MHB Two different circles in the plane with nonempty intersection

Arnold1
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Hi.

Here is a problem I've been trying to solve for some time now. Maybe you could help me.
We have two sets
\mathcal {Q} is a set of those circles in the plane such that for any x \in \mathbb{R} there exists a circle O \in \mathcal {Q} which intersects x axis in (x,0).\mathcal {T} is a set of those circles in the plane such that for any x \in \mathbb{R} there exists a circle O \in \mathcal {T} which is tangent to x axis in (x,0).

We need to show that in each of these sets there exist at least two different circles whose intersection isn't empty.
It seems obvious that card (Q) \ge card (\mathbb{R}). Maybe we could somehow identify each circle with a different rational number?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Arnold said:
Maybe we could somehow identify each circle with a different rational number?
Yes, every circle (including interior) contains a point with rational coordinates, just like every segment of the x-axis contains a point with a rational x-coordinate. Therefore, there is at most countably many disjoint circles on a plane.
 
So this is it? There are only countably many disjoint circles meeting the above specified conditions nut uncountably many points on x axis. Can we already deduce that at least two circles intersect?
 
Arnold said:
So this is it? There are only countably many disjoint circles meeting the above specified conditions nut uncountably many points on x axis. Can we already deduce that at least two circles intersect?
Yes, we can. If the circles don't intersect, then there is at most countably many of them. But each circle has at most two intersection points with the x-axis, so the number of intersection points is also countable, a contradiction.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
553
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top