Why is the All but Finitely Many Theorem Important?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rasalhague
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Rasalhague
Messages
1,383
Reaction score
2
"All but finitely many" theorem

Let S be a set with cardinality |S|=\aleph_0. Let A,B \subseteq S. Let S\backslash A and S\backslash B be finite. Then A \cap B \neq \varnothing.

How can this be shown? I came across it as an assumption in a proof that a sequence in a metric space can converge to at most one limit.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


There's something wrong with that assumption. I'll show you a counterexample.

S = the set of integers
A = all integers except 0
B = all integers except 1

S-A = {0}
S-B = {1}

##A\cap B## = all integers except 0 and 1
##A\cap B## ≠ ∅.

Also, you don't need any assumptions that look anything like that to prove that limits with respect to a metric are unique, but you probably know that. ##x_n\to x## means that every open ball around x contains all but a finite number of terms of the sequence. So if ##x_n\to x##, ##x_n\to y## and x≠y, just define r=(1/2)d(x,y) and consider the open balls B(x,r) and B(y,r). Since all but a finite number of terms are in B(x,r), and since B(y,r) is disjoint from B(x,r), B(y,r) contains at most a finite number of terms. This contradicts the assumption that ##x_n\to y##.

Edit: Apparently I can't even read today. thought your post said =∅, not ≠∅.
 
Last edited:


Hint:

S\setminus (A\cap B)=?
 


micromass said:
Hint:

S\setminus (A\cap B)=?

Ah, I see, thanks!

S\setminus (A\cap B) = (S\setminus A)\cup (S\setminus B).

If A\cap B = \varnothing, then S\setminus (A\cap B) = S\setminus \varnothing = S. So (S\setminus A)\cup (S\setminus B) = S. But |S|=\aleph_0, whereas S\setminus A and S\setminus B are each finite, and the union of two finite sets is finite. Contradiction. Therefore A\cap B \neq \varnothing.

To see that the union of two finite sets is finite, let P,Q be finite. P\cup Q = P\cup (Q\setminus P). As a subset of a finite set, Q\setminus P is finite. As a http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/CardinalityOfDisjointUnionOfFiniteSets.html , |P\cup (Q\setminus P)| = |P| + |Q\setminus P|. So |P\cup Q|=|P\cup (Q\setminus P)|=|P| + |Q\setminus P| \in \left \{ 0 \right \}\cup \mathbb{N}.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
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...
Back
Top