Is It Possible to Embed the Set of Rational Numbers in a Countable Set?

  • Thread starter Thread starter radou
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the set of rational numbers (Q) is countable by examining strictly positive rational numbers and establishing a one-to-one mapping with natural numbers. The argument begins with defining sets of strictly positive rationals and demonstrates that these sets can be mapped to natural numbers, leading to the conclusion that they are countable. It also addresses the countability of strictly negative rationals and zero, reinforcing that their union remains countable. Some participants raise concerns about the injectivity of the proposed function and suggest defining an equivalence relation for clarity. Alternative methods, such as using H. L. Royden's approach to show countability through sequences, are also mentioned.
radou
Homework Helper
Messages
3,148
Reaction score
8
Is this proof OK?.. Thanks in advance.

So, we have to proove that the set Q of all rational numbers is countable.
Let's first look at strictly positive rational numbers. We can form the sets
S_{i}=\left\{s_{i1}, s_{i2}, \dots \right\}=\left\{\frac{1}{i}, \frac{2}{i}, \dots \right\}. The union of these sets equals the set of strictly positive rational numbers. Now, we automatically know that some rational number \frac{k}{l} is an element of the set S_{l}, and, since there is a 1-1 mapping between every set S_{i} and the set of natural numbers N, we conclude s_{lk}=\frac{k}{l} \in S_{l}. Now, since f(k, l) = \frac{k}{l} is a 1-1 mapping defined on N\times N, and since N\times N is countable, we conclude that the set of all strictly positive rational numbers is countable. Further on, there obviously exists a 1-1 mapping between this set and the set of all strictly negative rational numbers. Hence, the set of all strictly negative rational numbers
is countable, too. So, the union of the set of strictly positive, strictly negativerational numbers, and the set containing only zero {0}, is countable, since a finite or countable union of a finite or countable family of finite or countablesets is finite or countable.

P.S. Sorry the thread appeared twice, but I had some posting problems (as well as editing problems, logging on problems, etc.. contacted admin. )
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What about f(1, 2) and f(2, 4)? I don't think f is one-to-one.
 
JP is right: your sets Si are not disjoint so, in order to pass from an injective function from each Si to Q, more is needed: you must define an equivalence relation in their union, and then check that you can define f in the equivalence classes.

But why not going the other way around? You have a natural injective function from N to each of the Si's, and Q is the countable union of these; from this you may conclude that Q is countable.
 
What about the H. L. Royden method of showing countability, showing that the set is the range of a sequence?
 
OK , you may use f : Q+ to N*N*N such that f(n\m)=(n,m,gcd(n,m))this is an embedding of Q+ in countable set
 
Last edited:
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K