Infinite descending subsequence of closed intervals of $[0, 1]$
$begingroup$
The question i'm asking arises from lemma $12$ of Laver's proof for the consistency of Borel's conjecture. It has some set theoretic assumptions but i doubt they are needed in the proof. And since i'm not really good with analysis i would be really glad if someone could point me in the right direction.
Let $I_n$, $n lt omega$, be closed intervals in $[0, 1]$ such that for all $n$, there exists some $0 le m le n-1$ such that $I_n = [m/n, (m+1)/n]$. Then there exists an infinite descending subsequence of the above intervals.
My semi-idea: Let $I_n = [a_n , b_n]$. Then the $a_n$'s have either an increasing infinite subsequence or a decreasing infinite subsequence. WLOG assume the $a_n$'s themselves are increasing. Since $[0, 1]$ is bounded, the $a_n$'s converge to a real $u$. By the same argument we may assume the $b_n$'s are decreasing and converge to the same real $u$ because the length of $I_n$'s is decreasing. Now here i wanted to somehow consider an $epsilon gt 0$ and find intervals included in eachother but i'm failing to go further. Any help would be appreciated.
real-analysis set-theory
asked Dec 25 '18 at 12:08
Shervin SorouriShervin Sorouri
519212
$endgroup$
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
The question i'm asking arises from lemma $12$ of Laver's proof for the consistency of Borel's conjecture. It has some set theoretic assumptions but i doubt they are needed in the proof. And since i'm not really good with analysis i would be really glad if someone could point me in the right direction.
Let $I_n$, $n lt omega$, be closed intervals in $[0, 1]$ such that for all $n$, there exists some $0 le m le n-1$ such that $I_n = [m/n, (m+1)/n]$. Then there exists an infinite descending subsequence of the above intervals.
My semi-idea: Let $I_n = [a_n , b_n]$. Then the $a_n$'s have either an increasing infinite subsequence or a decreasing infinite subsequence. WLOG assume the $a_n$'s themselves are increasing. Since $[0, 1]$ is bounded, the $a_n$'s converge to a real $u$. By the same argument we may assume the $b_n$'s are decreasing and converge to the same real $u$ because the length of $I_n$'s is decreasing. Now here i wanted to somehow consider an $epsilon gt 0$ and find intervals included in eachother but i'm failing to go further. Any help would be appreciated.
real-analysis set-theory
asked Dec 25 '18 at 12:08
Shervin SorouriShervin Sorouri
519212
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
If, as you claim, you can (by passing to a subsequence) get the $a_n$'s to increase and the $b_n$'s to decrease, then your intervals are nested. If $m<n$ then $a_mleq a_n<b_nleq b_m$, and so $I_nsubseteq I_m$. I think the real problem is your "WLOG". What if, for example, the $a_n$'s are decreasing?
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 18:24
1
$begingroup$
Are you sure that "descending sequence of intervals" is intended to mean that the intervals are nested? If so, isn't the sequence with $I_n=[frac1n,frac2n]$ a counterexample?
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 18:29
$begingroup$
This does seem like a counter-example, maybe the set theoretic assumptions are needed after all. Because the same argument that there is a descending subsequence is used in every text i've seen on borel's conjecture without any proof.
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 25 '18 at 19:16
$begingroup$
Althouth to be fair Laver actually doesn't say nested but he says a subsequence of the intervals which converges to a single real $u$. But in Freidman's notes he explicitly says descending.
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 25 '18 at 19:18
1
$begingroup$
Getting the subsequence to converge to a single real is much easier. By passing to a subsequence, arrange that the $a_n$'s converge to some real $u$. Then observe that the $b_n$'s also converge to the same $u$, because the distance between $a_n$ and $b_n$ converges to $0$. (The distance was $1/n$ for the original sequence; it'll be the same or smaller for the subsequence.)
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 20:02
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
The question i'm asking arises from lemma $12$ of Laver's proof for the consistency of Borel's conjecture. It has some set theoretic assumptions but i doubt they are needed in the proof. And since i'm not really good with analysis i would be really glad if someone could point me in the right direction.
Let $I_n$, $n lt omega$, be closed intervals in $[0, 1]$ such that for all $n$, there exists some $0 le m le n-1$ such that $I_n = [m/n, (m+1)/n]$. Then there exists an infinite descending subsequence of the above intervals.
