Is the Cantor set made of interval endpoints?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
24
down vote
favorite
The Cantor set is closed, so its complement is open. So the complement can be written as a countable union of disjoint open intervals. Why can we not just enumerate all endpoints of the countably many intervals, and conclude the Cantor set is countable?
real-analysis general-topology elementary-set-theory cantor-set
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
24
down vote
favorite
The Cantor set is closed, so its complement is open. So the complement can be written as a countable union of disjoint open intervals. Why can we not just enumerate all endpoints of the countably many intervals, and conclude the Cantor set is countable?
real-analysis general-topology elementary-set-theory cantor-set
2
For an extremely convoluted madness on a similar topic, see my answer here and the comments that ensued.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Oct 10 '12 at 22:13
1
@Asaf: No-one should be subjected to the reading of the comments on that answer.
â user642796
Oct 10 '12 at 22:30
3
The set of endpoints of these countably many intervals is strictly contained in the Cantor set. The Cantor set is perfect and therefore uncountable.
â leo
Oct 10 '12 at 22:31
1
@Brian: If you think that would help I'd make an exception. But the good Herr Professor Doktor likely has them all enraptured by his "revolutionary" outsider status within the mathematics community. He doesn't exactly hide his "idio(t)syncratic" beliefs and I cannot imagine that the administration is ignorant of the fact that his take on mathematics stands in direct opposition to the overwhelming consensus of the vast majority within the community. (Either that or he will claim that someone is fraudulently using his name to discredit him.)
â user642796
Oct 11 '12 at 4:25
1
The Cantor set is not only closed but also has empty interior. Maybe you had that in mind because this means that Cantor set equals it's own boundary and is thus equal to the boundary of the complement, a countable union of disjoint open intervals. The point is that the closure of this union is different from the union of the closures, and therefore the boundary of the complement, i.e. the Cantor set, contains many more points than the boundary points of those intervals.
â Stefan Hamcke
Oct 11 '12 at 12:32
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
24
down vote
favorite
up vote
24
down vote
favorite
The Cantor set is closed, so its complement is open. So the complement can be written as a countable union of disjoint open intervals. Why can we not just enumerate all endpoints of the countably many intervals, and conclude the Cantor set is countable?
real-analysis general-topology elementary-set-theory cantor-set
The Cantor set is closed, so its complement is open. So the complement can be written as a countable union of disjoint open intervals. Why can we not just enumerate all endpoints of the countably many intervals, and conclude the Cantor set is countable?
real-analysis general-topology elementary-set-theory cantor-set
real-analysis general-topology elementary-set-theory cantor-set
edited Jan 12 '16 at 3:51
Asaf Karagilaâ¦
295k32410738
295k32410738
asked Oct 10 '12 at 22:05
Forever Mozart
5,39621240
5,39621240
2
For an extremely convoluted madness on a similar topic, see my answer here and the comments that ensued.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Oct 10 '12 at 22:13
1
@Asaf: No-one should be subjected to the reading of the comments on that answer.
â user642796
Oct 10 '12 at 22:30
3
The set of endpoints of these countably many intervals is strictly contained in the Cantor set. The Cantor set is perfect and therefore uncountable.
â leo
Oct 10 '12 at 22:31
1
@Brian: If you think that would help I'd make an exception. But the good Herr Professor Doktor likely has them all enraptured by his "revolutionary" outsider status within the mathematics community. He doesn't exactly hide his "idio(t)syncratic" beliefs and I cannot imagine that the administration is ignorant of the fact that his take on mathematics stands in direct opposition to the overwhelming consensus of the vast majority within the community. (Either that or he will claim that someone is fraudulently using his name to discredit him.)
â user642796
Oct 11 '12 at 4:25
1
The Cantor set is not only closed but also has empty interior. Maybe you had that in mind because this means that Cantor set equals it's own boundary and is thus equal to the boundary of the complement, a countable union of disjoint open intervals. The point is that the closure of this union is different from the union of the closures, and therefore the boundary of the complement, i.e. the Cantor set, contains many more points than the boundary points of those intervals.
