Walter Rudin's mathematical analysis: theorem 2.43. Why proof can't work under the perfect set is...












2












$begingroup$


I found several discussions about this theorem, like this one. I understand the proof adopts contradiction by assuming the perfect set $P$ is countable.



My question is if the assumption is $P$ is uncountable, the proof seems remains the same, i.e., the $P$ can't be uncountable either. In other words, I think whatever the assumption is, we can draw the contradiction in any way.



I don't understand in which way the uncountable condition could solve the contradiction in the proof.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    With the metric on $P$ inherited from the usual metric on $Bbb R^n$, the space $P$ is a complete metric space with no isolated points. We can show that a non-empty complete metric space $X$ with no isolated points has a subspace $Y$ which is homeomorphic to the Cantor Set. For the purposes of this Q it suffices to show there is a $Ysubset X$ which is a bijective image of the set of all binary sequences.
    $endgroup$
    – DanielWainfleet
    2 hours ago


















2












$begingroup$


I found several discussions about this theorem, like this one. I understand the proof adopts contradiction by assuming the perfect set $P$ is countable.



My question is if the assumption is $P$ is uncountable, the proof seems remains the same, i.e., the $P$ can't be uncountable either. In other words, I think whatever the assumption is, we can draw the contradiction in any way.



I don't understand in which way the uncountable condition could solve the contradiction in the proof.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    With the metric on $P$ inherited from the usual metric on $Bbb R^n$, the space $P$ is a complete metric space with no isolated points. We can show that a non-empty complete metric space $X$ with no isolated points has a subspace $Y$ which is homeomorphic to the Cantor Set. For the purposes of this Q it suffices to show there is a $Ysubset X$ which is a bijective image of the set of all binary sequences.
    $endgroup$
    – DanielWainfleet
    2 hours ago
















2












2








2





$begingroup$


I found several discussions about this theorem, like this one. I understand the proof adopts contradiction by assuming the perfect set $P$ is countable.



My question is if the assumption is $P$ is uncountable, the proof seems remains the same, i.e., the $P$ can't be uncountable either. In other words, I think whatever the assumption is, we can draw the contradiction in any way.



I don't understand in which way the uncountable condition could solve the contradiction in the proof.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I found several discussions about this theorem, like this one. I understand the proof adopts contradiction by assuming the perfect set $P$ is countable.



My question is if the assumption is $P$ is uncountable, the proof seems remains the same, i.e., the $P$ can't be uncountable either. In other words, I think whatever the assumption is, we can draw the contradiction in any way.



I don't understand in which way the uncountable condition could solve the contradiction in the proof.







real-analysis analysis






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago







Tengerye

















asked 4 hours ago









TengeryeTengerye

1597




1597












  • $begingroup$
    With the metric on $P$ inherited from the usual metric on $Bbb R^n$, the space $P$ is a complete metric space with no isolated points. We can show that a non-empty complete metric space $X$ with no isolated points has a subspace $Y$ which is homeomorphic to the Cantor Set. For the purposes of this Q it suffices to show there is a $Ysubset X$ which is a bijective image of the set of all binary sequences.
    $endgroup$
    – DanielWainfleet
    2 hours ago




















  • $begingroup$
    With the metric on $P$ inherited from the usual metric on $Bbb R^n$, the space $P$ is a complete metric space with no isolated points. We can show that a non-empty complete metric space $X$ with no isolated points has a subspace $Y$ which is homeomorphic to the Cantor Set. For the purposes of this Q it suffices to show there is a $Ysubset X$ which is a bijective image of the set of all binary sequences.
    $endgroup$
    – DanielWainfleet
    2 hours ago


















$begingroup$
With the metric on $P$ inherited from the usual metric on $Bbb R^n$, the space $P$ is a complete metric space with no isolated points. We can show that a non-empty complete metric space $X$ with no isolated points has a subspace $Y$ which is homeomorphic to the Cantor Set. For the purposes of this Q it suffices to show there is a $Ysubset X$ which is a bijective image of the set of all binary sequences.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
2 hours ago






$begingroup$
With the metric on $P$ inherited from the usual metric on $Bbb R^n$, the space $P$ is a complete metric space with no isolated points. We can show that a non-empty complete metric space $X$ with no isolated points has a subspace $Y$ which is homeomorphic to the Cantor Set. For the purposes of this Q it suffices to show there is a $Ysubset X$ which is a bijective image of the set of all binary sequences.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
2 hours ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

First, there's a typo in your question: the proof proceeds by assuming for contradiction that $P$ is countable (not uncountable, as you've written).



