Perfect Sets in R^k are uncountable - Issue/problem 2

  • MHB
  • Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Sets
In summary, The conversation discusses the book "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" by Walter Rudin and specifically focuses on Chapter 2: "Basic Topology" and Theorem 2.43, which proves the uncountability of perfect sets in R^k. The proof is unclear to the participants and they seek clarification. One person suggests consulting another book, "Understanding Analysis" by Stephen Abbott, for a clearer explanation. The conversation ends with a discussion on the merits of different textbooks for self-study.
  • #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,998
48
I am reading Walter Rudin's book, Principles of Mathematical Analysis.

Currently I am studying Chapter 2:"Basic Topology".

I have a second issue/problem with the proof of Theorem 2.43 concerning the uncountability of perfect sets in \(\displaystyle R^k\).

Rudin, Theorem 2.43 reads as follows:View attachment 3805In the above proof we read:

"Suppose \(\displaystyle V_n\) has been constructed so that \(\displaystyle V_n \cap P\) is not empty. Since every point of \(\displaystyle P\) is a limit point of P, there is a neighbourhood \(\displaystyle V_{n+1}\) such that

(i) \(\displaystyle \overline{V}_{n+1} \subset V_n
\)

(ii) \(\displaystyle x_n \notin \overline{V}_{n+1}
\)

(iii) \(\displaystyle V_{n+1} \cap P\) is not empty

... ... "I do not understand how the fact that every point of \(\displaystyle P\) is a limit point of \(\displaystyle P\) allows us to claim that there is a \(\displaystyle V_{n+1}\) such that the above 3 conditions hold ... indeed the whole thing is a bit mysterious, since there is no given process for selecting the points \(\displaystyle x_1, x_2, x_3\), ... and so \(\displaystyle x_{n+1}\) may be a considerable distance from \(\displaystyle x_n\), making it difficult for \(\displaystyle \overline{V}_{n+1} \subset V_n \) to hold ...

Can someone please explain how the above fact follows ... ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi Peter,

The points $x_{1},x_{2},...$ are not selected, Rudin is supposing that the set is countable, so they are all the points.

Being a limit point means that for any neighborhood of $x_{n}$ there are at least one point different from it. In particular, there exist another point that we will call $x_{n+1}$ in $V_{n}$, now we can take a neighborhood of this point satisfying this three conditions, for example doing the following:

As soon as $x_{n+1}\in V_{n}$(open) there exists $\delta>0$ such that $B(x_{n+1},2\delta)\subset V_{n}$
Let $\epsilon=\dfrac{|x_{n}-x_{n+1}|}{2}$, now the ball centered in $x_{n+1}$ with radius $min \{\delta ,\epsilon\}$ clearly satisfies all conditions.
 
  • #3
Fallen Angel said:
Hi Peter,

The points $x_{1},x_{2},...$ are not selected, Rudin is supposing that the set is countable, so they are all the points.

Being a limit point means that for any neighborhood of $x_{n}$ there are at least one point different from it. In particular, there exist another point that we will call $x_{n+1}$ in $V_{n}$, now we can take a neighborhood of this point satisfying this three conditions, for example doing the following:

As soon as $x_{n+1}\in V_{n}$(open) there exists $\delta>0$ such that $B(x_{n+1},2\delta)\subset V_{n}$
Let $\epsilon=\dfrac{|x_{n}-x_{n+1}|}{2}$, now the ball centered in $x_{n+1}$ with radius $min \{\delta ,\epsilon\}$ clearly satisfies all conditions.
Hi Fallen Angel ... thanks for your help ...

Peter
 
  • #4
Peter said:
Hi Fallen Angel ... thanks for your help ...

Peter

Hi all,

I understand that the text: Principles of Mathematical Analysis by Walter Rudin is highly regarded, but at times I feel the proofs are stated in less than effective and clear ways pedagogically speaking anyway ... . Indeed In particular I had considerable difficulty in following the proof of Theorem 2.43 that every non-empty perfect set in \(\displaystyle \mathbb{R}^k\) is uncountable - as indicated in the above post ...

