How to construct a dense subset of $mathbb R$ other than rationals.
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
How to construct a dense subset say $A$, of the real numbers other than rationals? By dense I mean that there should be an element of $A$ between any two real numbers.
real-analysis general-topology
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
How to construct a dense subset say $A$, of the real numbers other than rationals? By dense I mean that there should be an element of $A$ between any two real numbers.
real-analysis general-topology
4
How about $mathbb R$?
â Bruce George
Mar 3 '12 at 15:49
1
Add some irrational number - pi, for example - to every rational.
â Mark Bennet
Mar 3 '12 at 15:50
2
How about $mathbbR setminus mathbbQ$?
â Andy
Mar 3 '12 at 15:51
An interesting question arises when you if there is a dense in $R$ measurable such that $m(Acap I)=1/2 |I|$ for any interval this property also tell us that the complement is a set of the same kind.
â checkmath
Mar 3 '12 at 20:26
If I understand your comment, that for any $I$, $m(Acap I) = 1/2 |I|$, then this is impossible by the Lebesgue Density Theorem.
â Patrick
Mar 4 '12 at 1:49
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
How to construct a dense subset say $A$, of the real numbers other than rationals? By dense I mean that there should be an element of $A$ between any two real numbers.
real-analysis general-topology
How to construct a dense subset say $A$, of the real numbers other than rationals? By dense I mean that there should be an element of $A$ between any two real numbers.
real-analysis general-topology
edited Mar 3 '12 at 16:01
Asaf Karagilaâ¦
292k31404734
292k31404734
asked Mar 3 '12 at 15:45
quartz
9871717
9871717
4
How about $mathbb R$?
â Bruce George
Mar 3 '12 at 15:49
1
Add some irrational number - pi, for example - to every rational.
â Mark Bennet
Mar 3 '12 at 15:50
2
How about $mathbbR setminus mathbbQ$?
â Andy
Mar 3 '12 at 15:51
An interesting question arises when you if there is a dense in $R$ measurable such that $m(Acap I)=1/2 |I|$ for any interval this property also tell us that the complement is a set of the same kind.
â checkmath
Mar 3 '12 at 20:26
If I understand your comment, that for any $I$, $m(Acap I) = 1/2 |I|$, then this is impossible by the Lebesgue Density Theorem.
â Patrick
Mar 4 '12 at 1:49
add a comment |Â
4
How about $mathbb R$?
â Bruce George
Mar 3 '12 at 15:49
1
Add some irrational number - pi, for example - to every rational.
â Mark Bennet
Mar 3 '12 at 15:50
2
How about $mathbbR setminus mathbbQ$?
â Andy
Mar 3 '12 at 15:51
An interesting question arises when you if there is a dense in $R$ measurable such that $m(Acap I)=1/2 |I|$ for any interval this property also tell us that the complement is a set of the same kind.
â checkmath
Mar 3 '12 at 20:26
If I understand your comment, that for any $I$, $m(Acap I) = 1/2 |I|$, then this is impossible by the Lebesgue Density Theorem.
â Patrick
Mar 4 '12 at 1:49
4
4
How about $mathbb R$?
â Bruce George
Mar 3 '12 at 15:49
How about $mathbb R$?
â Bruce George
Mar 3 '12 at 15:49
1
1
Add some irrational number - pi, for example - to every rational.
â Mark Bennet
Mar 3 '12 at 15:50
Add some irrational number - pi, for example - to every rational.
â Mark Bennet
Mar 3 '12 at 15:50
2
2
How about $mathbbR setminus mathbbQ$?
â Andy
Mar 3 '12 at 15:51
How about $mathbbR setminus mathbbQ$?
â Andy
Mar 3 '12 at 15:51
An interesting question arises when you if there is a dense in $R$ measurable such that $m(Acap I)=1/2 |I|$ for any interval this property also tell us that the complement is a set of the same kind.
