strictly increasing function from reals to reals which is never an algebraic number
Let $f:Bbb RrightarrowBbb R$ have the properties $forall x,yinBbb R,space x<yimplies f(x)<f(y)$ and $forall xinBbb R,space f(x)notinBbb A$ where $Bbb A$ is the set of algebraic numbers; i.e. $f$ is strictly increasing, but nowhere is $f(x)$ algebraic.
Does such a function exist? And if so, can one be explicitly constructed?
My thoughts are that such a function should exist, since the algebraic numbers are "small" compared to the reals; we can show that a bijection (or more weakly an injection) must exist from $Bbb R$ to $Bbb RbackslashBbb A$ because they have the same cardinality, but I'm not entirely sure how to show rigorously that a strictly increasing function exists, even if in principle this is just a special type of injection.
Replacing $Bbb A$ by a set such as $Bbb Z$ in the definition makes the question trivial, and these sets have the same cardinality, so clearly the difficulty arises because $Bbb A$ is dense in the reals - any hints or answers would be appreciated.
real-analysis order-theory
add a comment |
Let $f:Bbb RrightarrowBbb R$ have the properties $forall x,yinBbb R,space x<yimplies f(x)<f(y)$ and $forall xinBbb R,space f(x)notinBbb A$ where $Bbb A$ is the set of algebraic numbers; i.e. $f$ is strictly increasing, but nowhere is $f(x)$ algebraic.
Does such a function exist? And if so, can one be explicitly constructed?
My thoughts are that such a function should exist, since the algebraic numbers are "small" compared to the reals; we can show that a bijection (or more weakly an injection) must exist from $Bbb R$ to $Bbb RbackslashBbb A$ because they have the same cardinality, but I'm not entirely sure how to show rigorously that a strictly increasing function exists, even if in principle this is just a special type of injection.
Replacing $Bbb A$ by a set such as $Bbb Z$ in the definition makes the question trivial, and these sets have the same cardinality, so clearly the difficulty arises because $Bbb A$ is dense in the reals - any hints or answers would be appreciated.
real-analysis order-theory
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг Gelfond-Schneider only holds if $r$ and $f(x)$ are algebraic, in $r^{f(x)}$. But $f(x)$ cannot be algebraic for all $x$ as otherwise $f$ would be an injection from the reals to a set with smaller cardinality, which is not possible.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 17:49
@stanleydodds I see. Thank you for the point out.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 28 '18 at 18:01
Do you know the answer to the easier question of finding an increasing $f$ which is never rational? Also, something which might be relevant is the fact that an increasing function is continuous off of a countable set.
– Jason DeVito
Nov 28 '18 at 18:26
No I do not know the answer to that simpler question - from all I've been able to do so far, exchanging $Bbb A$ with any other set that is dense in the reals but countable (e.g. $Bbb Q$) makes another tricky question.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 18:32
add a comment |
Let $f:Bbb RrightarrowBbb R$ have the properties $forall x,yinBbb R,space x<yimplies f(x)<f(y)$ and $forall xinBbb R,space f(x)notinBbb A$ where $Bbb A$ is the set of algebraic numbers; i.e. $f$ is strictly increasing, but nowhere is $f(x)$ algebraic.
Does such a function exist? And if so, can one be explicitly constructed?
My thoughts are that such a function should exist, since the algebraic numbers are "small" compared to the reals; we can show that a bijection (or more weakly an injection) must exist from $Bbb R$ to $Bbb RbackslashBbb A$ because they have the same cardinality, but I'm not entirely sure how to show rigorously that a strictly increasing function exists, even if in principle this is just a special type of injection.
Replacing $Bbb A$ by a set such as $Bbb Z$ in the definition makes the question trivial, and these sets have the same cardinality, so clearly the difficulty arises because $Bbb A$ is dense in the reals - any hints or answers would be appreciated.
real-analysis order-theory
Let $f:Bbb RrightarrowBbb R$ have the properties $forall x,yinBbb R,space x<yimplies f(x)<f(y)$ and $forall xinBbb R,space f(x)notinBbb A$ where $Bbb A$ is the set of algebraic numbers; i.e. $f$ is strictly increasing, but nowhere is $f(x)$ algebraic.
Does such a function exist? And if so, can one be explicitly constructed?
My thoughts are that such a function should exist, since the algebraic numbers are "small" compared to the reals; we can show that a bijection (or more weakly an injection) must exist from $Bbb R$ to $Bbb RbackslashBbb A$ because they have the same cardinality, but I'm not entirely sure how to show rigorously that a strictly increasing function exists, even if in principle this is just a special type of injection.
