Proof that the rationals are not a G_\delta set.

  • Thread starter AxiomOfChoice
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof Set
In summary, it has been proven that the rationals, or the set of all rational numbers, are not a G_\delta set. This means that the rationals cannot be expressed as the intersection of countably many open sets. This proof relies on the fact that the rationals are dense in the real numbers, meaning that between any two rational numbers, there is an infinite number of other rational numbers. This makes it impossible to create a set of open intervals that cover all rational numbers while excluding any irrational numbers. Therefore, the rationals cannot be a G_\delta set.
  • #1
AxiomOfChoice
533
1
I understand that showing [itex]\mathbb Q[/itex] is not a [itex]G_\delta[/itex] set is quite a non-trivial exercise, involving (among other things) an invocation of the Baire category theorem. Do any of you guys know it, or know where I can find it online? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think I encountered this when I had to show that there does not exist a function from R to R that is continuous on the rationals and discontinuous on the irrationals.

You could start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gδ_set#Examples".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
snipez90 said:
I think I encountered this when I had to show that there does not exist a function from R to R that is continuous on the rationals and discontinuous on the irrationals.

You could start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gδ_set#Examples".

Thanks. I actually *did* start there, but was a little mystified by the following statement:

"If we were able to write [itex]\mathbb Q = \bigcap_1^\infty \mathcal O_n[/itex] for open sets [itex]\mathcal O_n[/itex], each [itex]\mathcal O_n[/itex] would have to be dense in [itex]\mathbb R[/itex] since [itex]\mathbb Q[/itex] is dense in [itex]\mathbb R[/itex]."

Why is this so? What, or who, says that if you write a dense set as an intersection of open sets, each of the sets in the intersection has to be dense?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Any set containing a dense set is itself dense: Since [tex]\mathbb{Q} \subseteq \mathcal{O}_n \subseteq \mathbb{R}[/tex], we have [tex] \mathbb{R} = \bar{\mathbb{Q}} \subseteq \bar{\mathcal{O}}_n \subseteq \mathbb{R}[/tex].
 
  • #5
adriank said:
Any set containing a dense set is itself dense: Since [tex]\mathbb{Q} \subseteq \mathcal{O}_n \subseteq \mathbb{R}[/tex], we have [tex] \mathbb{R} = \bar{\mathbb{Q}} \subseteq \bar{\mathcal{O}}_n \subseteq \mathbb{R}[/tex].
Of course! I don't know why I didn't realize that! I guess my mind was inexplicably converting the [itex]\cap[/itex] into a [itex]\cup[/itex]. The proof on Wikipedia makes sense to me now. (The provision of the Baire category theorem that is violated, BTW, is that if [itex]\{ \mathcal O_n \}_1^\infty[/itex] is a collection of dense open sets, then so is [itex]\bigcap_1^\infty \mathcal O_n[/itex].)
 
  • #6
Minor pedantry: the BCT says that a countable intersection of dense open sets is dense; not necessarily open.
 

What does it mean for the rationals to not be a Gδ set?

A set is considered a Gδ set if it can be expressed as the intersection of countably many open sets. Therefore, if the rationals are not a Gδ set, it means that they cannot be expressed as the intersection of countably many open sets.

Why is it important to prove that the rationals are not a Gδ set?

This proof is important because it helps us understand the topological properties of the set of rational numbers. It also has implications in measure theory and the study of Borel sets.

What is the proof that the rationals are not a Gδ set?

The proof involves constructing a sequence of open sets that intersect to the set of rationals, but their intersection does not equal the set of rationals. This shows that the rationals cannot be expressed as the intersection of countably many open sets and therefore are not a Gδ set.

Does this mean that the rationals are not a closed set?

No, this proof does not imply that the rationals are not a closed set. It only shows that they cannot be expressed as the intersection of countably many open sets, which is a different property from being closed.

Are there any other sets that are not Gδ sets?

Yes, there are other sets that are not Gδ sets, such as the irrationals, the set of algebraic numbers, and the Cantor set. In general, any uncountable set cannot be expressed as the intersection of countably many open sets and therefore is not a Gδ set.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
911
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
549
  • Differential Equations
Replies
1
Views
659
Replies
2
Views
387
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top