â checkmath
Mar 3 '12 at 20:26
An interesting question arises when you if there is a dense in $R$ measurable such that $m(Acap I)=1/2 |I|$ for any interval this property also tell us that the complement is a set of the same kind.
â checkmath
Mar 3 '12 at 20:26
If I understand your comment, that for any $I$, $m(Acap I) = 1/2 |I|$, then this is impossible by the Lebesgue Density Theorem.
â Patrick
Mar 4 '12 at 1:49
If I understand your comment, that for any $I$, $m(Acap I) = 1/2 |I|$, then this is impossible by the Lebesgue Density Theorem.
â Patrick
Mar 4 '12 at 1:49
add a comment |Â
9 Answers
9
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
First note that you can "cheat" by taking any subset and take a union with the rationals.
Second note that you can always cheat by taking some real number $x$ and considering the set $x+qmid qinmathbb Q$. If $x$ is irrational then the set is not the rationals.
Now more seriously, you can note that the irrationals ($mathbb Rsetminusmathbb Q$) are dense, as well all the irrational algebraic numbers ($sqrt2$ and such). More interestingly the set $sin nmid ninmathbb N$ is dense in $[0,1]$ so it can be stretched (or multiplied) into a dense set of $mathbb R$.
However an important fact is that every countable dense linear order is isomorphic to the rationals, so if your dense set is countable it will not differ too much from the rationals.
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Let's construct dense sets in $[0,1]$. We can then get a dense set in $Bbb R$ by taking the union of dense sets for the intervals $[n, n+1]$ (a dense set for $[n,n+1]$ can be obtained from a dense set of $[0,1]$ by shifting). To make things more interesting, we will find dense sets for which, given any two distinct elements in the set there is a number between them that is not in the set.
For a dense set in $[0,1]$, you can take:
The irrationals in $[0,1]$.
Or: take $[0,1]$. Take its midpoint $1/2$ to be an element in the, to be constructed, dense set. Then take the midpoints of $(0,1/2)$ and $(1/2,1)$ to be elements in the sense set. Then take the midpoints of the four sets obtained by splitting the two prior sets in two...
Or: use any similar, carefully done, construction similar to the preceding example. For instance, you could successively split $[0,1]$ as above (always splitting the previous sets in half), but choose irrationals in each piece.
1
It might be noted that the 2nd construction are in fact the dyadic rationals
â Tyler
Mar 3 '12 at 17:54
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Let $a_n$ be a positive sequence going to zero then $p a_n$ with $pin mathbbZ$ is dense in $mathbbR$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Take any irrational number $alpha$ and consider the set $E = nalpha bmod 1 : n in mathbbN$. By the equidistribution theorem this set is uniformly distributed (and thus must be dense) on $[0,1]$. For a set dense on all of $mathbbR$ take $cup_n in mathbbZ (n + E)$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I guess you have a countable dense set $A$ in mind, since otherwise you could just put $A:=mathbb R$. I don't know what your intuition of the real numbers is, but I assume that you are happy with the idea that a real number is an infinite decimal, like $34.5210071856ldots $.
The set
$$A := bigcup_r=0^infty left kinmathbb Zright$$
of finite decimal fractions is a union of countable sets, therefore it is countable. Given any two real numbers
$$alpha:=a_0.a_1, a_2, a_3,ldots,qquad a_0inmathbb Z,quad a_kin0,1,ldots,9 (kgeq 1)$$
and $$beta:=b_0.b_1, b_2, b_3,ldots,qquad b_0inmathbb Z,quad b_kin0,1,ldots,9 (kgeq 1)$$
with $alpha<beta$ there is a minimal $kgeq0$, call it $k$, such that $a_k<b_k$. Since we have assumed $alpha<beta$ the case
$$(a_k, a_k+1, a_k+2ldots)=(a_k,9,9,9,ldots)quadwedgequad (b_k , b_k+1, b_k+2ldots)=(a_k+1,0,0,0,ldots)$$
is excluded. There are a few cases to be distinguished, but all in all it is easy to produce a finite decimal expansion
$$xi=x_0.x_1, x_2, x_3,ldots x_k-1, x_k in A$$
such that $alpha<xi<beta$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The Liouville numbers are dense in $mathbbR$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Take every real number with infinite number of occurences of the string '56787773' in the decimal expansion.