â Stefan Hamcke
Oct 11 '12 at 12:32
 |Â
show 3 more comments
2
For an extremely convoluted madness on a similar topic, see my answer here and the comments that ensued.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Oct 10 '12 at 22:13
1
@Asaf: No-one should be subjected to the reading of the comments on that answer.
â user642796
Oct 10 '12 at 22:30
3
The set of endpoints of these countably many intervals is strictly contained in the Cantor set. The Cantor set is perfect and therefore uncountable.
â leo
Oct 10 '12 at 22:31
1
@Brian: If you think that would help I'd make an exception. But the good Herr Professor Doktor likely has them all enraptured by his "revolutionary" outsider status within the mathematics community. He doesn't exactly hide his "idio(t)syncratic" beliefs and I cannot imagine that the administration is ignorant of the fact that his take on mathematics stands in direct opposition to the overwhelming consensus of the vast majority within the community. (Either that or he will claim that someone is fraudulently using his name to discredit him.)
â user642796
Oct 11 '12 at 4:25
1
The Cantor set is not only closed but also has empty interior. Maybe you had that in mind because this means that Cantor set equals it's own boundary and is thus equal to the boundary of the complement, a countable union of disjoint open intervals. The point is that the closure of this union is different from the union of the closures, and therefore the boundary of the complement, i.e. the Cantor set, contains many more points than the boundary points of those intervals.
â Stefan Hamcke
Oct 11 '12 at 12:32
2
2
For an extremely convoluted madness on a similar topic, see my answer here and the comments that ensued.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Oct 10 '12 at 22:13
For an extremely convoluted madness on a similar topic, see my answer here and the comments that ensued.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Oct 10 '12 at 22:13
1
1
@Asaf: No-one should be subjected to the reading of the comments on that answer.
â user642796
Oct 10 '12 at 22:30
@Asaf: No-one should be subjected to the reading of the comments on that answer.
â user642796
Oct 10 '12 at 22:30
3
3
The set of endpoints of these countably many intervals is strictly contained in the Cantor set. The Cantor set is perfect and therefore uncountable.
â leo
Oct 10 '12 at 22:31
The set of endpoints of these countably many intervals is strictly contained in the Cantor set. The Cantor set is perfect and therefore uncountable.
â leo
Oct 10 '12 at 22:31
1
1
@Brian: If you think that would help I'd make an exception. But the good Herr Professor Doktor likely has them all enraptured by his "revolutionary" outsider status within the mathematics community. He doesn't exactly hide his "idio(t)syncratic" beliefs and I cannot imagine that the administration is ignorant of the fact that his take on mathematics stands in direct opposition to the overwhelming consensus of the vast majority within the community. (Either that or he will claim that someone is fraudulently using his name to discredit him.)
â user642796
Oct 11 '12 at 4:25
@Brian: If you think that would help I'd make an exception. But the good Herr Professor Doktor likely has them all enraptured by his "revolutionary" outsider status within the mathematics community. He doesn't exactly hide his "idio(t)syncratic" beliefs and I cannot imagine that the administration is ignorant of the fact that his take on mathematics stands in direct opposition to the overwhelming consensus of the vast majority within the community. (Either that or he will claim that someone is fraudulently using his name to discredit him.)
â user642796
Oct 11 '12 at 4:25
1
1
The Cantor set is not only closed but also has empty interior. Maybe you had that in mind because this means that Cantor set equals it's own boundary and is thus equal to the boundary of the complement, a countable union of disjoint open intervals. The point is that the closure of this union is different from the union of the closures, and therefore the boundary of the complement, i.e. the Cantor set, contains many more points than the boundary points of those intervals.
â Stefan Hamcke
Oct 11 '12 at 12:32
The Cantor set is not only closed but also has empty interior. Maybe you had that in mind because this means that Cantor set equals it's own boundary and is thus equal to the boundary of the complement, a countable union of disjoint open intervals. The point is that the closure of this union is different from the union of the closures, and therefore the boundary of the complement, i.e. the Cantor set, contains many more points than the boundary points of those intervals.