More substantively, countability is used right away: we write $P$ as ${x_n: ninmathbb{N}}$ and recursively define a sequence of sets $V_n$ ($ninmathbb{N}$).



If $P$ were uncountable, we couldn't index the elements of $P$ by natural numbers. We'd have to index them by something else - say, some uncountable ordinal. So now $P$ has the form ${y_eta:eta<lambda}$ for some $lambda>omega$.



We can now proceed to build our $V$-sets as before, but at the "first infinite step" we run into trouble: we need $V_etacap P$ to be nonempty for each $eta$, but how do we keep that up forever? In fact, our $V$-sets might disappear entirely: while at each finite stage we've stayed nonempty, but we could easily "become empty in the limit" (consider the sequence of sets $(0,1)supset(0,{1over 2})supset (0,{1over 3})supset ...$). The recursive construction of the $V_n$s - which is the heart of the whole proof - relies on always having a "most recent" $V$-set at each stage, that is, only considering at most $mathbb{N}$-many $V$-sets in total. That this is sufficient follows from the countability of $P$. As soon as we drop this, our contradiction vanishes.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you so much. I have revised my question.
    $endgroup$
    – Tengerye
    4 hours ago



















0












$begingroup$

The Baire Category Theorem: If $P$ is a complete metric space and $F$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of $P$ then $cap F$ is dense in $P.$



Suppose $P$ is a non-empty closed subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Let $P$ inherit the usual metric from $Bbb R^n.$ Then $P$ is a complete metric space. Now suppose $P$ is countable and is a perfect subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Then $F={P setminus {x}: xin P}$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of the space $P,$ so $cap F=emptyset$ is dense in $P,$ which is absurd.



(If $P$ were not assumed to be perfect then not all members of $F$ could be assumed to be dense in $P.$)



Aside: The proof of the Baire Category Theorem is direct and simple. Some students seem to be uncomfortable about this theorem, perhaps because it is unlike anything they've ever seen.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This A is unrelated to my comment to the Q regarding a subset of $P$ that's homeomorphic to the Cantor Set
    $endgroup$
    – DanielWainfleet
    1 hour ago













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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3154887%2fwalter-rudins-mathematical-analysis-theorem-2-43-why-proof-cant-work-under-t%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









5












$begingroup$

First, there's a typo in your question: the proof proceeds by assuming for contradiction that $P$ is countable (not uncountable, as you've written).



More substantively, countability is used right away: we write $P$ as ${x_n: ninmathbb{N}}$ and recursively define a sequence of sets $V_n$ ($ninmathbb{N}$).



If $P$ were uncountable, we couldn't index the elements of $P$ by natural numbers. We'd have to index them by something else - say, some uncountable ordinal. So now $P$ has the form ${y_eta:eta<lambda}$ for some $lambda>omega$.



We can now proceed to build our $V$-sets as before, but at the "first infinite step" we run into trouble: we need $V_etacap P$ to be nonempty for each $eta$, but how do we keep that up forever? In fact, our $V$-sets might disappear entirely: while at each finite stage we've stayed nonempty, but we could easily "become empty in the limit" (consider the sequence of sets $(0,1)supset(0,{1over 2})supset (0,{1over 3})supset ...$). The recursive construction of the $V_n$s - which is the heart of the whole proof - relies on always having a "most recent" $V$-set at each stage, that is, only considering at most $mathbb{N}$-many $V$-sets in total. That this is sufficient follows from the countability of $P$. As soon as we drop this, our contradiction vanishes.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you so much. I have revised my question.
    $endgroup$
    – Tengerye
    4 hours ago
















5












$begingroup$

First, there's a typo in your question: the proof proceeds by assuming for contradiction that $P$ is countable (not uncountable, as you've written).



More substantively, countability is used right away: we write $P$ as ${x_n: ninmathbb{N}}$ and recursively define a sequence of sets $V_n$ ($ninmathbb{N}$).



