This is homework 3, due Monday, October 17, at the beginning of lecture.

Recall the Baire category theorem: The intersection of countably many dense open sets in a complete metric space is dense. Recall that a set is one that can be written as the intersection of countably many open sets.

Show that in a complete metric space, the intersection of countably many dense sets is again a dense set. Is the union of two sets again a set?

Show that is not a subset of .

Since is countable, we can enumerate it as . For let

Note that each is open, that for each , that , and that (for each ) the sum of the lengths of the intervals that make up is at most .

Does this mean that ? If yes, please provide a proof. If not, describe as concretely as possible an irrational number that belongs to this intersection.

Recall that a nowhere dense set is a set whose closure has empty interior: . A set is meager (or of the first category) iff it is the union of countably many nowhere dense sets. Given sets and in , we say that iff their symmetric difference is meager. For example, the Cantor set is nowhere dense.

Show that is an equivalence relation.

Show that if is meager, then any subset of is also meager. Show that the union of countably many meager sets is again meager.

Show that the Baire category theorem implies that any nonempty open subset of is non-meager.

Show that if is open, or closed, or a set, or a set (a countable union of closed sets), then there is an open set such that .

The Cantor-Bendixson derivative of a closed set is defined by

Since is closed, . We can iterate this operation, and form , Note we have

We can go even further, by letting and then continuing, by setting , etc.

Give examples of closed subsets of such that but , or but , or or but . Can be the first empty “derivative”? How about ?

Check that if and are compact, then so is as a subset of .

Show that if is a subset of that is both open and closed, and , then it must be the case that .

43.614000-116.202000

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Friday, October 7th, 2011 at 4:18 pm and is filed under 414/514: Analysis I. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The only reference I know for precisely these matters is the handbook chapter MR2768702. Koellner, Peter; Woodin, W. Hugh. Large cardinals from determinacy. In Handbook of set theory. Vols. 1, 2, 3, 1951–2119, Springer, Dordrecht, 2010. (Particularly, section 7.) For closely related topics, see also the work of Yong Cheng (and of Cheng and Schindler) on Harr […]

As other answers point out, yes, one needs choice. The popular/natural examples of models of ZF+DC where all sets of reals are measurable are models of determinacy, and Solovay's model. They are related in deep ways, actually, through large cardinals. (Under enough large cardinals, $L({\mathbb R})$ of $V$ is a model of determinacy and (something stronge […]

Throughout the question, we only consider primes of the form $3k+1$. A reference for cubic reciprocity is Ireland & Rosen's A Classical Introduction to Modern Number Theory. How can I count the relative density of those $p$ (of the form $3k+1$) such that the equation $2=3x^3$ has no solutions modulo $p$? Really, even pointers on how to say anything […]

(1) Patrick Dehornoy gave a nice talk at the Séminaire Bourbaki explaining Hugh Woodin's approach. It omits many technical details, so you may want to look at it before looking again at the Notices papers. I think looking at those slides and then at the Notices articles gives a reasonable picture of what the approach is and what kind of problems remain […]

It is not possible to provide an explicit expression for a non-linear solution. The reason is that (it is a folklore result that) an additive $f:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$ is linear iff it is measurable. (This result can be found in a variety of places, it is a standard exercise in measure theory books. As of this writing, there is a short proof here (Intern […]

Very briefly: Yes, there are several programs being developed that can be understood as pursuing new axioms for set theory. For the question itself of whether pursuing new axioms is a reasonably line of inquiry, see the following (in particular, the paper by John Steel): MR1814122 (2002a:03007). Feferman, Solomon; Friedman, Harvey M.; Maddy, Penelope; Steel, […]

This is a very interesting question and the subject of current research in set theory. There are, however, some caveats. Say that a set of reals is $\aleph_1$-dense if and only if it meets each interval in exactly $\aleph_1$-many points. It is easy to see that such sets exist, have size $\aleph_1$, and in fact, if $A$ is $\aleph_1$-dense, then between any tw […]

Say that the triangle is $ABC$. The vector giving the median from $A$ to $BC$ is $(AC+AB)/2$. Similarly, the one from $B$ to $AC$ is $(BA+BC)/2$, and the one from $C$ to $BA$ is $(CB+CA)/2$. Adding these, we get zero since $CB=-BC$, etc.

The usual definition of a series of nonnegative terms is as the supremum of the sums over finite subsets of the index set, $$\sum_{i\in I} x_i=\sup\biggl\{\sum_{j\in J}x_j:J\subseteq I\mbox{ is finite}\biggr\}.$$ (Note this definition does not quite work in general for series of positive and negative terms.) The point then is that is $a< x