â Stefan Hamcke
Oct 11 '12 at 12:32
 |Â
show 3 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
16
down vote
Because the Cantor set includes numbers which are not the endpoints of any intervals removed. For example, the number $frac14$ (0.02020202020... in ternary) belongs to the Cantor set, but is not an endpoint of any interval removed.
2
And $3/10$ is another. In the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, check out the denominators of rational numbers in the Cantor set. If I recall correctly, besides powers of $3$, and first ones are $4$ and $10$.
â Michael Hardy
Oct 11 '12 at 2:21
add a comment |Â
up vote
15
down vote
You cannot do that because a countable set can have an uncountably many limit points. The points in the Cantor set are limit points of these endpoints.
For example, the real numbers are all limit points of the rational numbers. If between every two real numbers there is a rational number, but we still can't establish that the real numbers are countable.
add a comment |Â
up vote
15
down vote
The reason that does not work is that there are some points in the Cantor set which are not the endpoint of any interval that is removed during the construction of the Cantor set. In the proof that is suggested in the question, it would be necessary to show that every point in the set is one of these endpoints, but that just isn't true. The proof that the Cantor set is uncountable already shows there has to be at least one such "non-endpoint" point, because the set of endpoints is countable, as the question above points out. In fact we can give a specific example: the number $1/4$ is in the usual middle-thirds Cantor set, but it is not an endpoint of any interval that is removed, because all those endpoints are rationals whose denominator can be written as a power of $3$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
There are a couple other ways to conclude that the Cantor set is uncountable, which you can read more about in Charles Pugh's "Real Mathematical Analysis" 2nd edition. Since the arguments clarified a lot for me I figured it would be good to put them in here for others to see since they have not been mentioned already.
While this theorem does not give much intuition about the points included in the Cantor set which make it uncountable, we can use the fact that every complete, perfect, and nonempty metric space is uncountable, and show that the Cantor set meets these criteria to show that it is uncountable.
Now for a more illuminating explanation that relates to the expression in base $3$ argument, we create an address for each point in the Cantor set which consists of an infinite string of $0$'s and $2$'s which is determined as follows.
We know that $C=bigcap_n=1^inftyC^n$ where each $C^n$ consists of the $2^n$ subdivisions of $[0,1]$ each of length $frac13^n$. So we create an address system which indicates to which of the $2^n$ subintervals a given point $p$ belongs, where the string up to the $n$-th digit will tell us the specific subinterval in $C^n$. The general idea is that a $0$ indicates belonging to the left subinterval after the removal of the middle third , while a $2$ indicates belonging to the right subinterval after the removal of the middle third of a given interval of $C^n$.
Let's consider the example with $p=frac14$. We know that the first splitting of the interval $[0,1]$ in $C^1$ consists of the two subintervals $C_0= [0, frac13]$ and $C_2=[frac23, 1]$. and that $frac14 in [0, frac13]$. Therefore the first number of the address string for $frac14$ is a $0$.
Now for $C^2$, we know this consists of $4$ subintervals of $[0,1]$, namely $C_00 =[0, frac19]$, $C_02=[frac29, frac13]$, $C_20=[frac23, frac79]$, and $C_22=[frac89,1]$. We know that $frac29<frac14< frac13$, we have that $frac14in C_02=[frac29, frac13]$, making our address for $frac14$ is $02....$. Continuing on to $C^3$, $C^4$,... we get an infinite address string for $frac14$.
The set of all of these infinite address strings can be shown to be uncountable, and it is in bijection with the Cantor set. By the continuum hypothesis, any uncountable subset of $mathbbR$ has a cardinality equal to $mathbbR$. Therefore the Cantor set is uncountable.
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
16
down vote
Because the Cantor set includes numbers which are not the endpoints of any intervals removed. For example, the number $frac14$ (0.02020202020... in ternary) belongs to the Cantor set, but is not an endpoint of any interval removed.
2
And $3/10$ is another. In the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, check out the denominators of rational numbers in the Cantor set. If I recall correctly, besides powers of $3$, and first ones are $4$ and $10$.