This answer can be improved by changing the number to '8675309' or maybe '42.' I feel like this is a missed opportunity.
â Mason
Aug 8 at 14:48
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Use the axiom of choice to choose one element from each open interval. (I suppose that with this method there's no guarantee you won't get the rationals.)
You don't need the axiom of choice to choose from every interval. You can constructively choose a rational from the interval. However doing that would result in a subset of the rationals.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Mar 3 '12 at 20:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
For any fixed $s>0$,
$$Biggsum_n=1^inftyfraca_nn^s: a_n_n=1^infty text is a periodic sequence of integers. Bigg$$
Is a countable set which is dense in the reals. To demonstrate this we can apply checkmath's answer.
1
For $s=0$ this seems patently false. Or generally for $sleq0$.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Aug 8 at 15:13
1
Analysis is not my game. I don't remember enough to tell you what happens there without spending a positive smidgen of energy, which I currently have none of which to spare for this question.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Aug 8 at 15:16
add a comment |Â
9 Answers
9
active
oldest
votes
9 Answers
9
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
First note that you can "cheat" by taking any subset and take a union with the rationals.
Second note that you can always cheat by taking some real number $x$ and considering the set $x+qmid qinmathbb Q$. If $x$ is irrational then the set is not the rationals.
Now more seriously, you can note that the irrationals ($mathbb Rsetminusmathbb Q$) are dense, as well all the irrational algebraic numbers ($sqrt2$ and such). More interestingly the set $sin nmid ninmathbb N$ is dense in $[0,1]$ so it can be stretched (or multiplied) into a dense set of $mathbb R$.
However an important fact is that every countable dense linear order is isomorphic to the rationals, so if your dense set is countable it will not differ too much from the rationals.
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
First note that you can "cheat" by taking any subset and take a union with the rationals.
Second note that you can always cheat by taking some real number $x$ and considering the set $x+qmid qinmathbb Q$. If $x$ is irrational then the set is not the rationals.
Now more seriously, you can note that the irrationals ($mathbb Rsetminusmathbb Q$) are dense, as well all the irrational algebraic numbers ($sqrt2$ and such). More interestingly the set $sin nmid ninmathbb N$ is dense in $[0,1]$ so it can be stretched (or multiplied) into a dense set of $mathbb R$.
However an important fact is that every countable dense linear order is isomorphic to the rationals, so if your dense set is countable it will not differ too much from the rationals.
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
up vote
11
down vote
accepted
First note that you can "cheat" by taking any subset and take a union with the rationals.
Second note that you can always cheat by taking some real number $x$ and considering the set $x+qmid qinmathbb Q$. If $x$ is irrational then the set is not the rationals.
Now more seriously, you can note that the irrationals ($mathbb Rsetminusmathbb Q$) are dense, as well all the irrational algebraic numbers ($sqrt2$ and such). More interestingly the set $sin nmid ninmathbb N$ is dense in $[0,1]$ so it can be stretched (or multiplied) into a dense set of $mathbb R$.
However an important fact is that every countable dense linear order is isomorphic to the rationals, so if your dense set is countable it will not differ too much from the rationals.
First note that you can "cheat" by taking any subset and take a union with the rationals.
Second note that you can always cheat by taking some real number $x$ and considering the set $x+qmid qinmathbb Q$. If $x$ is irrational then the set is not the rationals.