Replacing $Bbb A$ by a set such as $Bbb Z$ in the definition makes the question trivial, and these sets have the same cardinality, so clearly the difficulty arises because $Bbb A$ is dense in the reals - any hints or answers would be appreciated.
real-analysis order-theory
real-analysis order-theory
edited Nov 28 '18 at 16:19
Andrés E. Caicedo
64.8k8158246
64.8k8158246
asked Nov 28 '18 at 16:07
stanley dodds
4251310
4251310
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг Gelfond-Schneider only holds if $r$ and $f(x)$ are algebraic, in $r^{f(x)}$. But $f(x)$ cannot be algebraic for all $x$ as otherwise $f$ would be an injection from the reals to a set with smaller cardinality, which is not possible.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 17:49
@stanleydodds I see. Thank you for the point out.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 28 '18 at 18:01
Do you know the answer to the easier question of finding an increasing $f$ which is never rational? Also, something which might be relevant is the fact that an increasing function is continuous off of a countable set.
– Jason DeVito
Nov 28 '18 at 18:26
No I do not know the answer to that simpler question - from all I've been able to do so far, exchanging $Bbb A$ with any other set that is dense in the reals but countable (e.g. $Bbb Q$) makes another tricky question.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 18:32
add a comment |
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг Gelfond-Schneider only holds if $r$ and $f(x)$ are algebraic, in $r^{f(x)}$. But $f(x)$ cannot be algebraic for all $x$ as otherwise $f$ would be an injection from the reals to a set with smaller cardinality, which is not possible.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 17:49
@stanleydodds I see. Thank you for the point out.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 28 '18 at 18:01
Do you know the answer to the easier question of finding an increasing $f$ which is never rational? Also, something which might be relevant is the fact that an increasing function is continuous off of a countable set.
– Jason DeVito
Nov 28 '18 at 18:26
No I do not know the answer to that simpler question - from all I've been able to do so far, exchanging $Bbb A$ with any other set that is dense in the reals but countable (e.g. $Bbb Q$) makes another tricky question.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 18:32
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг Gelfond-Schneider only holds if $r$ and $f(x)$ are algebraic, in $r^{f(x)}$. But $f(x)$ cannot be algebraic for all $x$ as otherwise $f$ would be an injection from the reals to a set with smaller cardinality, which is not possible.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 17:49
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг Gelfond-Schneider only holds if $r$ and $f(x)$ are algebraic, in $r^{f(x)}$. But $f(x)$ cannot be algebraic for all $x$ as otherwise $f$ would be an injection from the reals to a set with smaller cardinality, which is not possible.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 17:49
@stanleydodds I see. Thank you for the point out.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 28 '18 at 18:01
@stanleydodds I see. Thank you for the point out.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 28 '18 at 18:01
Do you know the answer to the easier question of finding an increasing $f$ which is never rational? Also, something which might be relevant is the fact that an increasing function is continuous off of a countable set.
– Jason DeVito
Nov 28 '18 at 18:26
Do you know the answer to the easier question of finding an increasing $f$ which is never rational? Also, something which might be relevant is the fact that an increasing function is continuous off of a countable set.
– Jason DeVito
Nov 28 '18 at 18:26
No I do not know the answer to that simpler question - from all I've been able to do so far, exchanging $Bbb A$ with any other set that is dense in the reals but countable (e.g. $Bbb Q$) makes another tricky question.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 18:32
No I do not know the answer to that simpler question - from all I've been able to do so far, exchanging $Bbb A$ with any other set that is dense in the reals but countable (e.g. $Bbb Q$) makes another tricky question.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 18:32
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
A possible (I will explain why later) example could be ...
Let's take an $x in mathbb{R}$ and have its binary (for simplicity) representation $x=(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0color{red}{,}x_{-1}x_{-2}...x_{-m}...)_2, x_kin{0,1}, kin{-infty,...,n}$ or
$$x=sumlimits_{k=0}^nx_k2^k + sumlimits_{m=1}frac{x_{-m}}{2^{m}}$$
and build the function
$$f(x)=fleft(sumlimits_{k=0}^nx_k2^k + sumlimits_{m=1}frac{x_{-m}}{2^{color{red}{m}}}right)=
sumlimits_{k=0}^nx_k2^k + sumlimits_{m=1}frac{x_{-m}}{2^{color{red}{m!}}}$$
i.e. $f(x)$ becomes
- a Liouville number, if $x$ is irrational
- a Liouville number, if $x$ is rational with periodic (never ending) fractional part
- a rational, if $x$ is rational with finite fractional part
$f(x)=x$, if $x$ is integer
All the Liouville numbers are transcendentals, so this function never returns an algebraic number.