â Michael Hardy
Oct 11 '12 at 2:21
add a comment |Â
up vote
16
down vote
Because the Cantor set includes numbers which are not the endpoints of any intervals removed. For example, the number $frac14$ (0.02020202020... in ternary) belongs to the Cantor set, but is not an endpoint of any interval removed.
2
And $3/10$ is another. In the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, check out the denominators of rational numbers in the Cantor set. If I recall correctly, besides powers of $3$, and first ones are $4$ and $10$.
â Michael Hardy
Oct 11 '12 at 2:21
add a comment |Â
up vote
16
down vote
up vote
16
down vote
Because the Cantor set includes numbers which are not the endpoints of any intervals removed. For example, the number $frac14$ (0.02020202020... in ternary) belongs to the Cantor set, but is not an endpoint of any interval removed.
Because the Cantor set includes numbers which are not the endpoints of any intervals removed. For example, the number $frac14$ (0.02020202020... in ternary) belongs to the Cantor set, but is not an endpoint of any interval removed.
answered Oct 10 '12 at 22:10
user642796
44.1k557112
44.1k557112
2
And $3/10$ is another. In the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, check out the denominators of rational numbers in the Cantor set. If I recall correctly, besides powers of $3$, and first ones are $4$ and $10$.
â Michael Hardy
Oct 11 '12 at 2:21
add a comment |Â
2
And $3/10$ is another. In the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, check out the denominators of rational numbers in the Cantor set. If I recall correctly, besides powers of $3$, and first ones are $4$ and $10$.
â Michael Hardy
Oct 11 '12 at 2:21
2
2
And $3/10$ is another. In the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, check out the denominators of rational numbers in the Cantor set. If I recall correctly, besides powers of $3$, and first ones are $4$ and $10$.
â Michael Hardy
Oct 11 '12 at 2:21
And $3/10$ is another. In the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, check out the denominators of rational numbers in the Cantor set. If I recall correctly, besides powers of $3$, and first ones are $4$ and $10$.
â Michael Hardy
Oct 11 '12 at 2:21
add a comment |Â
up vote
15
down vote
You cannot do that because a countable set can have an uncountably many limit points. The points in the Cantor set are limit points of these endpoints.
For example, the real numbers are all limit points of the rational numbers. If between every two real numbers there is a rational number, but we still can't establish that the real numbers are countable.
add a comment |Â
up vote
15
down vote
You cannot do that because a countable set can have an uncountably many limit points. The points in the Cantor set are limit points of these endpoints.
For example, the real numbers are all limit points of the rational numbers. If between every two real numbers there is a rational number, but we still can't establish that the real numbers are countable.
add a comment |Â
up vote
15
down vote
up vote
15
down vote
You cannot do that because a countable set can have an uncountably many limit points. The points in the Cantor set are limit points of these endpoints.
For example, the real numbers are all limit points of the rational numbers. If between every two real numbers there is a rational number, but we still can't establish that the real numbers are countable.
You cannot do that because a countable set can have an uncountably many limit points. The points in the Cantor set are limit points of these endpoints.
For example, the real numbers are all limit points of the rational numbers. If between every two real numbers there is a rational number, but we still can't establish that the real numbers are countable.