My semi-idea: Let $I_n = [a_n , b_n]$. Then the $a_n$'s have either an increasing infinite subsequence or a decreasing infinite subsequence. WLOG assume the $a_n$'s themselves are increasing. Since $[0, 1]$ is bounded, the $a_n$'s converge to a real $u$. By the same argument we may assume the $b_n$'s are decreasing and converge to the same real $u$ because the length of $I_n$'s is decreasing. Now here i wanted to somehow consider an $epsilon gt 0$ and find intervals included in eachother but i'm failing to go further. Any help would be appreciated.
real-analysis set-theory
asked Dec 25 '18 at 12:08
Shervin SorouriShervin Sorouri
519212
$endgroup$
The question i'm asking arises from lemma $12$ of Laver's proof for the consistency of Borel's conjecture. It has some set theoretic assumptions but i doubt they are needed in the proof. And since i'm not really good with analysis i would be really glad if someone could point me in the right direction.
Let $I_n$, $n lt omega$, be closed intervals in $[0, 1]$ such that for all $n$, there exists some $0 le m le n-1$ such that $I_n = [m/n, (m+1)/n]$. Then there exists an infinite descending subsequence of the above intervals.
My semi-idea: Let $I_n = [a_n , b_n]$. Then the $a_n$'s have either an increasing infinite subsequence or a decreasing infinite subsequence. WLOG assume the $a_n$'s themselves are increasing. Since $[0, 1]$ is bounded, the $a_n$'s converge to a real $u$. By the same argument we may assume the $b_n$'s are decreasing and converge to the same real $u$ because the length of $I_n$'s is decreasing. Now here i wanted to somehow consider an $epsilon gt 0$ and find intervals included in eachother but i'm failing to go further. Any help would be appreciated.
real-analysis set-theory
real-analysis set-theory
asked Dec 25 '18 at 12:08
Shervin SorouriShervin Sorouri
519212
asked Dec 25 '18 at 12:08
Shervin SorouriShervin Sorouri
519212
asked Dec 25 '18 at 12:08
Shervin SorouriShervin Sorouri
519212
asked Dec 25 '18 at 12:08
Shervin SorouriShervin Sorouri
519212
asked Dec 25 '18 at 12:08
Shervin SorouriShervin Sorouri
519212
519212
$begingroup$
If, as you claim, you can (by passing to a subsequence) get the $a_n$'s to increase and the $b_n$'s to decrease, then your intervals are nested. If $m<n$ then $a_mleq a_n<b_nleq b_m$, and so $I_nsubseteq I_m$. I think the real problem is your "WLOG". What if, for example, the $a_n$'s are decreasing?
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 18:24
1
$begingroup$
Are you sure that "descending sequence of intervals" is intended to mean that the intervals are nested? If so, isn't the sequence with $I_n=[frac1n,frac2n]$ a counterexample?
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 18:29
$begingroup$
This does seem like a counter-example, maybe the set theoretic assumptions are needed after all. Because the same argument that there is a descending subsequence is used in every text i've seen on borel's conjecture without any proof.
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 25 '18 at 19:16
$begingroup$
Althouth to be fair Laver actually doesn't say nested but he says a subsequence of the intervals which converges to a single real $u$. But in Freidman's notes he explicitly says descending.
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 25 '18 at 19:18
1
$begingroup$
Getting the subsequence to converge to a single real is much easier. By passing to a subsequence, arrange that the $a_n$'s converge to some real $u$. Then observe that the $b_n$'s also converge to the same $u$, because the distance between $a_n$ and $b_n$ converges to $0$. (The distance was $1/n$ for the original sequence; it'll be the same or smaller for the subsequence.)
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 20:02
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
If, as you claim, you can (by passing to a subsequence) get the $a_n$'s to increase and the $b_n$'s to decrease, then your intervals are nested. If $m<n$ then $a_mleq a_n<b_nleq b_m$, and so $I_nsubseteq I_m$. I think the real problem is your "WLOG". What if, for example, the $a_n$'s are decreasing?
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 18:24
1
$begingroup$
Are you sure that "descending sequence of intervals" is intended to mean that the intervals are nested? If so, isn't the sequence with $I_n=[frac1n,frac2n]$ a counterexample?
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 18:29
$begingroup$
This does seem like a counter-example, maybe the set theoretic assumptions are needed after all. Because the same argument that there is a descending subsequence is used in every text i've seen on borel's conjecture without any proof.
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 25 '18 at 19:16
$begingroup$
Althouth to be fair Laver actually doesn't say nested but he says a subsequence of the intervals which converges to a single real $u$. But in Freidman's notes he explicitly says descending.
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 25 '18 at 19:18
1
$begingroup$
Getting the subsequence to converge to a single real is much easier. By passing to a subsequence, arrange that the $a_n$'s converge to some real $u$. Then observe that the $b_n$'s also converge to the same $u$, because the distance between $a_n$ and $b_n$ converges to $0$. (The distance was $1/n$ for the original sequence; it'll be the same or smaller for the subsequence.)