Now more seriously, you can note that the irrationals ($mathbb Rsetminusmathbb Q$) are dense, as well all the irrational algebraic numbers ($sqrt2$ and such). More interestingly the set $sin nmid ninmathbb N$ is dense in $[0,1]$ so it can be stretched (or multiplied) into a dense set of $mathbb R$.
However an important fact is that every countable dense linear order is isomorphic to the rationals, so if your dense set is countable it will not differ too much from the rationals.
answered Mar 3 '12 at 15:52
Asaf Karagilaâ¦
292k31404734
292k31404734
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Let's construct dense sets in $[0,1]$. We can then get a dense set in $Bbb R$ by taking the union of dense sets for the intervals $[n, n+1]$ (a dense set for $[n,n+1]$ can be obtained from a dense set of $[0,1]$ by shifting). To make things more interesting, we will find dense sets for which, given any two distinct elements in the set there is a number between them that is not in the set.
For a dense set in $[0,1]$, you can take:
The irrationals in $[0,1]$.
Or: take $[0,1]$. Take its midpoint $1/2$ to be an element in the, to be constructed, dense set. Then take the midpoints of $(0,1/2)$ and $(1/2,1)$ to be elements in the sense set. Then take the midpoints of the four sets obtained by splitting the two prior sets in two...
Or: use any similar, carefully done, construction similar to the preceding example. For instance, you could successively split $[0,1]$ as above (always splitting the previous sets in half), but choose irrationals in each piece.
1
It might be noted that the 2nd construction are in fact the dyadic rationals
â Tyler
Mar 3 '12 at 17:54
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Let's construct dense sets in $[0,1]$. We can then get a dense set in $Bbb R$ by taking the union of dense sets for the intervals $[n, n+1]$ (a dense set for $[n,n+1]$ can be obtained from a dense set of $[0,1]$ by shifting). To make things more interesting, we will find dense sets for which, given any two distinct elements in the set there is a number between them that is not in the set.
For a dense set in $[0,1]$, you can take:
The irrationals in $[0,1]$.
Or: take $[0,1]$. Take its midpoint $1/2$ to be an element in the, to be constructed, dense set. Then take the midpoints of $(0,1/2)$ and $(1/2,1)$ to be elements in the sense set. Then take the midpoints of the four sets obtained by splitting the two prior sets in two...
Or: use any similar, carefully done, construction similar to the preceding example. For instance, you could successively split $[0,1]$ as above (always splitting the previous sets in half), but choose irrationals in each piece.
1
It might be noted that the 2nd construction are in fact the dyadic rationals
â Tyler
Mar 3 '12 at 17:54
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Let's construct dense sets in $[0,1]$. We can then get a dense set in $Bbb R$ by taking the union of dense sets for the intervals $[n, n+1]$ (a dense set for $[n,n+1]$ can be obtained from a dense set of $[0,1]$ by shifting). To make things more interesting, we will find dense sets for which, given any two distinct elements in the set there is a number between them that is not in the set.
For a dense set in $[0,1]$, you can take:
The irrationals in $[0,1]$.
Or: take $[0,1]$. Take its midpoint $1/2$ to be an element in the, to be constructed, dense set. Then take the midpoints of $(0,1/2)$ and $(1/2,1)$ to be elements in the sense set. Then take the midpoints of the four sets obtained by splitting the two prior sets in two...
Or: use any similar, carefully done, construction similar to the preceding example. For instance, you could successively split $[0,1]$ as above (always splitting the previous sets in half), but choose irrationals in each piece.
Let's construct dense sets in $[0,1]$. We can then get a dense set in $Bbb R$ by taking the union of dense sets for the intervals $[n, n+1]$ (a dense set for $[n,n+1]$ can be obtained from a dense set of $[0,1]$ by shifting). To make things more interesting, we will find dense sets for which, given any two distinct elements in the set there is a number between them that is not in the set.
For a dense set in $[0,1]$, you can take:
The irrationals in $[0,1]$.
Or: take $[0,1]$. Take its midpoint $1/2$ to be an element in the, to be constructed, dense set. Then take the midpoints of $(0,1/2)$ and $(1/2,1)$ to be elements in the sense set. Then take the midpoints of the four sets obtained by splitting the two prior sets in two...
Or: use any similar, carefully done, construction similar to the preceding example. For instance, you could successively split $[0,1]$ as above (always splitting the previous sets in half), but choose irrationals in each piece.
edited Mar 3 '12 at 16:16
answered Mar 3 '12 at 15:54
David Mitra
61.9k694157
61.9k694157
1
It might be noted that the 2nd construction are in fact the dyadic rationals
â Tyler
Mar 3 '12 at 17:54
add a comment |Â
1
It might be noted that the 2nd construction are in fact the dyadic rationals
â Tyler
Mar 3 '12 at 17:54
1
1
It might be noted that the 2nd construction are in fact the dyadic rationals
â Tyler
Mar 3 '12 at 17:54
It might be noted that the 2nd construction are in fact the dyadic rationals
â Tyler
Mar 3 '12 at 17:54
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Let $a_n$ be a positive sequence going to zero then $p a_n$ with $pin mathbbZ$ is dense in $mathbbR$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Let $a_n$ be a positive sequence going to zero then $p a_n$ with $pin mathbbZ$ is dense in $mathbbR$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Let $a_n$ be a positive sequence going to zero then $p a_n$ with $pin mathbbZ$ is dense in $mathbbR$.
Let $a_n$ be a positive sequence going to zero then $p a_n$ with $pin mathbbZ$ is dense in $mathbbR$.
answered Mar 3 '12 at 15:51
checkmath
2,47011437
2,47011437
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Take any irrational number $alpha$ and consider the set $E = nalpha bmod 1 : n in mathbbN$. By the equidistribution theorem this set is uniformly distributed (and thus must be dense) on $[0,1]$. For a set dense on all of $mathbbR$ take $cup_n in mathbbZ (n + E)$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Take any irrational number $alpha$ and consider the set $E = nalpha bmod 1 : n in mathbbN$. By the equidistribution theorem this set is uniformly distributed (and thus must be dense) on $[0,1]$. For a set dense on all of $mathbbR$ take $cup_n in mathbbZ (n + E)$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Take any irrational number $alpha$ and consider the set $E = nalpha bmod 1 : n in mathbbN$. By the equidistribution theorem this set is uniformly distributed (and thus must be dense) on $[0,1]$. For a set dense on all of $mathbbR$ take $cup_n in mathbbZ (n + E)$.
Take any irrational number $alpha$ and consider the set $E = nalpha bmod 1 : n in mathbbN$. By the equidistribution theorem this set is uniformly distributed (and thus must be dense) on $[0,1]$. For a set dense on all of $mathbbR$ take $cup_n in mathbbZ (n + E)$.
edited Mar 4 '12 at 0:17
Brian M. Scott
448k39492879
448k39492879
answered Mar 3 '12 at 16:08
Chris Janjigian
4,77941735
4,77941735
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I guess you have a countable dense set $A$ in mind, since otherwise you could just put $A:=mathbb R$. I don't know what your intuition of the real numbers is, but I assume that you are happy with the idea that a real number is an infinite decimal, like $34.5210071856ldots $.