answered Oct 10 '12 at 22:10
Asaf Karagilaâ¦
295k32410738
295k32410738
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
15
down vote
The reason that does not work is that there are some points in the Cantor set which are not the endpoint of any interval that is removed during the construction of the Cantor set. In the proof that is suggested in the question, it would be necessary to show that every point in the set is one of these endpoints, but that just isn't true. The proof that the Cantor set is uncountable already shows there has to be at least one such "non-endpoint" point, because the set of endpoints is countable, as the question above points out. In fact we can give a specific example: the number $1/4$ is in the usual middle-thirds Cantor set, but it is not an endpoint of any interval that is removed, because all those endpoints are rationals whose denominator can be written as a power of $3$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
15
down vote
The reason that does not work is that there are some points in the Cantor set which are not the endpoint of any interval that is removed during the construction of the Cantor set. In the proof that is suggested in the question, it would be necessary to show that every point in the set is one of these endpoints, but that just isn't true. The proof that the Cantor set is uncountable already shows there has to be at least one such "non-endpoint" point, because the set of endpoints is countable, as the question above points out. In fact we can give a specific example: the number $1/4$ is in the usual middle-thirds Cantor set, but it is not an endpoint of any interval that is removed, because all those endpoints are rationals whose denominator can be written as a power of $3$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
15
down vote
up vote
15
down vote
The reason that does not work is that there are some points in the Cantor set which are not the endpoint of any interval that is removed during the construction of the Cantor set. In the proof that is suggested in the question, it would be necessary to show that every point in the set is one of these endpoints, but that just isn't true. The proof that the Cantor set is uncountable already shows there has to be at least one such "non-endpoint" point, because the set of endpoints is countable, as the question above points out. In fact we can give a specific example: the number $1/4$ is in the usual middle-thirds Cantor set, but it is not an endpoint of any interval that is removed, because all those endpoints are rationals whose denominator can be written as a power of $3$.
The reason that does not work is that there are some points in the Cantor set which are not the endpoint of any interval that is removed during the construction of the Cantor set. In the proof that is suggested in the question, it would be necessary to show that every point in the set is one of these endpoints, but that just isn't true. The proof that the Cantor set is uncountable already shows there has to be at least one such "non-endpoint" point, because the set of endpoints is countable, as the question above points out. In fact we can give a specific example: the number $1/4$ is in the usual middle-thirds Cantor set, but it is not an endpoint of any interval that is removed, because all those endpoints are rationals whose denominator can be written as a power of $3$.
answered Oct 10 '12 at 22:10
Carl Mummert
64.4k7128240
64.4k7128240
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
There are a couple other ways to conclude that the Cantor set is uncountable, which you can read more about in Charles Pugh's "Real Mathematical Analysis" 2nd edition. Since the arguments clarified a lot for me I figured it would be good to put them in here for others to see since they have not been mentioned already.
While this theorem does not give much intuition about the points included in the Cantor set which make it uncountable, we can use the fact that every complete, perfect, and nonempty metric space is uncountable, and show that the Cantor set meets these criteria to show that it is uncountable.
Now for a more illuminating explanation that relates to the expression in base $3$ argument, we create an address for each point in the Cantor set which consists of an infinite string of $0$'s and $2$'s which is determined as follows.
We know that $C=bigcap_n=1^inftyC^n$ where each $C^n$ consists of the $2^n$ subdivisions of $[0,1]$ each of length $frac13^n$. So we create an address system which indicates to which of the $2^n$ subintervals a given point $p$ belongs, where the string up to the $n$-th digit will tell us the specific subinterval in $C^n$. The general idea is that a $0$ indicates belonging to the left subinterval after the removal of the middle third , while a $2$ indicates belonging to the right subinterval after the removal of the middle third of a given interval of $C^n$.
Let's consider the example with $p=frac14$. We know that the first splitting of the interval $[0,1]$ in $C^1$ consists of the two subintervals $C_0= [0, frac13]$ and $C_2=[frac23, 1]$. and that $frac14 in [0, frac13]$. Therefore the first number of the address string for $frac14$ is a $0$.
Now for $C^2$, we know this consists of $4$ subintervals of $[0,1]$, namely $C_00 =[0, frac19]$, $C_02=[frac29, frac13]$, $C_20=[frac23, frac79]$, and $C_22=[frac89,1]$. We know that $frac29<frac14< frac13$, we have that $frac14in C_02=[frac29, frac13]$, making our address for $frac14$ is $02....$. Continuing on to $C^3$, $C^4$,... we get an infinite address string for $frac14$.
The set of all of these infinite address strings can be shown to be uncountable, and it is in bijection with the Cantor set. By the continuum hypothesis, any uncountable subset of $mathbbR$ has a cardinality equal to $mathbbR$. Therefore the Cantor set is uncountable.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
There are a couple other ways to conclude that the Cantor set is uncountable, which you can read more about in Charles Pugh's "Real Mathematical Analysis" 2nd edition. Since the arguments clarified a lot for me I figured it would be good to put them in here for others to see since they have not been mentioned already.
