finite number of elements. Let's call them "0-tail".
2. Sets X that contain all elements of ##\mathbb{N}_{>n}## for some number n. Let's call them "1-tail".
3. Sets X that belong neither to sets of type 1 nor to sets of type 2. Let's call them "no-tail".

Now we can for instance take your binary representation, but divide all 0-tailers by 2.
And divide all 1-tailers by 2 and subtract from 1.
That way, you'd have a bijection of ##\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})## to ##[0,1)##.

EDIT: edited the 1-tail operation.
 
Last edited:
I have not checked if I Like Serena's solution works, but another (similar) way of doing this is to expand the codomain to be [0,1] and all real numbers in [1,2] with which have tails consisting completely of 1s. Then you just map the problematic elements into your expanded codomain.
 
jgens said:
I have not checked if I Like Serena's solution works, but another (similar) way of doing this is to expand the codomain to be [0,1] and all real numbers in [1,2] with which have tails consisting completely of 1s. Then you just map the problematic elements into your expanded codomain.

I'm not quite sure what you meant. The image of the mapping is still [0,1]. Isn't it?
 
julypraise said:
I'm not quite sure what you meant. The image of the mapping is still [0,1]. Isn't it?

No. The point is that you can easily define a new mapping which is one-to-one and maps onto the expanded codomain I mentioned. Notice that for each [itex]x \in [0,1][/itex] there are at most two sets in [itex]\mathscr{P}(\mathbb{N})[/itex] which will map to [itex]x[/itex] with your original mapping. Now define a new mapping which takes these problematic sets into the added part of your codomain. Do you want more of a hint?

Edit: It is also worthwhile to check if you can use I Like Serena's solution. His/her posts are very good.
 
I think it's quite enough. Thanks guys.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K