The set
$$A := bigcup_r=0^infty left kinmathbb Zright$$
of finite decimal fractions is a union of countable sets, therefore it is countable. Given any two real numbers
$$alpha:=a_0.a_1, a_2, a_3,ldots,qquad a_0inmathbb Z,quad a_kin0,1,ldots,9 (kgeq 1)$$
and $$beta:=b_0.b_1, b_2, b_3,ldots,qquad b_0inmathbb Z,quad b_kin0,1,ldots,9 (kgeq 1)$$
with $alpha<beta$ there is a minimal $kgeq0$, call it $k$, such that $a_k<b_k$. Since we have assumed $alpha<beta$ the case
$$(a_k, a_k+1, a_k+2ldots)=(a_k,9,9,9,ldots)quadwedgequad (b_k , b_k+1, b_k+2ldots)=(a_k+1,0,0,0,ldots)$$
is excluded. There are a few cases to be distinguished, but all in all it is easy to produce a finite decimal expansion
$$xi=x_0.x_1, x_2, x_3,ldots x_k-1, x_k in A$$
such that $alpha<xi<beta$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I guess you have a countable dense set $A$ in mind, since otherwise you could just put $A:=mathbb R$. I don't know what your intuition of the real numbers is, but I assume that you are happy with the idea that a real number is an infinite decimal, like $34.5210071856ldots $.
The set
$$A := bigcup_r=0^infty left kinmathbb Zright$$
of finite decimal fractions is a union of countable sets, therefore it is countable. Given any two real numbers
$$alpha:=a_0.a_1, a_2, a_3,ldots,qquad a_0inmathbb Z,quad a_kin0,1,ldots,9 (kgeq 1)$$
and $$beta:=b_0.b_1, b_2, b_3,ldots,qquad b_0inmathbb Z,quad b_kin0,1,ldots,9 (kgeq 1)$$
with $alpha<beta$ there is a minimal $kgeq0$, call it $k$, such that $a_k<b_k$. Since we have assumed $alpha<beta$ the case
$$(a_k, a_k+1, a_k+2ldots)=(a_k,9,9,9,ldots)quadwedgequad (b_k , b_k+1, b_k+2ldots)=(a_k+1,0,0,0,ldots)$$
is excluded. There are a few cases to be distinguished, but all in all it is easy to produce a finite decimal expansion
$$xi=x_0.x_1, x_2, x_3,ldots x_k-1, x_k in A$$
such that $alpha<xi<beta$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
I guess you have a countable dense set $A$ in mind, since otherwise you could just put $A:=mathbb R$. I don't know what your intuition of the real numbers is, but I assume that you are happy with the idea that a real number is an infinite decimal, like $34.5210071856ldots $.
The set
$$A := bigcup_r=0^infty left kinmathbb Zright$$
of finite decimal fractions is a union of countable sets, therefore it is countable. Given any two real numbers
$$alpha:=a_0.a_1, a_2, a_3,ldots,qquad a_0inmathbb Z,quad a_kin0,1,ldots,9 (kgeq 1)$$
and $$beta:=b_0.b_1, b_2, b_3,ldots,qquad b_0inmathbb Z,quad b_kin0,1,ldots,9 (kgeq 1)$$
with $alpha<beta$ there is a minimal $kgeq0$, call it $k$, such that $a_k<b_k$. Since we have assumed $alpha<beta$ the case
$$(a_k, a_k+1, a_k+2ldots)=(a_k,9,9,9,ldots)quadwedgequad (b_k , b_k+1, b_k+2ldots)=(a_k+1,0,0,0,ldots)$$
is excluded. There are a few cases to be distinguished, but all in all it is easy to produce a finite decimal expansion
$$xi=x_0.x_1, x_2, x_3,ldots x_k-1, x_k in A$$
such that $alpha<xi<beta$.
I guess you have a countable dense set $A$ in mind, since otherwise you could just put $A:=mathbb R$. I don't know what your intuition of the real numbers is, but I assume that you are happy with the idea that a real number is an infinite decimal, like $34.5210071856ldots $.