It's not too difficult to show it's strictly increasing, if $a < b$ or
$$(a_na_{n-1}...a_0color{red}{,}a_{-1}a_{-2}...a_{-m}...)_2 < (b_nb_{n-1}...b_0color{red}{,}b_{-1}b_{-2}...b_{-m}...)_2$$ ($a_n,a_{n-1}, ...$ can be $0$, just to have a common upper index $n$ for both $a$ and $b$) means that $exists k in{-infty, ...,n}$ such that $a_k<b_k$ while $a_t=b_t, tin{k+1,...,n}$. With $f(x)$ we have
$$(a_na_{n-1}...a_0color{red}{,}a_{-1}a_{-2}color{blue}{000}a_{-3}color{blue}{00000000000000000}a_{-4}color{blue}{00...}a_{-m}...)_2 < (b_nb_{n-1}...b_0color{red}{,}b_{-1}b_{-2}color{blue}{000}b_{-3}color{blue}{00000000000000000}b_{-4}color{blue}{00...}b_{-m}...)_2$$
Note 1: I restricted the function to $mathbb{R^+}rightarrow mathbb{R^+}$, but it can be extended, taking into account the sign of $x$.
Note 2 As per the comments below, integers and rationals are algebraic numbers. To overcome this part, we can apply these tricks
$$(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0)_2=((x_nx_{n-1}...x_0-1)color{red}{,}11111...)_2$$
and
$$(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0color{red}{,}x_{-1}x_{-2}...x_{-m})_2=(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0color{red}{,}x_{-1}x_{-2}...(x_{-m}-1)11111...)_2$$
leading to Liouville numbers in all the cases.
Now why possible, because not all reals are computable.
5
This is a good answer, but I should mention that rationals and integers are also algebraic numbers, so for integer or rational with finite fractional part $x$ we still have an algebraic $f(x)$. This is not a problem though, since both of these $x$ can instead be written with infinite trailing 1's in base 2 form, and defining $f$ to use this form in these cases again gives a Liouville number. I'm not sure if you didn't notice, or if you knew this already.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 18:58
@stanleydodds oh yes, you are right! I ignored (or forgot) that part :(
– rtybase
Nov 28 '18 at 19:14
It's amusing that Liouville numbers come up here, because this solution versus mine seems somewhat like Liouville's proof of the existence of transcendental numbers versus Cantor's....
– David C. Ullrich
Dec 6 '18 at 13:20
add a comment |
It's actually very simple; the same result holds with any countable set in place of the algebraic numbers. Since $Bbb R$ is order-isomorphic to $(0,infty)$ it's enough to prove this:
If $Csubset(0,infty)$ is countable there exists a strictly increasing function $f:(0,infty)to(0,infty)setminus C$.
Since a countable set is contained in an open set of finite measure this follows from the stronger result (where $m$ is Lebesgue measure):
Suppose $Vsubset(0,infty)$ is open, let $E=(0,infty)setminus V$ and assume $m(E)=infty$. There exists a strictly increasing function $f:(0,infty)to E$.
Proof: Define $phi:[0,infty)to[0,infty)$ by $$phi(y)=m(Ecap[0,y)).$$Then $phi$ is continuous, $phi(0)=0$ and $phi(infty)=infty$, so $$phi((0,infty))=(0,infty).$$
Suppose $yin V$. Say $yin(a,b)$, where $(a,b)$ is a connected component of $V$. Then $phi(y)=phi(b)$ and $bin E$. Hence $$phi(E)=phi((0,infty))=(0,infty).$$So for every $t>0$ there exists $f(t)in E$ with $$phi(f(t))=t.$$If $0<s<t$ it follows that $$f(t)-f(s)ge m([f(s),f(t))cap E)=phi(f(t))-phi(f(s))= t-s>0;$$hence $f$ is strictly increasing.
Very neat.${{}}$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Dec 7 '18 at 13:46
add a comment |
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3017324%2fstrictly-increasing-function-from-reals-to-reals-which-is-never-an-algebraic-num%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
A possible (I will explain why later) example could be ...