If $P$ were uncountable, we couldn't index the elements of $P$ by natural numbers. We'd have to index them by something else - say, some uncountable ordinal. So now $P$ has the form ${y_eta:eta<lambda}$ for some $lambda>omega$.



We can now proceed to build our $V$-sets as before, but at the "first infinite step" we run into trouble: we need $V_etacap P$ to be nonempty for each $eta$, but how do we keep that up forever? In fact, our $V$-sets might disappear entirely: while at each finite stage we've stayed nonempty, but we could easily "become empty in the limit" (consider the sequence of sets $(0,1)supset(0,{1over 2})supset (0,{1over 3})supset ...$). The recursive construction of the $V_n$s - which is the heart of the whole proof - relies on always having a "most recent" $V$-set at each stage, that is, only considering at most $mathbb{N}$-many $V$-sets in total. That this is sufficient follows from the countability of $P$. As soon as we drop this, our contradiction vanishes.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you so much. I have revised my question.
    $endgroup$
    – Tengerye
    4 hours ago














5












5








5





$begingroup$

First, there's a typo in your question: the proof proceeds by assuming for contradiction that $P$ is countable (not uncountable, as you've written).



More substantively, countability is used right away: we write $P$ as ${x_n: ninmathbb{N}}$ and recursively define a sequence of sets $V_n$ ($ninmathbb{N}$).



If $P$ were uncountable, we couldn't index the elements of $P$ by natural numbers. We'd have to index them by something else - say, some uncountable ordinal. So now $P$ has the form ${y_eta:eta<lambda}$ for some $lambda>omega$.



We can now proceed to build our $V$-sets as before, but at the "first infinite step" we run into trouble: we need $V_etacap P$ to be nonempty for each $eta$, but how do we keep that up forever? In fact, our $V$-sets might disappear entirely: while at each finite stage we've stayed nonempty, but we could easily "become empty in the limit" (consider the sequence of sets $(0,1)supset(0,{1over 2})supset (0,{1over 3})supset ...$). The recursive construction of the $V_n$s - which is the heart of the whole proof - relies on always having a "most recent" $V$-set at each stage, that is, only considering at most $mathbb{N}$-many $V$-sets in total. That this is sufficient follows from the countability of $P$. As soon as we drop this, our contradiction vanishes.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



First, there's a typo in your question: the proof proceeds by assuming for contradiction that $P$ is countable (not uncountable, as you've written).



More substantively, countability is used right away: we write $P$ as ${x_n: ninmathbb{N}}$ and recursively define a sequence of sets $V_n$ ($ninmathbb{N}$).



If $P$ were uncountable, we couldn't index the elements of $P$ by natural numbers. We'd have to index them by something else - say, some uncountable ordinal. So now $P$ has the form ${y_eta:eta<lambda}$ for some $lambda>omega$.



We can now proceed to build our $V$-sets as before, but at the "first infinite step" we run into trouble: we need $V_etacap P$ to be nonempty for each $eta$, but how do we keep that up forever? In fact, our $V$-sets might disappear entirely: while at each finite stage we've stayed nonempty, but we could easily "become empty in the limit" (consider the sequence of sets $(0,1)supset(0,{1over 2})supset (0,{1over 3})supset ...$). The recursive construction of the $V_n$s - which is the heart of the whole proof - relies on always having a "most recent" $V$-set at each stage, that is, only considering at most $mathbb{N}$-many $V$-sets in total. That this is sufficient follows from the countability of $P$. As soon as we drop this, our contradiction vanishes.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 4 hours ago









Noah SchweberNoah Schweber

127k10151290




127k10151290












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you so much. I have revised my question.
    $endgroup$
    – Tengerye
    4 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Thank you so much. I have revised my question.
    $endgroup$
    – Tengerye
    4 hours ago
















$begingroup$
Thank you so much. I have revised my question.
$endgroup$
– Tengerye
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
Thank you so much. I have revised my question.
$endgroup$
– Tengerye
4 hours ago











0












$begingroup$

The Baire Category Theorem: If $P$ is a complete metric space and $F$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of $P$ then $cap F$ is dense in $P.$



Suppose $P$ is a non-empty closed subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Let $P$ inherit the usual metric from $Bbb R^n.$ Then $P$ is a complete metric space. Now suppose $P$ is countable and is a perfect subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Then $F={P setminus {x}: xin P}$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of the space $P,$ so $cap F=emptyset$ is dense in $P,$ which is absurd.



