Is the Cantor set made of interval endpoints?

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











up vote
24
down vote

favorite
6












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?










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 2




    For an extremely convoluted madness on a similar topic, see my answer here and the comments that ensued.
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Oct 10 '12 at 22:13







  • 1




    @Asaf: No-one should be subjected to the reading of the comments on that answer.
    – 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.
    – 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.)
    – 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.
    – Stefan Hamcke
    Oct 11 '12 at 12:32















up vote
24
down vote

favorite
6












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?










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 2




    For an extremely convoluted madness on a similar topic, see my answer here and the comments that ensued.
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Oct 10 '12 at 22:13







  • 1




    @Asaf: No-one should be subjected to the reading of the comments on that answer.
    – 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.
    – 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.)
    – 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.
    – Stefan Hamcke
    Oct 11 '12 at 12:32













up vote
24
down vote

favorite
6









up vote
24
down vote

favorite
6






6





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?










share|cite|improve this question















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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 12 '16 at 3:51









Asaf Karagila♦

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.
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Oct 10 '12 at 22:13







  • 1




    @Asaf: No-one should be subjected to the reading of the comments on that answer.
    – 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.
    – 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.)
    – 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.
    – Stefan Hamcke
    Oct 11 '12 at 12:32













  • 2




    For an extremely convoluted madness on a similar topic, see my answer here and the comments that ensued.
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Oct 10 '12 at 22:13







  • 1




    @Asaf: No-one should be subjected to the reading of the comments on that answer.
    – 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.
    – 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.)
    – 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.
    – 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.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Oct 10 '12 at 22:13





For an extremely convoluted madness on a similar topic, see my answer here and the comments that ensued.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Oct 10 '12 at 22:13





1




1




@Asaf: No-one should be subjected to the reading of the comments on that answer.
– user642796
Oct 10 '12 at 22:30




@Asaf: No-one should be subjected to the reading of the comments on that answer.
– 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.
– 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.
– 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.)
– 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.)
– 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.
– 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.
– Stefan Hamcke
Oct 11 '12 at 12:32











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.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 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 $10$.
    – Michael Hardy
    Oct 11 '12 at 2:21

















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.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    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 $3$.






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer




















        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%2f210735%2fis-the-cantor-set-made-of-interval-endpoints%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest






























        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer
















        • 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 $10$.
          – Michael Hardy
          Oct 11 '12 at 2:21














        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer
















        • 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 $10$.
          – Michael Hardy
          Oct 11 '12 at 2:21












        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        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.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        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 $10$.
          – Michael Hardy
          Oct 11 '12 at 2:21












        • 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 $10$.
          – 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 $10$.
        – 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 $10$.
        – Michael Hardy
        Oct 11 '12 at 2:21










        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer
























          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            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.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Oct 10 '12 at 22:10









            Asaf Karagila♦

            295k32410738




            295k32410738




















                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 $3$.






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  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 $3$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer






















                    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 $3$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    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 $3$.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Oct 10 '12 at 22:10









                    Carl Mummert

                    64.4k7128240




                    64.4k7128240




















                        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.






                        share|cite|improve this answer
























                          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.






                          share|cite|improve this answer






















                            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.






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            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.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Jan 12 '16 at 2:30









                            Brandon Thomas Van Over

                            3,82821025




                            3,82821025



























                                 

                                draft saved


                                draft discarded















































                                 


                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                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













































































                                這個網誌中的熱門文章

                                How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                                Carbon dioxide

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