Let's take an $x in mathbb{R}$ and have its binary (for simplicity) representation $x=(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0color{red}{,}x_{-1}x_{-2}...x_{-m}...)_2, x_kin{0,1}, kin{-infty,...,n}$ or
$$x=sumlimits_{k=0}^nx_k2^k + sumlimits_{m=1}frac{x_{-m}}{2^{m}}$$
and build the function
$$f(x)=fleft(sumlimits_{k=0}^nx_k2^k + sumlimits_{m=1}frac{x_{-m}}{2^{color{red}{m}}}right)=
sumlimits_{k=0}^nx_k2^k + sumlimits_{m=1}frac{x_{-m}}{2^{color{red}{m!}}}$$
i.e. $f(x)$ becomes
- a Liouville number, if $x$ is irrational
- a Liouville number, if $x$ is rational with periodic (never ending) fractional part
- a rational, if $x$ is rational with finite fractional part
$f(x)=x$, if $x$ is integer
All the Liouville numbers are transcendentals, so this function never returns an algebraic number.
It's not too difficult to show it's strictly increasing, if $a < b$ or
$$(a_na_{n-1}...a_0color{red}{,}a_{-1}a_{-2}...a_{-m}...)_2 < (b_nb_{n-1}...b_0color{red}{,}b_{-1}b_{-2}...b_{-m}...)_2$$ ($a_n,a_{n-1}, ...$ can be $0$, just to have a common upper index $n$ for both $a$ and $b$) means that $exists k in{-infty, ...,n}$ such that $a_k<b_k$ while $a_t=b_t, tin{k+1,...,n}$. With $f(x)$ we have
$$(a_na_{n-1}...a_0color{red}{,}a_{-1}a_{-2}color{blue}{000}a_{-3}color{blue}{00000000000000000}a_{-4}color{blue}{00...}a_{-m}...)_2 < (b_nb_{n-1}...b_0color{red}{,}b_{-1}b_{-2}color{blue}{000}b_{-3}color{blue}{00000000000000000}b_{-4}color{blue}{00...}b_{-m}...)_2$$
Note 1: I restricted the function to $mathbb{R^+}rightarrow mathbb{R^+}$, but it can be extended, taking into account the sign of $x$.
Note 2 As per the comments below, integers and rationals are algebraic numbers. To overcome this part, we can apply these tricks
$$(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0)_2=((x_nx_{n-1}...x_0-1)color{red}{,}11111...)_2$$
and
$$(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0color{red}{,}x_{-1}x_{-2}...x_{-m})_2=(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0color{red}{,}x_{-1}x_{-2}...(x_{-m}-1)11111...)_2$$
leading to Liouville numbers in all the cases.
Now why possible, because not all reals are computable.
5
This is a good answer, but I should mention that rationals and integers are also algebraic numbers, so for integer or rational with finite fractional part $x$ we still have an algebraic $f(x)$. This is not a problem though, since both of these $x$ can instead be written with infinite trailing 1's in base 2 form, and defining $f$ to use this form in these cases again gives a Liouville number. I'm not sure if you didn't notice, or if you knew this already.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 18:58
@stanleydodds oh yes, you are right! I ignored (or forgot) that part :(
– rtybase
Nov 28 '18 at 19:14
It's amusing that Liouville numbers come up here, because this solution versus mine seems somewhat like Liouville's proof of the existence of transcendental numbers versus Cantor's....
– David C. Ullrich
Dec 6 '18 at 13:20
add a comment |
A possible (I will explain why later) example could be ...
Let's take an $x in mathbb{R}$ and have its binary (for simplicity) representation $x=(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0color{red}{,}x_{-1}x_{-2}...x_{-m}...)_2, x_kin{0,1}, kin{-infty,...,n}$ or
$$x=sumlimits_{k=0}^nx_k2^k + sumlimits_{m=1}frac{x_{-m}}{2^{m}}$$
and build the function
$$f(x)=fleft(sumlimits_{k=0}^nx_k2^k + sumlimits_{m=1}frac{x_{-m}}{2^{color{red}{m}}}right)=
sumlimits_{k=0}^nx_k2^k + sumlimits_{m=1}frac{x_{-m}}{2^{color{red}{m!}}}$$
i.e. $f(x)$ becomes
- a Liouville number, if $x$ is irrational
- a Liouville number, if $x$ is rational with periodic (never ending) fractional part
- a rational, if $x$ is rational with finite fractional part
$f(x)=x$, if $x$ is integer
All the Liouville numbers are transcendentals, so this function never returns an algebraic number.