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 20:02
$begingroup$
If, as you claim, you can (by passing to a subsequence) get the $a_n$'s to increase and the $b_n$'s to decrease, then your intervals are nested. If $m<n$ then $a_mleq a_n<b_nleq b_m$, and so $I_nsubseteq I_m$. I think the real problem is your "WLOG". What if, for example, the $a_n$'s are decreasing?
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 18:24
$begingroup$
If, as you claim, you can (by passing to a subsequence) get the $a_n$'s to increase and the $b_n$'s to decrease, then your intervals are nested. If $m<n$ then $a_mleq a_n<b_nleq b_m$, and so $I_nsubseteq I_m$. I think the real problem is your "WLOG". What if, for example, the $a_n$'s are decreasing?
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 18:24
1
1
$begingroup$
Are you sure that "descending sequence of intervals" is intended to mean that the intervals are nested? If so, isn't the sequence with $I_n=[frac1n,frac2n]$ a counterexample?
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 18:29
$begingroup$
Are you sure that "descending sequence of intervals" is intended to mean that the intervals are nested? If so, isn't the sequence with $I_n=[frac1n,frac2n]$ a counterexample?
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 18:29
$begingroup$
This does seem like a counter-example, maybe the set theoretic assumptions are needed after all. Because the same argument that there is a descending subsequence is used in every text i've seen on borel's conjecture without any proof.
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 25 '18 at 19:16
$begingroup$
This does seem like a counter-example, maybe the set theoretic assumptions are needed after all. Because the same argument that there is a descending subsequence is used in every text i've seen on borel's conjecture without any proof.
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 25 '18 at 19:16
$begingroup$
Althouth to be fair Laver actually doesn't say nested but he says a subsequence of the intervals which converges to a single real $u$. But in Freidman's notes he explicitly says descending.
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 25 '18 at 19:18
$begingroup$
Althouth to be fair Laver actually doesn't say nested but he says a subsequence of the intervals which converges to a single real $u$. But in Freidman's notes he explicitly says descending.
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 25 '18 at 19:18
1
1
$begingroup$
Getting the subsequence to converge to a single real is much easier. By passing to a subsequence, arrange that the $a_n$'s converge to some real $u$. Then observe that the $b_n$'s also converge to the same $u$, because the distance between $a_n$ and $b_n$ converges to $0$. (The distance was $1/n$ for the original sequence; it'll be the same or smaller for the subsequence.)
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 20:02
$begingroup$
Getting the subsequence to converge to a single real is much easier. By passing to a subsequence, arrange that the $a_n$'s converge to some real $u$. Then observe that the $b_n$'s also converge to the same $u$, because the distance between $a_n$ and $b_n$ converges to $0$. (The distance was $1/n$ for the original sequence; it'll be the same or smaller for the subsequence.)
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 20:02
|
show 4 more comments
0
active
oldest
votes
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%2f3052062%2finfinite-descending-subsequence-of-closed-intervals-of-0-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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.
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%2f3052062%2finfinite-descending-subsequence-of-closed-intervals-of-0-1%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
$begingroup$
If, as you claim, you can (by passing to a subsequence) get the $a_n$'s to increase and the $b_n$'s to decrease, then your intervals are nested. If $m<n$ then $a_mleq a_n<b_nleq b_m$, and so $I_nsubseteq I_m$. I think the real problem is your "WLOG". What if, for example, the $a_n$'s are decreasing?
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 18:24
1
$begingroup$
Are you sure that "descending sequence of intervals" is intended to mean that the intervals are nested? If so, isn't the sequence with $I_n=[frac1n,frac2n]$ a counterexample?
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 18:29
$begingroup$
This does seem like a counter-example, maybe the set theoretic assumptions are needed after all. Because the same argument that there is a descending subsequence is used in every text i've seen on borel's conjecture without any proof.
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 25 '18 at 19:16
$begingroup$
Althouth to be fair Laver actually doesn't say nested but he says a subsequence of the intervals which converges to a single real $u$. But in Freidman's notes he explicitly says descending.
$endgroup$
– Shervin Sorouri
Dec 25 '18 at 19:18
1
$begingroup$
Getting the subsequence to converge to a single real is much easier. By passing to a subsequence, arrange that the $a_n$'s converge to some real $u$. Then observe that the $b_n$'s also converge to the same $u$, because the distance between $a_n$ and $b_n$ converges to $0$. (The distance was $1/n$ for the original sequence; it'll be the same or smaller for the subsequence.)
$endgroup$
– Andreas Blass
Dec 25 '18 at 20:02