How to construct a dense subset of $mathbb R$ other than rationals.

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
6
down vote

favorite
2












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.







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 4




    How about $mathbb R$?
    – Bruce George
    Mar 3 '12 at 15:49







  • 1




    Add some irrational number - pi, for example - to every rational.
    – Mark Bennet
    Mar 3 '12 at 15:50






  • 2




    How about $mathbbR setminus mathbbQ$?
    – 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.
    – 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.
    – Patrick
    Mar 4 '12 at 1:49














up vote
6
down vote

favorite
2












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.







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 4




    How about $mathbb R$?
    – Bruce George
    Mar 3 '12 at 15:49







  • 1




    Add some irrational number - pi, for example - to every rational.
    – Mark Bennet
    Mar 3 '12 at 15:50






  • 2




    How about $mathbbR setminus mathbbQ$?
    – 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.
    – 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.
    – Patrick
    Mar 4 '12 at 1:49












up vote
6
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
6
down vote

favorite
2






2





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.







share|cite|improve this question














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.









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 3 '12 at 16:01









Asaf Karagila♦

292k31404734




292k31404734










asked Mar 3 '12 at 15:45









quartz

9871717




9871717







  • 4




    How about $mathbb R$?
    – Bruce George
    Mar 3 '12 at 15:49







  • 1




    Add some irrational number - pi, for example - to every rational.
    – Mark Bennet
    Mar 3 '12 at 15:50






  • 2




    How about $mathbbR setminus mathbbQ$?
    – 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.
    – 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.
    – Patrick
    Mar 4 '12 at 1:49












  • 4




    How about $mathbb R$?
    – Bruce George
    Mar 3 '12 at 15:49







  • 1




    Add some irrational number - pi, for example - to every rational.
    – Mark Bennet
    Mar 3 '12 at 15:50






  • 2




    How about $mathbbR setminus mathbbQ$?
    – 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.
    – 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.
    – Patrick
    Mar 4 '12 at 1:49







4




4




How about $mathbb R$?
– Bruce George
Mar 3 '12 at 15:49





How about $mathbb R$?
– Bruce George
Mar 3 '12 at 15:49





1




1




Add some irrational number - pi, for example - to every rational.
– Mark Bennet
Mar 3 '12 at 15:50




Add some irrational number - pi, for example - to every rational.
– Mark Bennet
Mar 3 '12 at 15:50




2




2




How about $mathbbR setminus mathbbQ$?
– Andy
Mar 3 '12 at 15:51




How about $mathbbR setminus mathbbQ$?
– 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.
– 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.
– 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.
– 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.
– Patrick
Mar 4 '12 at 1:49










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.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer


















    • 1




      It might be noted that the 2nd construction are in fact the dyadic rationals
      – Tyler
      Mar 3 '12 at 17:54


















    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 $mathbbR$.






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      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 $cup_n in mathbbZ (n + E)$.






      share|cite|improve this answer





























        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 $alpha<xi<beta$.






        share|cite|improve this answer





























          up vote
          2
          down vote













          The Liouville numbers are dense in $mathbbR$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Take every real number with infinite number of occurences of the string '56787773' in the decimal expansion.






            share|cite|improve this answer






















            • This answer can be improved by changing the number to '8675309' or maybe '42.' I feel like this is a missed opportunity.
              – Mason
              Aug 8 at 14:48

















            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.)






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • 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.
              – Asaf Karagila♦
              Mar 3 '12 at 20:05

















            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer


















            • 1




              For $s=0$ this seems patently false. Or generally for $sleq0$.
              – Asaf Karagila♦
              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.
              – Asaf Karagila♦
              Aug 8 at 15:16










            Your Answer




            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            );
            );
            , "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );








             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            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






























            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer
























              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer






















                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.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                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.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Mar 3 '12 at 15:52









                Asaf Karagila♦

                292k31404734




                292k31404734




















                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer


















                    • 1




                      It might be noted that the 2nd construction are in fact the dyadic rationals
                      – Tyler
                      Mar 3 '12 at 17:54















                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer


















                    • 1




                      It might be noted that the 2nd construction are in fact the dyadic rationals
                      – Tyler
                      Mar 3 '12 at 17:54













                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    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.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    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
                      – Tyler
                      Mar 3 '12 at 17:54













                    • 1




                      It might be noted that the 2nd construction are in fact the dyadic rationals
                      – Tyler
                      Mar 3 '12 at 17:54








                    1




                    1




                    It might be noted that the 2nd construction are in fact the dyadic rationals
                    – Tyler
                    Mar 3 '12 at 17:54





                    It might be noted that the 2nd construction are in fact the dyadic rationals
                    – Tyler
                    Mar 3 '12 at 17:54











                    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 $mathbbR$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer
























                      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 $mathbbR$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer






















                        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 $mathbbR$.






                        share|cite|improve this answer












                        Let $a_n$ be a positive sequence going to zero then $p a_n$ with $pin mathbbZ$ is dense in $mathbbR$.