Given this difficulty I went to the text, Understanding Analysis by Stephen Abbott and found a proof of the above theorem in \(\displaystyle \mathbb{R}\). The proof is essentially the same as the proof in \(\displaystyle \mathbb{R}^k\) and Abbott's text makes the proof strategy much clearer.

I am producing Abbott's proof for the interests of MHB members:

View attachment 3821
View attachment 3822
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/3823

I must say that on this Theorem at least, Abbott gives a VERY clear explanation.Peter
 
  • #5
Peter said:
Hi all,

I understand that the text: Principles of Mathematical Analysis by Walter Rudin is highly regarded, but at times I feel the proofs are stated in less than effective and clear ways pedagogically speaking anyway ... . Indeed In particular I had considerable difficulty in following the proof of Theorem 2.43 that every non-empty perfect set in \(\displaystyle \mathbb{R}^k\) is uncountable - as indicated in the above post ...

Given this difficulty I went to the text, Understanding Analysis by Stephen Abbott and found a proof of the above theorem in \(\displaystyle \mathbb{R}\). The proof is essentially the same as the proof in \(\displaystyle \mathbb{R}^k\) and Abbott's text makes the proof strategy much clearer.

I am producing Abbott's proof for the interests of MHB members:

View attachment 3821
View attachment 3822
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/3823

I must say that on this Theorem at least, Abbott gives a VERY clear explanation.Peter

This was one of the reasons why I didn't recommend Rudin's book as a main text for self-study (in response to one your threads in the chat room). Rudin's style is concise and at times very terse. More than a decade ago, when I was a college student, the text I used for analysis was a Dover book whose level is a bit higher than Rudin's, but suitable for independent study. I'm glad that Abbott's book is working for you.
 
  • #6
Euge said:
This was one of the reasons why I didn't recommend Rudin's book as a main text for self-study (in response to one your threads in the chat room). Rudin's style is concise and at times very terse. More than a decade ago, when I was a college student, the text I used for analysis was a Dover book whose level is a bit higher than Rudin's, but suitable for independent study. I'm glad that Abbott's book is working for you.
Thanks for those comments Euge ... ...

Yes, your reasoning regarding Rudin was very accurate ...

Always glad to know your views and your advice ...

Thanks again ...

Peter
 

FAQ: Perfect Sets in R^k are uncountable - Issue/problem 2

1. What is the definition of a perfect set in R^k?

A perfect set in R^k is a set that is both closed and uncountable, meaning it contains an infinite number of points and all of its limit points are also contained within the set.

2. What does it mean for a set to be uncountable?

A set is considered uncountable if the number of elements in the set is greater than or equal to the cardinality of the set of natural numbers. In other words, there is no way to list or count all of the elements in an uncountable set.

3. Why are perfect sets in R^k uncountable?

Perfect sets in R^k are uncountable by definition since they must contain an infinite number of points and all of their limit points. This means that even if we were able to list some of the points in the set, there would still be an infinite number of points that we could not list or count.

4. What are some examples of perfect sets in R^k?

One example of a perfect set in R^k is the Cantor set, which is a subset of the real line. The Cantor set is uncountable and contains an infinite number of points, including all of its limit points.

Another example is the set of all irrational numbers, which is uncountable and contains an infinite number of points and all of its limit points.

5. How does the uncountability of perfect sets in R^k relate to the Continuum Hypothesis?

The Continuum Hypothesis is a mathematical conjecture that states there is no set whose cardinality is strictly between that of the set of natural numbers and the set of real numbers. The uncountability of perfect sets in R^k supports this hypothesis, as it suggests that there is no set with a cardinality between that of the natural numbers and the real numbers, since perfect sets are uncountable and contain an infinite number of points.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
44
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
509
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
9K
Back
Top