Is the Natural Numbers Dense in Itself?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concept of whether the set of natural numbers, denoted as \(\mathbb{N}\), is dense in itself. Participants explore various definitions of denseness, particularly in the context of topology and order theory, and how these definitions apply to \(\mathbb{N}\).

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that every space is dense in itself, but this is challenged by others who clarify that this is contingent on the definition of denseness being used.
  • A participant explains that the definition of "A is dense in B" involves the presence of points from A in every open set of B, but questions arise regarding the applicability of this definition to \(\mathbb{N}\).
  • Another participant argues that while \(\mathbb{N}\) is dense in itself under certain definitions, there are other definitions where \(\mathbb{N}\) is not considered dense in itself.
  • Some participants discuss the confusion between denseness in \(\mathbb{R}\) versus \(\mathbb{N}\), emphasizing the importance of context in defining denseness.
  • Order-theoretic notions of denseness are introduced, where a set is dense if between any two elements, there exists another element, which does not hold for \(\mathbb{N}\).
  • There is mention of the term "dense-in-itself," which refers to a set containing no isolated points, highlighting the dependency on the superset considered.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and implications of denseness, indicating that there is no consensus on whether \(\mathbb{N}\) is dense in itself. Multiple competing definitions and interpretations are present in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion is complicated by the existence of various definitions of denseness, which may lead to different conclusions about the properties of \(\mathbb{N}\). The relevance of context, such as whether one is discussing topological or order-theoretic denseness, is emphasized.

Bachelier
Messages
375
Reaction score
0
\ Is \ \mathbb{N} \ dense \ in \ itself.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, every space is dense in itself.
 
"A is dense in B" (with A and B topological spaces) mean "given any point p in B, every open set containing p contains some point of A." Of course, if A= B, that is trivially true.
 
HallsofIvy said:
"A is dense in B" (with A and B topological spaces) mean "given any point p in B, every open set containing p contains some point of A." Of course, if A= B, that is trivially true.

So is there a point p\in(n,n+1)\forall n\in\mathbb{N} such that p\in\mathbb{N}?
 
mjpam said:
So is there a point p\in(n,n+1)\forall n\in\mathbb{N} such that p\in\mathbb{N}?

No, but that doesn't matter. We're talking about denseness of N in N. Your example doesn't apply because you're confused with showing that N is dense in R!Also, for the OP, note that there are different (non-equivalent) definitions of denseness. Most often dense is applied in topological spaces, and this is what people in this thread do. But there are other definitions of denseness such that N is not dense in N. I'm just saying this because this is probably what confuses you. But you should always check what definition of denseness you are using.
 
micromass said:
No, but that doesn't matter. We're talking about denseness of N in N. Your example doesn't apply because you're confused with showing that N is dense in R!Also, for the OP, note that there are different (non-equivalent) definitions of denseness. Most often dense is applied in topological spaces, and this is what people in this thread do. But there are other definitions of denseness such that N is not dense in N. I'm just saying this because this is probably what confuses you. But you should always check what definition of denseness you are using.

No, I just misread the original statement to say that "every open subset of A must contains a member of A". After re-reading the original statement I see how, by that definition of "dense", every set is trivially dense in itself.
 
micromass said:
Also, for the OP, note that there are different (non-equivalent) definitions of denseness. Most often dense is applied in topological spaces, and this is what people in this thread do. But there are other definitions of denseness such that N is not dense in N. I'm just saying this because this is probably what confuses you. But you should always check what definition of denseness you are using.
What kind of 'denseness' do you have in mind here? Some measure theoretic concept?
 
No, there are some order-theoretic notions of denseness. For example:

for every x and y, there exists a z such that x<z<y. This is sometimes called denseness. I just mention this, because the OP has talked about this in another post. I just wanted to clear up what definition of denseness we're using here...
 
Right. So the order on N is definitely not dense.

And then there's the term dense-in-itself, meaning 'containing no isolated points' (which of course depends on the superset you're considering.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
915
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K