This set is due Monday, September 16, at the beginning of lecture.

Recall that . Given a sequence of nonnegative real numbers, for a finite subset of , the expression

has what is hopefully the obvious meaning: If is the increasing enumeration of the elements of , then

,

with the (standard) convention that if is empty, then .

For an arbitrary subset of (so may be finite or infinite), define

provided that the supremum exists. There is a small ambiguity here, in that if is finite, we have defined in two potentially conflicting ways.

1. Show that both definitions coincide if is finite.

2. Give an example of a sequence and a set such that is not defined. Show that for any and any , if is not defined, then neither is .

3. Show that, if is defined, then

.

More generally, show that, as long as is defined, then

and that, if this supremum exists, then so does , and the displayed equality holds.

4. Fix a positive integer . Show that if is such that, for every , has the form where then, for any , is defined, and is a number in the interval .

5. Show that for every and every positive integer there is some as in item 4. such that Describe as precisely as possible all the quadruples such that is an integer, , are sequences as in 4., and yet

Hopefully it is clear that all we are describing is the base representation of any number .

6. Indicate how to extend the above so any real has a base representation (for any ).

7. Given , let be the sequence with -th term for all . Show that is the only value of such that there are with Describe all such pairs . Show that for all there is some as in 4., with the same “failure of injectivity” property.

The above gives us that in the sense that there is an injection .

8. Make this explicit, that is, give an example of such an injection , hopefully related to these sums we are considering.

One can also show that and in fact there is a bijection between these two sets, though you do not need to do this here.

As indicated in item 7., when the function given by is not an injection.

9. For this , show that the collection of sets such that there is a set with is countable. Show that if is countable, then there is a bijection between and so, in particular, even allows us to verify that .

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 5th, 2013 at 11:21 am 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.

As suggested by Gerald, the notion was first introduced for groups. Given a directed system of groups, their direct limit was defined as a quotient of their direct product (which was referred to as their "weak product"). The general notion is a clear generalization, although the original reference only deals with groups. As mentioned by Cameron Zwa […]

A database of number fields, by Jürgen Klüners and Gunter Malle. (Note this is not the same as the one mentioned in this answer.) The site also provides links to similar databases.

As the other answer indicates, the yes answer to your question is known as the De Bruijn-Erdős theorem. This holds regardless of the size of the graph. The De Bruijn–Erdős theorem is a particular instance of what in combinatorics we call a compactness argument or Rado's selection principle, and its truth can be seen as a consequence of the topological c […]

Every $P_c$ has the size of the reals. For instance, suppose $\sum_n a_n=c$ and start by writing $\mathbb N=A\cup B$ where $\sum_{n\in A}a_n$ converges absolutely (to $a$, say). This is possible because $a_n\to 0$: Let $m_0

Consider a subset $\Omega$ of $\mathbb R$ of size $\aleph_1$ and ordered in type $\omega_1$. (This uses the axiom of choice.) Let $\mathcal F$ be the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the initial segments of $\Omega$ under the well-ordering (so all sets in $\mathcal F$ are countable or co-countable), with the measure that assigns $0$ to the countable sets and $1 […]

Sure. A large class of examples comes from the partition calculus. A simple result of the kind I have in mind is the following: Any infinite graph contains either a copy of the complete graph on countably many vertices or of the independent graph on countably many vertices. However, if we want to find an uncountable complete or independent graph, it is not e […]

I think that, from a modern point of view, there is a misunderstanding in the position that you suggest in your question. Really, "set theory" should be understood as an umbrella term that covers a whole hierarchy of ZFC-related theories. Perhaps one of the most significant advances in foundations is the identification of the consistency strength h […]

I'll only discuss the first question. As pointed out by Asaf, the argument is not correct, but something interesting can be said anyway. There are a couple of issues. A key problem is with the idea of an "explicitly constructed" set. Indeed, for instance, there are explicitly constructed sets of reals that are uncountable and of size continuum […]

The question seems to be: Assume that there is a Vitali set $V$. Is there an explicit bijection between $V$ and $\mathbb R$? The answer is yes, by an application of the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem: there is an explicit injection from $\mathbb R$ into $\mathbb R/\mathbb Q$ (provably in ZF, this requires some thought, or see the answers to this question) […]

If a set $X$ is well-founded (essentially, if it contains no infinite $\in$-descending chains), then indeed $\emptyset$ belongs to its transitive closure, that is, either $X=\emptyset$ or $\emptyset\in\bigcup X$ or $\emptyset\in\bigcup\bigcup X$ or... However, this does not mean that there is some $n$ such that the result of iterating the union operation $n$ […]

I’ve posted the TeX file for the homework, in case it is useful.

Note that on problem , is it implied that .

E.g.

For , , if we say , , we have

Oh, yes, that question came up not as intended. Thanks for noticing it. I’ve fixed the text.

Thank you!