While this theorem does not give much intuition about the points included in the Cantor set which make it uncountable, we can use the fact that every complete, perfect, and nonempty metric space is uncountable, and show that the Cantor set meets these criteria to show that it is uncountable.
Now for a more illuminating explanation that relates to the expression in base $3$ argument, we create an address for each point in the Cantor set which consists of an infinite string of $0$'s and $2$'s which is determined as follows.
We know that $C=bigcap_n=1^inftyC^n$ where each $C^n$ consists of the $2^n$ subdivisions of $[0,1]$ each of length $frac13^n$. So we create an address system which indicates to which of the $2^n$ subintervals a given point $p$ belongs, where the string up to the $n$-th digit will tell us the specific subinterval in $C^n$. The general idea is that a $0$ indicates belonging to the left subinterval after the removal of the middle third , while a $2$ indicates belonging to the right subinterval after the removal of the middle third of a given interval of $C^n$.
Let's consider the example with $p=frac14$. We know that the first splitting of the interval $[0,1]$ in $C^1$ consists of the two subintervals $C_0= [0, frac13]$ and $C_2=[frac23, 1]$. and that $frac14 in [0, frac13]$. Therefore the first number of the address string for $frac14$ is a $0$.
Now for $C^2$, we know this consists of $4$ subintervals of $[0,1]$, namely $C_00 =[0, frac19]$, $C_02=[frac29, frac13]$, $C_20=[frac23, frac79]$, and $C_22=[frac89,1]$. We know that $frac29<frac14< frac13$, we have that $frac14in C_02=[frac29, frac13]$, making our address for $frac14$ is $02....$. Continuing on to $C^3$, $C^4$,... we get an infinite address string for $frac14$.
The set of all of these infinite address strings can be shown to be uncountable, and it is in bijection with the Cantor set. By the continuum hypothesis, any uncountable subset of $mathbbR$ has a cardinality equal to $mathbbR$. Therefore the Cantor set is uncountable.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
There are a couple other ways to conclude that the Cantor set is uncountable, which you can read more about in Charles Pugh's "Real Mathematical Analysis" 2nd edition. Since the arguments clarified a lot for me I figured it would be good to put them in here for others to see since they have not been mentioned already.
While this theorem does not give much intuition about the points included in the Cantor set which make it uncountable, we can use the fact that every complete, perfect, and nonempty metric space is uncountable, and show that the Cantor set meets these criteria to show that it is uncountable.
Now for a more illuminating explanation that relates to the expression in base $3$ argument, we create an address for each point in the Cantor set which consists of an infinite string of $0$'s and $2$'s which is determined as follows.
We know that $C=bigcap_n=1^inftyC^n$ where each $C^n$ consists of the $2^n$ subdivisions of $[0,1]$ each of length $frac13^n$. So we create an address system which indicates to which of the $2^n$ subintervals a given point $p$ belongs, where the string up to the $n$-th digit will tell us the specific subinterval in $C^n$. The general idea is that a $0$ indicates belonging to the left subinterval after the removal of the middle third , while a $2$ indicates belonging to the right subinterval after the removal of the middle third of a given interval of $C^n$.
Let's consider the example with $p=frac14$. We know that the first splitting of the interval $[0,1]$ in $C^1$ consists of the two subintervals $C_0= [0, frac13]$ and $C_2=[frac23, 1]$. and that $frac14 in [0, frac13]$. Therefore the first number of the address string for $frac14$ is a $0$.
Now for $C^2$, we know this consists of $4$ subintervals of $[0,1]$, namely $C_00 =[0, frac19]$, $C_02=[frac29, frac13]$, $C_20=[frac23, frac79]$, and $C_22=[frac89,1]$. We know that $frac29<frac14< frac13$, we have that $frac14in C_02=[frac29, frac13]$, making our address for $frac14$ is $02....$. Continuing on to $C^3$, $C^4$,... we get an infinite address string for $frac14$.