It's not too difficult to show it's strictly increasing, if $a < b$ or
$$(a_na_{n-1}...a_0color{red}{,}a_{-1}a_{-2}...a_{-m}...)_2 < (b_nb_{n-1}...b_0color{red}{,}b_{-1}b_{-2}...b_{-m}...)_2$$ ($a_n,a_{n-1}, ...$ can be $0$, just to have a common upper index $n$ for both $a$ and $b$) means that $exists k in{-infty, ...,n}$ such that $a_k<b_k$ while $a_t=b_t, tin{k+1,...,n}$. With $f(x)$ we have
$$(a_na_{n-1}...a_0color{red}{,}a_{-1}a_{-2}color{blue}{000}a_{-3}color{blue}{00000000000000000}a_{-4}color{blue}{00...}a_{-m}...)_2 < (b_nb_{n-1}...b_0color{red}{,}b_{-1}b_{-2}color{blue}{000}b_{-3}color{blue}{00000000000000000}b_{-4}color{blue}{00...}b_{-m}...)_2$$
Note 1: I restricted the function to $mathbb{R^+}rightarrow mathbb{R^+}$, but it can be extended, taking into account the sign of $x$.
Note 2 As per the comments below, integers and rationals are algebraic numbers. To overcome this part, we can apply these tricks
$$(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0)_2=((x_nx_{n-1}...x_0-1)color{red}{,}11111...)_2$$
and
$$(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0color{red}{,}x_{-1}x_{-2}...x_{-m})_2=(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0color{red}{,}x_{-1}x_{-2}...(x_{-m}-1)11111...)_2$$
leading to Liouville numbers in all the cases.
Now why possible, because not all reals are computable.
5
This is a good answer, but I should mention that rationals and integers are also algebraic numbers, so for integer or rational with finite fractional part $x$ we still have an algebraic $f(x)$. This is not a problem though, since both of these $x$ can instead be written with infinite trailing 1's in base 2 form, and defining $f$ to use this form in these cases again gives a Liouville number. I'm not sure if you didn't notice, or if you knew this already.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 18:58
@stanleydodds oh yes, you are right! I ignored (or forgot) that part :(
– rtybase
Nov 28 '18 at 19:14
It's amusing that Liouville numbers come up here, because this solution versus mine seems somewhat like Liouville's proof of the existence of transcendental numbers versus Cantor's....
– David C. Ullrich
Dec 6 '18 at 13:20
add a comment |
A possible (I will explain why later) example could be ...
Let's take an $x in mathbb{R}$ and have its binary (for simplicity) representation $x=(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0color{red}{,}x_{-1}x_{-2}...x_{-m}...)_2, x_kin{0,1}, kin{-infty,...,n}$ or
$$x=sumlimits_{k=0}^nx_k2^k + sumlimits_{m=1}frac{x_{-m}}{2^{m}}$$
and build the function
$$f(x)=fleft(sumlimits_{k=0}^nx_k2^k + sumlimits_{m=1}frac{x_{-m}}{2^{color{red}{m}}}right)=
sumlimits_{k=0}^nx_k2^k + sumlimits_{m=1}frac{x_{-m}}{2^{color{red}{m!}}}$$
i.e. $f(x)$ becomes
- a Liouville number, if $x$ is irrational
- a Liouville number, if $x$ is rational with periodic (never ending) fractional part
- a rational, if $x$ is rational with finite fractional part
$f(x)=x$, if $x$ is integer
All the Liouville numbers are transcendentals, so this function never returns an algebraic number.
It's not too difficult to show it's strictly increasing, if $a < b$ or
$$(a_na_{n-1}...a_0color{red}{,}a_{-1}a_{-2}...a_{-m}...)_2 < (b_nb_{n-1}...b_0color{red}{,}b_{-1}b_{-2}...b_{-m}...)_2$$ ($a_n,a_{n-1}, ...$ can be $0$, just to have a common upper index $n$ for both $a$ and $b$) means that $exists k in{-infty, ...,n}$ such that $a_k<b_k$ while $a_t=b_t, tin{k+1,...,n}$. With $f(x)$ we have
$$(a_na_{n-1}...a_0color{red}{,}a_{-1}a_{-2}color{blue}{000}a_{-3}color{blue}{00000000000000000}a_{-4}color{blue}{00...}a_{-m}...)_2 < (b_nb_{n-1}...b_0color{red}{,}b_{-1}b_{-2}color{blue}{000}b_{-3}color{blue}{00000000000000000}b_{-4}color{blue}{00...}b_{-m}...)_2$$
Note 1: I restricted the function to $mathbb{R^+}rightarrow mathbb{R^+}$, but it can be extended, taking into account the sign of $x$.
Note 2 As per the comments below, integers and rationals are algebraic numbers. To overcome this part, we can apply these tricks
$$(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0)_2=((x_nx_{n-1}...x_0-1)color{red}{,}11111...)_2$$
and
$$(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0color{red}{,}x_{-1}x_{-2}...x_{-m})_2=(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0color{red}{,}x_{-1}x_{-2}...(x_{-m}-1)11111...)_2$$
leading to Liouville numbers in all the cases.
Now why possible, because not all reals are computable.
A possible (I will explain why later) example could be ...
Let's take an $x in mathbb{R}$ and have its binary (for simplicity) representation $x=(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0color{red}{,}x_{-1}x_{-2}...x_{-m}...)_2, x_kin{0,1}, kin{-infty,...,n}$ or
$$x=sumlimits_{k=0}^nx_k2^k + sumlimits_{m=1}frac{x_{-m}}{2^{m}}$$
and build the function
$$f(x)=fleft(sumlimits_{k=0}^nx_k2^k + sumlimits_{m=1}frac{x_{-m}}{2^{color{red}{m}}}right)=
sumlimits_{k=0}^nx_k2^k + sumlimits_{m=1}frac{x_{-m}}{2^{color{red}{m!}}}$$
i.e. $f(x)$ becomes
- a Liouville number, if $x$ is irrational
- a Liouville number, if $x$ is rational with periodic (never ending) fractional part
- a rational, if $x$ is rational with finite fractional part
$f(x)=x$, if $x$ is integer
All the Liouville numbers are transcendentals, so this function never returns an algebraic number.
It's not too difficult to show it's strictly increasing, if $a < b$ or
$$(a_na_{n-1}...a_0color{red}{,}a_{-1}a_{-2}...a_{-m}...)_2 < (b_nb_{n-1}...b_0color{red}{,}b_{-1}b_{-2}...b_{-m}...)_2$$ ($a_n,a_{n-1}, ...$ can be $0$, just to have a common upper index $n$ for both $a$ and $b$) means that $exists k in{-infty, ...,n}$ such that $a_k<b_k$ while $a_t=b_t, tin{k+1,...,n}$. With $f(x)$ we have
$$(a_na_{n-1}...a_0color{red}{,}a_{-1}a_{-2}color{blue}{000}a_{-3}color{blue}{00000000000000000}a_{-4}color{blue}{00...}a_{-m}...)_2 < (b_nb_{n-1}...b_0color{red}{,}b_{-1}b_{-2}color{blue}{000}b_{-3}color{blue}{00000000000000000}b_{-4}color{blue}{00...}b_{-m}...)_2$$
Note 1: I restricted the function to $mathbb{R^+}rightarrow mathbb{R^+}$, but it can be extended, taking into account the sign of $x$.
Note 2 As per the comments below, integers and rationals are algebraic numbers. To overcome this part, we can apply these tricks
$$(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0)_2=((x_nx_{n-1}...x_0-1)color{red}{,}11111...)_2$$
and
$$(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0color{red}{,}x_{-1}x_{-2}...x_{-m})_2=(x_nx_{n-1}...x_0color{red}{,}x_{-1}x_{-2}...(x_{-m}-1)11111...)_2$$
leading to Liouville numbers in all the cases.
Now why possible, because not all reals are computable.
edited Nov 28 '18 at 19:26
answered Nov 28 '18 at 18:46
rtybase
10.4k21433
10.4k21433
5
This is a good answer, but I should mention that rationals and integers are also algebraic numbers, so for integer or rational with finite fractional part $x$ we still have an algebraic $f(x)$. This is not a problem though, since both of these $x$ can instead be written with infinite trailing 1's in base 2 form, and defining $f$ to use this form in these cases again gives a Liouville number. I'm not sure if you didn't notice, or if you knew this already.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 18:58
@stanleydodds oh yes, you are right! I ignored (or forgot) that part :(
– rtybase
Nov 28 '18 at 19:14
It's amusing that Liouville numbers come up here, because this solution versus mine seems somewhat like Liouville's proof of the existence of transcendental numbers versus Cantor's....
