I Understanding the Paradox of the Cantor Set: A Closer Look at Its Derivation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the Cantor set and the paradox of its uncountable points despite being formed through countably infinite iterations of removing middle-thirds. Participants highlight that the process removes intervals whose total length converges to 1, resulting in a set of measure zero. This leads to the conclusion that the Cantor set is totally disconnected, with each point being isolated. The conversation also touches on the implications of connectedness in relation to measure, emphasizing that a measure zero set cannot be connected. Overall, the Cantor set exemplifies a fascinating intersection of infinite processes and measure theory.
rmberwin
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
I am puzzled by the derivation of the Cantor set. If the iteration of removing the middle-thirds leaves an uncountable set of points, it seems the iteration had to be performed an uncountably infinite number of times. Is this the case? If so, that seems paradoxical to me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why? Remove ##\{\frac{1}{2}\}## from ##[0,1]## and there are uncountably many points left. Remove all ##\{\frac{1}{n}\,\vert \,n \in \mathbb{N}\}## from ##[0,1]## and there are still uncountable many points left. The iteration for the Cantor set goes with ##n \in \mathbb{N}## ergo by countably many steps.
 
fresh_42 said:
Why? Remove ##\{\frac{1}{2}\}## from ##[0,1]## and there are uncountably many points left. Remove all ##\{\frac{1}{n}\,\vert \,n \in \mathbb{N}\}## from ##[0,1]## and there are still uncountable many points left. The iteration for the Cantor set goes with ##n \in \mathbb{N}## ergo by countably many steps.
Ah, I see your point. But the Cantor set also has zero measure, which (I assume) means that all the points are disconnected. So I don't see how taking the limit at countable infinity would get to the final result. Probably a failure of imagination on my part.
 
rmberwin said:
I am puzzled by the derivation of the Cantor set. If the iteration of removing the middle-thirds leaves an uncountable set of points, it seems the iteration had to be performed an uncountably infinite number of times. Is this the case? If so, that seems paradoxical to me.
As @fresh_42 said, the removals happen a countably infinite number of times. If you follow through what happens, you are removing 1/3, then 2(1/9), then 4(1/27), and so on. You are removing a set of intervals whose combined length is ##\frac 1 3 + \frac 2 9 + \frac 4 {27} + \frac 8 {81} + \dots##. In closed form, this is ##\sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac {2^n}{3^{n + 1}} = \frac 1 3 \sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac {2^n}{3^n}##, a convergent geometric series that converges to 1. In essence, you are removing a set of measure 1 from an interval of the same length.
 
  • Like
Likes QuantumQuest, FactChecker and jim mcnamara
rmberwin said:
Ah, I see your point. But the Cantor set also has zero measure, which (I assume) means that all the points are disconnected. So I don't see how taking the limit at countable infinity would get to the final result. Probably a failure of imagination on my part.

Notice you are removing uncountably many points in each step. EDIT, yes, the set is totally-disconnected,
meaning singletons are the components. Assume your set was connected. Connected EDIT (plus open ), in the Reals implies path-connected. This means there is a path joining two points in the set. This path is a sub(interval) , say (a,b) with measure m(a,b)=b-a >0. So measure zero, by contraposition, implies totally-disconnected. EDIT2: You can also argue, using ternary representation , that, given any point c in the Cantor set, that points will be removed about any open set containing c, and no remaining 'hood will be open.
 
Last edited:
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Back
Top