The set
$$A := bigcup_r=0^infty left kinmathbb Zright$$
of finite decimal fractions is a union of countable sets, therefore it is countable. Given any two real numbers
$$alpha:=a_0.a_1, a_2, a_3,ldots,qquad a_0inmathbb Z,quad a_kin0,1,ldots,9 (kgeq 1)$$
and $$beta:=b_0.b_1, b_2, b_3,ldots,qquad b_0inmathbb Z,quad b_kin0,1,ldots,9 (kgeq 1)$$
with $alpha<beta$ there is a minimal $kgeq0$, call it $k$, such that $a_k<b_k$. Since we have assumed $alpha<beta$ the case
$$(a_k, a_k+1, a_k+2ldots)=(a_k,9,9,9,ldots)quadwedgequad (b_k , b_k+1, b_k+2ldots)=(a_k+1,0,0,0,ldots)$$
is excluded. There are a few cases to be distinguished, but all in all it is easy to produce a finite decimal expansion
$$xi=x_0.x_1, x_2, x_3,ldots x_k-1, x_k in A$$
such that $alpha<xi<beta$.
edited Mar 4 '12 at 0:18
Brian M. Scott
448k39492879
448k39492879
answered Mar 3 '12 at 19:24
Christian Blatter
164k7108306
164k7108306
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The Liouville numbers are dense in $mathbbR$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The Liouville numbers are dense in $mathbbR$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The Liouville numbers are dense in $mathbbR$.
The Liouville numbers are dense in $mathbbR$.
edited Mar 4 '12 at 0:20
Brian M. Scott
448k39492879
448k39492879
answered Mar 3 '12 at 19:09
Salech Alhasov
4,75912037
4,75912037
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Take every real number with infinite number of occurences of the string '56787773' in the decimal expansion.
This answer can be improved by changing the number to '8675309' or maybe '42.' I feel like this is a missed opportunity.
â Mason
Aug 8 at 14:48
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Take every real number with infinite number of occurences of the string '56787773' in the decimal expansion.
This answer can be improved by changing the number to '8675309' or maybe '42.' I feel like this is a missed opportunity.
â Mason
Aug 8 at 14:48
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Take every real number with infinite number of occurences of the string '56787773' in the decimal expansion.
Take every real number with infinite number of occurences of the string '56787773' in the decimal expansion.
edited Mar 3 '12 at 18:30
answered Mar 3 '12 at 18:19
TROLLHUNTER
3,62422779
3,62422779
This answer can be improved by changing the number to '8675309' or maybe '42.' I feel like this is a missed opportunity.
â Mason
Aug 8 at 14:48
add a comment |Â
This answer can be improved by changing the number to '8675309' or maybe '42.' I feel like this is a missed opportunity.
â Mason
Aug 8 at 14:48
This answer can be improved by changing the number to '8675309' or maybe '42.' I feel like this is a missed opportunity.
â Mason
Aug 8 at 14:48
This answer can be improved by changing the number to '8675309' or maybe '42.' I feel like this is a missed opportunity.
â Mason
Aug 8 at 14:48
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Use the axiom of choice to choose one element from each open interval. (I suppose that with this method there's no guarantee you won't get the rationals.)
You don't need the axiom of choice to choose from every interval. You can constructively choose a rational from the interval. However doing that would result in a subset of the rationals.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Mar 3 '12 at 20:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Use the axiom of choice to choose one element from each open interval. (I suppose that with this method there's no guarantee you won't get the rationals.)
You don't need the axiom of choice to choose from every interval. You can constructively choose a rational from the interval. However doing that would result in a subset of the rationals.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Mar 3 '12 at 20:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Use the axiom of choice to choose one element from each open interval. (I suppose that with this method there's no guarantee you won't get the rationals.)
Use the axiom of choice to choose one element from each open interval. (I suppose that with this method there's no guarantee you won't get the rationals.)
answered Mar 3 '12 at 20:01
user21467
You don't need the axiom of choice to choose from every interval. You can constructively choose a rational from the interval. However doing that would result in a subset of the rationals.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Mar 3 '12 at 20:05
add a comment |Â
You don't need the axiom of choice to choose from every interval. You can constructively choose a rational from the interval. However doing that would result in a subset of the rationals.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Mar 3 '12 at 20:05
You don't need the axiom of choice to choose from every interval. You can constructively choose a rational from the interval. However doing that would result in a subset of the rationals.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Mar 3 '12 at 20:05
You don't need the axiom of choice to choose from every interval. You can constructively choose a rational from the interval. However doing that would result in a subset of the rationals.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Mar 3 '12 at 20:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
For any fixed $s>0$,
$$Biggsum_n=1^inftyfraca_nn^s: a_n_n=1^infty text is a periodic sequence of integers. Bigg$$
Is a countable set which is dense in the reals. To demonstrate this we can apply checkmath's answer.