– David C. Ullrich
Dec 6 '18 at 13:20
add a comment |
5
This is a good answer, but I should mention that rationals and integers are also algebraic numbers, so for integer or rational with finite fractional part $x$ we still have an algebraic $f(x)$. This is not a problem though, since both of these $x$ can instead be written with infinite trailing 1's in base 2 form, and defining $f$ to use this form in these cases again gives a Liouville number. I'm not sure if you didn't notice, or if you knew this already.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 18:58
@stanleydodds oh yes, you are right! I ignored (or forgot) that part :(
– rtybase
Nov 28 '18 at 19:14
It's amusing that Liouville numbers come up here, because this solution versus mine seems somewhat like Liouville's proof of the existence of transcendental numbers versus Cantor's....
– David C. Ullrich
Dec 6 '18 at 13:20
5
5
This is a good answer, but I should mention that rationals and integers are also algebraic numbers, so for integer or rational with finite fractional part $x$ we still have an algebraic $f(x)$. This is not a problem though, since both of these $x$ can instead be written with infinite trailing 1's in base 2 form, and defining $f$ to use this form in these cases again gives a Liouville number. I'm not sure if you didn't notice, or if you knew this already.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 18:58
This is a good answer, but I should mention that rationals and integers are also algebraic numbers, so for integer or rational with finite fractional part $x$ we still have an algebraic $f(x)$. This is not a problem though, since both of these $x$ can instead be written with infinite trailing 1's in base 2 form, and defining $f$ to use this form in these cases again gives a Liouville number. I'm not sure if you didn't notice, or if you knew this already.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 18:58
@stanleydodds oh yes, you are right! I ignored (or forgot) that part :(
– rtybase
Nov 28 '18 at 19:14
@stanleydodds oh yes, you are right! I ignored (or forgot) that part :(
– rtybase
Nov 28 '18 at 19:14
It's amusing that Liouville numbers come up here, because this solution versus mine seems somewhat like Liouville's proof of the existence of transcendental numbers versus Cantor's....
– David C. Ullrich
Dec 6 '18 at 13:20
It's amusing that Liouville numbers come up here, because this solution versus mine seems somewhat like Liouville's proof of the existence of transcendental numbers versus Cantor's....
– David C. Ullrich
Dec 6 '18 at 13:20
add a comment |
It's actually very simple; the same result holds with any countable set in place of the algebraic numbers. Since $Bbb R$ is order-isomorphic to $(0,infty)$ it's enough to prove this:
If $Csubset(0,infty)$ is countable there exists a strictly increasing function $f:(0,infty)to(0,infty)setminus C$.
Since a countable set is contained in an open set of finite measure this follows from the stronger result (where $m$ is Lebesgue measure):
Suppose $Vsubset(0,infty)$ is open, let $E=(0,infty)setminus V$ and assume $m(E)=infty$. There exists a strictly increasing function $f:(0,infty)to E$.
Proof: Define $phi:[0,infty)to[0,infty)$ by $$phi(y)=m(Ecap[0,y)).$$Then $phi$ is continuous, $phi(0)=0$ and $phi(infty)=infty$, so $$phi((0,infty))=(0,infty).$$
Suppose $yin V$. Say $yin(a,b)$, where $(a,b)$ is a connected component of $V$. Then $phi(y)=phi(b)$ and $bin E$. Hence $$phi(E)=phi((0,infty))=(0,infty).$$So for every $t>0$ there exists $f(t)in E$ with $$phi(f(t))=t.$$If $0<s<t$ it follows that $$f(t)-f(s)ge m([f(s),f(t))cap E)=phi(f(t))-phi(f(s))= t-s>0;$$hence $f$ is strictly increasing.
Very neat.${{}}$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Dec 7 '18 at 13:46
add a comment |
It's actually very simple; the same result holds with any countable set in place of the algebraic numbers. Since $Bbb R$ is order-isomorphic to $(0,infty)$ it's enough to prove this:
If $Csubset(0,infty)$ is countable there exists a strictly increasing function $f:(0,infty)to(0,infty)setminus C$.
Since a countable set is contained in an open set of finite measure this follows from the stronger result (where $m$ is Lebesgue measure):
Suppose $Vsubset(0,infty)$ is open, let $E=(0,infty)setminus V$ and assume $m(E)=infty$. There exists a strictly increasing function $f:(0,infty)to E$.
Proof: Define $phi:[0,infty)to[0,infty)$ by $$phi(y)=m(Ecap[0,y)).$$Then $phi$ is continuous, $phi(0)=0$ and $phi(infty)=infty$, so $$phi((0,infty))=(0,infty).$$
Suppose $yin V$. Say $yin(a,b)$, where $(a,b)$ is a connected component of $V$. Then $phi(y)=phi(b)$ and $bin E$. Hence $$phi(E)=phi((0,infty))=(0,infty).$$So for every $t>0$ there exists $f(t)in E$ with $$phi(f(t))=t.$$If $0<s<t$ it follows that $$f(t)-f(s)ge m([f(s),f(t))cap E)=phi(f(t))-phi(f(s))= t-s>0;$$hence $f$ is strictly increasing.