(If $P$ were not assumed to be perfect then not all members of $F$ could be assumed to be dense in $P.$)



Aside: The proof of the Baire Category Theorem is direct and simple. Some students seem to be uncomfortable about this theorem, perhaps because it is unlike anything they've ever seen.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This A is unrelated to my comment to the Q regarding a subset of $P$ that's homeomorphic to the Cantor Set
    $endgroup$
    – DanielWainfleet
    1 hour ago


















0












$begingroup$

The Baire Category Theorem: If $P$ is a complete metric space and $F$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of $P$ then $cap F$ is dense in $P.$



Suppose $P$ is a non-empty closed subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Let $P$ inherit the usual metric from $Bbb R^n.$ Then $P$ is a complete metric space. Now suppose $P$ is countable and is a perfect subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Then $F={P setminus {x}: xin P}$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of the space $P,$ so $cap F=emptyset$ is dense in $P,$ which is absurd.



(If $P$ were not assumed to be perfect then not all members of $F$ could be assumed to be dense in $P.$)



Aside: The proof of the Baire Category Theorem is direct and simple. Some students seem to be uncomfortable about this theorem, perhaps because it is unlike anything they've ever seen.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This A is unrelated to my comment to the Q regarding a subset of $P$ that's homeomorphic to the Cantor Set
    $endgroup$
    – DanielWainfleet
    1 hour ago
















0












0








0





$begingroup$

The Baire Category Theorem: If $P$ is a complete metric space and $F$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of $P$ then $cap F$ is dense in $P.$



Suppose $P$ is a non-empty closed subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Let $P$ inherit the usual metric from $Bbb R^n.$ Then $P$ is a complete metric space. Now suppose $P$ is countable and is a perfect subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Then $F={P setminus {x}: xin P}$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of the space $P,$ so $cap F=emptyset$ is dense in $P,$ which is absurd.



(If $P$ were not assumed to be perfect then not all members of $F$ could be assumed to be dense in $P.$)



Aside: The proof of the Baire Category Theorem is direct and simple. Some students seem to be uncomfortable about this theorem, perhaps because it is unlike anything they've ever seen.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



The Baire Category Theorem: If $P$ is a complete metric space and $F$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of $P$ then $cap F$ is dense in $P.$



Suppose $P$ is a non-empty closed subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Let $P$ inherit the usual metric from $Bbb R^n.$ Then $P$ is a complete metric space. Now suppose $P$ is countable and is a perfect subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Then $F={P setminus {x}: xin P}$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of the space $P,$ so $cap F=emptyset$ is dense in $P,$ which is absurd.



(If $P$ were not assumed to be perfect then not all members of $F$ could be assumed to be dense in $P.$)



Aside: The proof of the Baire Category Theorem is direct and simple. Some students seem to be uncomfortable about this theorem, perhaps because it is unlike anything they've ever seen.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 1 hour ago

























answered 1 hour ago









DanielWainfleetDanielWainfleet

35.5k31648




35.5k31648












  • $begingroup$
    This A is unrelated to my comment to the Q regarding a subset of $P$ that's homeomorphic to the Cantor Set
    $endgroup$
    – DanielWainfleet
    1 hour ago




















  • $begingroup$
    This A is unrelated to my comment to the Q regarding a subset of $P$ that's homeomorphic to the Cantor Set
    $endgroup$
    – DanielWainfleet
    1 hour ago


















$begingroup$
This A is unrelated to my comment to the Q regarding a subset of $P$ that's homeomorphic to the Cantor Set
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
1 hour ago






$begingroup$
This A is unrelated to my comment to the Q regarding a subset of $P$ that's homeomorphic to the Cantor Set
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
1 hour ago




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3154887%2fwalter-rudins-mathematical-analysis-theorem-2-43-why-proof-cant-work-under-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

Bundesstraße 106

Verónica Boquete

Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten