What results can be found from point set topology?

Kontilera
Messages
176
Reaction score
24
Hello!
I'm currently teaching an advanced course in mathematics at high school.
The first half treats discrete mathematics, e.g. combinatorics, set theory for finite sets, and some parts of number theory.

Next year I would like to change some of the subjects in the course. My question is: Are there any interesting results that are not to difficult to reach from point set topology? If that is the case, maybe we could introduce some topology as well.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There's a very nice (and relatively simple) proof of the infinitude of prime numbers using point-set topology (by Furstenberg):

Define a topology on \mathbb{Z} by taking the open sets to be unions of arithmetic sequences
S(a,b) = \{an+b \ | \ n \in \mathbb{Z}, a \neq 0\}
Note that every open set contains infinitely many integers, and so no finite set is open, and no complement of a finite set is closed. Conversely, every S(a,b) is closed, because we can construct its complement by taking the union of S(a,b+i) for i \in (1,2, \dots, a-1).

We know that every integer (except 1 and -1) can be written as a product of prime numbers, so
\bigcup_\text{p prime} S(p,0) = \mathbb{Z}\setminus \{1,-1\}
If there were only finitely many prime numbers, then \mathbb{Z}\setminus \{1,-1\} is a union of finitely many closed sets, and so is closed, but it can't be closed, since it's the complement of a finite set. By contradiction, the set of primes must be infinite.
 
  • Like
Likes suremarc
That is a cool proof. Should clarify though that every open set is either empty or contains infinitely many integers, and that no complement of a non-empty finite set is closed. Since ##\{1,-1\}## is non-empty, the proof is done!
 
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
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
463
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Back
Top