Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Playing with infinity: pairing integers with the real numbers


Best Answer James33, 12 June 2013 - 09:55 AM

Spoiler for

Go to the full post


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 bonanova

bonanova

    bonanova

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5567 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 12 June 2013 - 07:33 AM

Cantor tells us that infinities come in "sizes" or cardinalities.

Some infinities are "larger" than others.

The smallest infinite set comprises the counting numbers, 1 2 3 4 5 ...

and any other set that can be put in a 1-1 correspondence with them.

Such infinities are called "countable."

The rational numbers are also countable, but the real numbers are not.

 

Occasionally someone will attempt to pair the counting number with the reals.

One such scheme is shown below, and the argument goes as follows:

 

The left column is the endless list of integers in numerical order

The right column contains a decimal fraction formed by reversing the digits and placing a decimal point in front.

Since the left hand list proceeds without limit it eventually contains every possible sequence of digits.

Then the right hand list also catches every sequence of digits and thus represents the real numbers less than unity.

Numbers greater than unity can be constructed by sets with a shift in the position of the decimal point.

The union of two or more sets of equal cardinality has the same cardinality as its component sets.

 

This correspondence is sufficient to prove the two sets have the same cardinality.

 

The argument is obviously flawed, and the question is to expose the flaw.

Here are the lists:

 

 Integers             Decimal fractions

 

     1                      .1

     2                      .2
     3                      .3
     4                      .4
     .                       .
     .                       .
     .                       .
    10                      .01
    11                      .11
    12                      .21
    13                      .31
     .                       .
     .                       .
     .                       .
   100                      .001
   101                      .101
   102                      .201
   103                      .301
     .                       .
     .                       .
     .                       .
  1234                      .4321
     .                       .
     .                       .
     .                       .


  • 0
The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.
- Bertrand Russell

#2 James33

James33

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 12 June 2013 - 09:55 AM   Best Answer

Spoiler for


  • 0

#3 phil1882

phil1882

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 507 posts

Posted 12 June 2013 - 12:09 PM

i tend to agree with James. however let's try this construction.

first, I'll use binary, so only 1 and 0.

then I'll construct a transcendental number.

let 0->01 and 1 -> 0

0

01

010

01001

01001010

repeat indefinitely, use this number as our 1.

1   -> 0.01001010..

we know the rational numbers are countably infinite, and doubling the rational numbers is not enough to change countability.

so, i propose we rotate between the list of rational numbers, and xor the list rational numbers with this transcendental number.

prove this doesn't go through every positive number.


Edited by phil1882, 12 June 2013 - 12:12 PM.

  • 0

#4 bonanova

bonanova

    bonanova

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5567 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 13 June 2013 - 08:17 PM

Spoiler for


Right.
Column 2 is only a subset of the rationals.
  • 0
The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.
- Bertrand Russell

#5 phil1882

phil1882

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 507 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 01:26 AM

does no one want to take on my challenge ???!!! :-)


  • 0

#6 bonanova

bonanova

    bonanova

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5567 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 14 June 2013 - 07:45 AM

i tend to agree with James. however let's try this construction.

first, I'll use binary, so only 1 and 0.

then I'll construct a transcendental number.

let 0->01 and 1 -> 0

0

01

010

01001

01001010

repeat indefinitely, use this number as our 1.

1   -> 0.01001010..

we know the rational numbers are countably infinite, and doubling the rational numbers is not enough to change countability.

so, i propose we rotate between the list of rational numbers, and xor the list rational numbers with this transcendental number.

prove this doesn't go through every positive number.

 

Which rationals XOR with 0.01001010... to give e/3 and pi/4?


  • 0
The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.
- Bertrand Russell

#7 phil1882

phil1882

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 507 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 08:26 AM

i might not be able to find the exact coordinate since 0.01001010 is transcendental, and I'm not quite sure how to map one transcendental number to another, but i can give better and better coordinates depending on your approximation of e/3 and pi/4.

what i can guarantee is that there are numbers that are as random as e/3 and pi/4.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users