1
For $s=0$ this seems patently false. Or generally for $sleq0$.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Aug 8 at 15:13
1
Analysis is not my game. I don't remember enough to tell you what happens there without spending a positive smidgen of energy, which I currently have none of which to spare for this question.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Aug 8 at 15:16
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
For any fixed $s>0$,
$$Biggsum_n=1^inftyfraca_nn^s: a_n_n=1^infty text is a periodic sequence of integers. Bigg$$
Is a countable set which is dense in the reals. To demonstrate this we can apply checkmath's answer.
1
For $s=0$ this seems patently false. Or generally for $sleq0$.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Aug 8 at 15:13
1
Analysis is not my game. I don't remember enough to tell you what happens there without spending a positive smidgen of energy, which I currently have none of which to spare for this question.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Aug 8 at 15:16
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
For any fixed $s>0$,
$$Biggsum_n=1^inftyfraca_nn^s: a_n_n=1^infty text is a periodic sequence of integers. Bigg$$
Is a countable set which is dense in the reals. To demonstrate this we can apply checkmath's answer.
For any fixed $s>0$,
$$Biggsum_n=1^inftyfraca_nn^s: a_n_n=1^infty text is a periodic sequence of integers. Bigg$$
Is a countable set which is dense in the reals. To demonstrate this we can apply checkmath's answer.
edited Aug 8 at 15:33
answered Aug 8 at 15:07
Mason
1,2401224
1,2401224
1
For $s=0$ this seems patently false. Or generally for $sleq0$.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Aug 8 at 15:13
1
Analysis is not my game. I don't remember enough to tell you what happens there without spending a positive smidgen of energy, which I currently have none of which to spare for this question.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Aug 8 at 15:16
add a comment |Â
1
For $s=0$ this seems patently false. Or generally for $sleq0$.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Aug 8 at 15:13
1
Analysis is not my game. I don't remember enough to tell you what happens there without spending a positive smidgen of energy, which I currently have none of which to spare for this question.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Aug 8 at 15:16
1
1
For $s=0$ this seems patently false. Or generally for $sleq0$.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Aug 8 at 15:13
For $s=0$ this seems patently false. Or generally for $sleq0$.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Aug 8 at 15:13
1
1
Analysis is not my game. I don't remember enough to tell you what happens there without spending a positive smidgen of energy, which I currently have none of which to spare for this question.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Aug 8 at 15:16
Analysis is not my game. I don't remember enough to tell you what happens there without spending a positive smidgen of energy, which I currently have none of which to spare for this question.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Aug 8 at 15:16
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f115989%2fhow-to-construct-a-dense-subset-of-mathbb-r-other-than-rationals%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
4
How about $mathbb R$?
â Bruce George
Mar 3 '12 at 15:49
1
Add some irrational number - pi, for example - to every rational.
â Mark Bennet
Mar 3 '12 at 15:50
2
How about $mathbbR setminus mathbbQ$?
â Andy
Mar 3 '12 at 15:51
An interesting question arises when you if there is a dense in $R$ measurable such that $m(Acap I)=1/2 |I|$ for any interval this property also tell us that the complement is a set of the same kind.
â checkmath
Mar 3 '12 at 20:26
If I understand your comment, that for any $I$, $m(Acap I) = 1/2 |I|$, then this is impossible by the Lebesgue Density Theorem.
â Patrick
Mar 4 '12 at 1:49