Very neat.${{}}$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Dec 7 '18 at 13:46
add a comment |
It's actually very simple; the same result holds with any countable set in place of the algebraic numbers. Since $Bbb R$ is order-isomorphic to $(0,infty)$ it's enough to prove this:
If $Csubset(0,infty)$ is countable there exists a strictly increasing function $f:(0,infty)to(0,infty)setminus C$.
Since a countable set is contained in an open set of finite measure this follows from the stronger result (where $m$ is Lebesgue measure):
Suppose $Vsubset(0,infty)$ is open, let $E=(0,infty)setminus V$ and assume $m(E)=infty$. There exists a strictly increasing function $f:(0,infty)to E$.
Proof: Define $phi:[0,infty)to[0,infty)$ by $$phi(y)=m(Ecap[0,y)).$$Then $phi$ is continuous, $phi(0)=0$ and $phi(infty)=infty$, so $$phi((0,infty))=(0,infty).$$
Suppose $yin V$. Say $yin(a,b)$, where $(a,b)$ is a connected component of $V$. Then $phi(y)=phi(b)$ and $bin E$. Hence $$phi(E)=phi((0,infty))=(0,infty).$$So for every $t>0$ there exists $f(t)in E$ with $$phi(f(t))=t.$$If $0<s<t$ it follows that $$f(t)-f(s)ge m([f(s),f(t))cap E)=phi(f(t))-phi(f(s))= t-s>0;$$hence $f$ is strictly increasing.
It's actually very simple; the same result holds with any countable set in place of the algebraic numbers. Since $Bbb R$ is order-isomorphic to $(0,infty)$ it's enough to prove this:
If $Csubset(0,infty)$ is countable there exists a strictly increasing function $f:(0,infty)to(0,infty)setminus C$.
Since a countable set is contained in an open set of finite measure this follows from the stronger result (where $m$ is Lebesgue measure):
Suppose $Vsubset(0,infty)$ is open, let $E=(0,infty)setminus V$ and assume $m(E)=infty$. There exists a strictly increasing function $f:(0,infty)to E$.
Proof: Define $phi:[0,infty)to[0,infty)$ by $$phi(y)=m(Ecap[0,y)).$$Then $phi$ is continuous, $phi(0)=0$ and $phi(infty)=infty$, so $$phi((0,infty))=(0,infty).$$
Suppose $yin V$. Say $yin(a,b)$, where $(a,b)$ is a connected component of $V$. Then $phi(y)=phi(b)$ and $bin E$. Hence $$phi(E)=phi((0,infty))=(0,infty).$$So for every $t>0$ there exists $f(t)in E$ with $$phi(f(t))=t.$$If $0<s<t$ it follows that $$f(t)-f(s)ge m([f(s),f(t))cap E)=phi(f(t))-phi(f(s))= t-s>0;$$hence $f$ is strictly increasing.
edited Dec 7 '18 at 12:59
answered Dec 6 '18 at 13:17
David C. Ullrich
58.5k43892
58.5k43892
Very neat.${{}}$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Dec 7 '18 at 13:46
add a comment |
Very neat.${{}}$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Dec 7 '18 at 13:46
Very neat.${{}}$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Dec 7 '18 at 13:46
Very neat.${{}}$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Dec 7 '18 at 13:46
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3017324%2fstrictly-increasing-function-from-reals-to-reals-which-is-never-an-algebraic-num%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
@астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг Gelfond-Schneider only holds if $r$ and $f(x)$ are algebraic, in $r^{f(x)}$. But $f(x)$ cannot be algebraic for all $x$ as otherwise $f$ would be an injection from the reals to a set with smaller cardinality, which is not possible.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 17:49
@stanleydodds I see. Thank you for the point out.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 28 '18 at 18:01
Do you know the answer to the easier question of finding an increasing $f$ which is never rational? Also, something which might be relevant is the fact that an increasing function is continuous off of a countable set.
– Jason DeVito
Nov 28 '18 at 18:26
No I do not know the answer to that simpler question - from all I've been able to do so far, exchanging $Bbb A$ with any other set that is dense in the reals but countable (e.g. $Bbb Q$) makes another tricky question.
– stanley dodds
Nov 28 '18 at 18:32