                        share|cite|improve this answer












                        share|cite|improve this answer



                        share|cite|improve this answer










                        answered Mar 3 '12 at 15:51









                        checkmath

                        2,47011437




                        2,47011437




















                            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 $cup_n in mathbbZ (n + E)$.






                            share|cite|improve this answer


























                              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 $cup_n in mathbbZ (n + E)$.






                              share|cite|improve this answer
























                                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 $cup_n in mathbbZ (n + E)$.






                                share|cite|improve this answer














                                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 $cup_n in mathbbZ (n + E)$.







                                share|cite|improve this answer














                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                share|cite|improve this answer








                                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




















                                    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 $alpha<xi<beta$.






                                    share|cite|improve this answer


























                                      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 $alpha<xi<beta$.






                                      share|cite|improve this answer
























                                        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 $alpha<xi<beta$.






                                        share|cite|improve this answer














                                        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 $alpha<xi<beta$.







                                        share|cite|improve this answer














                                        share|cite|improve this answer



                                        share|cite|improve this answer








                                        edited Mar 4 '12 at 0:18









                                        Brian M. Scott

                                        448k39492879




                                        448k39492879










                                        answered Mar 3 '12 at 19:24









                                        Christian Blatter

                                        164k7108306




                                        164k7108306




















                                            up vote
                                            2
                                            down vote













                                            The Liouville numbers are dense in $mathbbR$.






                                            share|cite|improve this answer


























                                              up vote
                                              2
                                              down vote













                                              The Liouville numbers are dense in $mathbbR$.






                                              share|cite|improve this answer
























                                                up vote
                                                2
                                                down vote










                                                up vote
                                                2
                                                down vote









                                                The Liouville numbers are dense in $mathbbR$.






                                                share|cite|improve this answer














                                                The Liouville numbers are dense in $mathbbR$.







                                                share|cite|improve this answer














                                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                                share|cite|improve this answer








                                                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




















                                                    up vote
                                                    1
                                                    down vote













                                                    Take every real number with infinite number of occurences of the string '56787773' in the decimal expansion.






                                                    share|cite|improve this answer






















                                                    • This answer can be improved by changing the number to '8675309' or maybe '42.' I feel like this is a missed opportunity.
                                                      – Mason
                                                      Aug 8 at 14:48














                                                    up vote
                                                    1
                                                    down vote













                                                    Take every real number with infinite number of occurences of the string '56787773' in the decimal expansion.






                                                    share|cite|improve this answer






















                                                    • This answer can be improved by changing the number to '8675309' or maybe '42.' I feel like this is a missed opportunity.
                                                      – Mason
                                                      Aug 8 at 14:48












                                                    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.






                                                    share|cite|improve this answer














                                                    Take every real number with infinite number of occurences of the string '56787773' in the decimal expansion.







                                                    share|cite|improve this answer














                                                    share|cite|improve this answer



                                                    share|cite|improve this answer








                                                    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.
                                                      – 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.
                                                      – 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.
                                                    – 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.
                                                    – Mason
                                                    Aug 8 at 14:48










                                                    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.)






                                                    share|cite|improve this answer




















                                                    • 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.
                                                      – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                      Mar 3 '12 at 20:05














                                                    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.)






                                                    share|cite|improve this answer




















                                                    • 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.
                                                      – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                      Mar 3 '12 at 20:05












                                                    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.)






                                                    share|cite|improve this answer












                                                    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.)







                                                    share|cite|improve this answer












                                                    share|cite|improve this answer



                                                    share|cite|improve this answer










                                                    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.
                                                      – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                      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.
                                                      – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                      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.
                                                    – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                    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.
                                                    – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                    Mar 3 '12 at 20:05










                                                    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.






                                                    share|cite|improve this answer


















                                                    • 1




                                                      For $s=0$ this seems patently false. Or generally for $sleq0$.
                                                      – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                      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.
                                                      – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                      Aug 8 at 15:16














                                                    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.






                                                    share|cite|improve this answer


















                                                    • 1




                                                      For $s=0$ this seems patently false. Or generally for $sleq0$.
                                                      – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                      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.
                                                      – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                      Aug 8 at 15:16












                                                    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.






                                                    share|cite|improve this 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.







                                                    share|cite|improve this answer














                                                    share|cite|improve this answer



                                                    share|cite|improve this 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 $sleq0$.
                                                      – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                      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.
                                                      – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                      Aug 8 at 15:16












                                                    • 1




                                                      For $s=0$ this seems patently false. Or generally for $sleq0$.
                                                      – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                      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.
                                                      – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                      Aug 8 at 15:16







                                                    1




                                                    1




                                                    For $s=0$ this seems patently false. Or generally for $sleq0$.
                                                    – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                    Aug 8 at 15:13





                                                    For $s=0$ this seems patently false. Or generally for $sleq0$.
                                                    – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                    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.
                                                    – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                    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.
                                                    – Asaf Karagila♦
                                                    Aug 8 at 15:16












                                                     

                                                    draft saved


                                                    draft discarded


























                                                     


                                                    draft saved


                                                    draft discarded














                                                    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













































































                                                    這個網誌中的熱門文章

                                                    How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                                                    Mutual Information Always Non-negative

                                                    Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?