1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Question about a dense set.

  1. Aug 15, 2012 #1
    if i have this set x/y where x and y can be any prime. is this dense on the real line.
    and we will allow x to be negative so we can cover the negative side of the reals.
    It seems like it would be. how would i prove that x/y can approach any real?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 15, 2012 #2
    Hmmm. It seems very likely that they are dense. Proving it might not be that easy though: there MIGHT be some exception. The first thing I would try is assume there is such an exception and see whether that leads to a contradiction. Or maybe proving that they are dense on the rationals would be good enough, since the rationals are dense on the reals.
     
  4. Aug 15, 2012 #3

    Bacle2

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well, it seems the only problem you may have is with the fractions 1/k.

    Don't you basically get the rationals with the set {x/y: x,y prime} except for {1/k}?

    After all, you reduce the rationals {p/q: p,q integer} by eliminating common terms;

    you actually eliminate redundancy, but you end up with the same thing: so all you

    need, I think , is to deal with density in [0,1/2].
     
  5. Aug 15, 2012 #4

    jgens

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Not at all. You actually miss a bunch of rational numbers. For example, you miss all rational numbers of the form p/qn where p,q are distinct primes and 1 < n.
     
  6. Aug 15, 2012 #5

    Bacle2

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Right, my bad. I jumped in too quickly.
     
  7. Aug 15, 2012 #6

    jgens

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Me too. My 'proof' of the result actually fails.
     
  8. Aug 15, 2012 #7
    could we maybe use the fact that there is prime between n and 2n where n is a natural number.
     
  9. Aug 15, 2012 #8
    That seems to be the right approach to me. I imagine the best way to go about it would be some sort of quasi-constructive proof, where we take an arbitrary real number and use the above fact (or something like) to show that a prime fraction exists in any neighbourhood of x.
     
  10. Aug 16, 2012 #9
    we could try something similar to how they prove the rationals are dense in the reals.
    given any two reals a and b we pick n large enough so that
    [itex] \frac{1}{n}<b-a [/itex] then we take the next prime after n and we call it k.
    so now we have a prime on the bottom. ok and now we will pick m such that it puts us in between a and b. m is a natural number but not a prime for sure. But we know there is prime between m and 2m. but we may have skipped over b. but we could make the denominator bigger to give us more options for m.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2012
  11. Aug 16, 2012 #10

    Bacle2

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Right, I have been thinking about a method to (see if it is possible ) to do this. But, with

    my method, the (numbers in the) fractions become way too large. So, say, we want to

    approximate 1/2 within 1/100: so my idea is : consider the set {n/2n} (clearly not

    a ratio of primes ), and consider, for fixed n, the ratios:Pr:= {(n-1)/(2n-1), (n+1)/(2n+1),

    (n+1)/(2n-1)(n-1)/(2n+1)}, }. If both numerator and denominator are prime, we get

    a good approximation:


    | 1/2 - (n-1)/(2n-1) |= 1/(2n-1) -->0 as n becomes large; similar for other ratios. For

    example, with 1/2 itself,

    we can consider : 29/59=(30-1)/(60-1), 31/61, 73/37 , 157/79 ,... as approximations.

    If we know there are infinitely-many n in the prime-ratio set Pr . Problem is that ,

    while there are infinitely-many primes, we cannot guarantee right away ( may need an

    additional argument) that the primes beyond a certain point are of this type. I think

    this is feasible, but I'm being careful given my previous error.
     
  12. Aug 16, 2012 #11

    jgens

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Let (x,y) be an open interval in the real numbers with 0 < x < y. The Prime Number Theorem implies that limq→∞[π(qy)-π(qx)] = ∞ and this means that for a sufficiently large prime q, there exists a prime p such that qx < p < qy. Then x < p/q < y as desired.

    Unless I messed up on the computation of limq→∞[π(qy)-π(qx)], then this proof should work fine.
     
  13. Aug 16, 2012 #12

    Bacle2

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What do you think about my idea:



    What do you think about my argument?

    My idea is , e.g., for x=1/2, to construct the set :

    {1/2,2/4,.....,2n/4n,.....}

    Then, to each term in the sequence , we add/subtract 1 to each numerator and

    denominator, so , e.g:

    1/2 --> 2/3, 2/1 , 0/1, 0/3

    2/4 --> 3/5, 3/3, 1/3, 1/5 ,

    etc.

    Each of these terms is a potential ratio of primes, and a good approximation to 1/2,

    with the caveat that primes of this type must be infinitely-many.
     
  14. Aug 16, 2012 #13

    jgens

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I thought about a similar approach to yours yesterday, but I came across too many difficulties trying to make everything work. The problem is that for a fixed rational number p/q it is difficult to ensure that there are infinitely many n for which both np-1 and nq-1 are prime. Using something like Dirichlet's Theorem you should be able to show that there are infinitely many n with np-1 prime and infinitely many n with nq-1 prime, but this (unfortunately) says nothing about n for which both of them are prime. There might be a clever way around this or there might be some theorem which guarantees the existence of infinitely many such n, but with my very limited knowledge I obviously know of neither.
     
  15. Aug 17, 2012 #14

    Bacle2

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Thanks for the input, Jgens.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Question about a dense set.
  1. A question about sets? (Replies: 3)

Loading...