The set of all of these infinite address strings can be shown to be uncountable, and it is in bijection with the Cantor set. By the continuum hypothesis, any uncountable subset of $mathbbR$ has a cardinality equal to $mathbbR$. Therefore the Cantor set is uncountable.
There are a couple other ways to conclude that the Cantor set is uncountable, which you can read more about in Charles Pugh's "Real Mathematical Analysis" 2nd edition. Since the arguments clarified a lot for me I figured it would be good to put them in here for others to see since they have not been mentioned already.
While this theorem does not give much intuition about the points included in the Cantor set which make it uncountable, we can use the fact that every complete, perfect, and nonempty metric space is uncountable, and show that the Cantor set meets these criteria to show that it is uncountable.
Now for a more illuminating explanation that relates to the expression in base $3$ argument, we create an address for each point in the Cantor set which consists of an infinite string of $0$'s and $2$'s which is determined as follows.
We know that $C=bigcap_n=1^inftyC^n$ where each $C^n$ consists of the $2^n$ subdivisions of $[0,1]$ each of length $frac13^n$. So we create an address system which indicates to which of the $2^n$ subintervals a given point $p$ belongs, where the string up to the $n$-th digit will tell us the specific subinterval in $C^n$. The general idea is that a $0$ indicates belonging to the left subinterval after the removal of the middle third , while a $2$ indicates belonging to the right subinterval after the removal of the middle third of a given interval of $C^n$.
Let's consider the example with $p=frac14$. We know that the first splitting of the interval $[0,1]$ in $C^1$ consists of the two subintervals $C_0= [0, frac13]$ and $C_2=[frac23, 1]$. and that $frac14 in [0, frac13]$. Therefore the first number of the address string for $frac14$ is a $0$.
Now for $C^2$, we know this consists of $4$ subintervals of $[0,1]$, namely $C_00 =[0, frac19]$, $C_02=[frac29, frac13]$, $C_20=[frac23, frac79]$, and $C_22=[frac89,1]$. We know that $frac29<frac14< frac13$, we have that $frac14in C_02=[frac29, frac13]$, making our address for $frac14$ is $02....$. Continuing on to $C^3$, $C^4$,... we get an infinite address string for $frac14$.
The set of all of these infinite address strings can be shown to be uncountable, and it is in bijection with the Cantor set. By the continuum hypothesis, any uncountable subset of $mathbbR$ has a cardinality equal to $mathbbR$. Therefore the Cantor set is uncountable.
answered Jan 12 '16 at 2:30
Brandon Thomas Van Over
3,82821025
3,82821025
add a comment |Â
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%2f210735%2fis-the-cantor-set-made-of-interval-endpoints%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
2
For an extremely convoluted madness on a similar topic, see my answer here and the comments that ensued.
â Asaf Karagilaâ¦
Oct 10 '12 at 22:13
1
@Asaf: No-one should be subjected to the reading of the comments on that answer.
â user642796
Oct 10 '12 at 22:30
3
The set of endpoints of these countably many intervals is strictly contained in the Cantor set. The Cantor set is perfect and therefore uncountable.
â leo
Oct 10 '12 at 22:31
1
@Brian: If you think that would help I'd make an exception. But the good Herr Professor Doktor likely has them all enraptured by his "revolutionary" outsider status within the mathematics community. He doesn't exactly hide his "idio(t)syncratic" beliefs and I cannot imagine that the administration is ignorant of the fact that his take on mathematics stands in direct opposition to the overwhelming consensus of the vast majority within the community. (Either that or he will claim that someone is fraudulently using his name to discredit him.)
â user642796
Oct 11 '12 at 4:25
1
The Cantor set is not only closed but also has empty interior. Maybe you had that in mind because this means that Cantor set equals it's own boundary and is thus equal to the boundary of the complement, a countable union of disjoint open intervals. The point is that the closure of this union is different from the union of the closures, and therefore the boundary of the complement, i.e. the Cantor set, contains many more points than the boundary points of those intervals.
â Stefan Hamcke
Oct 11 '12 at 12:32