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 I pointed out in a comment) yes, partial Woodinness is common in arguments in inner model theory. Accordingly, you obtain determinacy results addressing specific pointclasses (typically, well beyond projective). To illustrate this, let me "randomly" highlight two examples: See here for $\Sigma^1_2$-Woodin cardinals and, more generally, the noti […]

I am not sure which statement you heard as the "Ultimate $L$ axiom," but I will assume it is the following version: There is a proper class of Woodin cardinals, and for all sentences $\varphi$ that hold in $V$, there is a universally Baire set $A\subseteq{\mathbb R}$ such that, letting $\theta=\Theta^{L(A,{\mathbb R})}$, we have that $HOD^{L(A,{\ma […]

A Wadge initial segment (of $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$) is a subset $\Gamma$ of $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$ such that whenever $A\in\Gamma$ and $B\le_W A$, where $\le_W$ denotes Wadge reducibility, then $B\in\Gamma$. Note that if $\Gamma\subseteq\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$ and $L(\Gamma,\mathbb R)\models \Gamma=\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$, then $\Gamma$ is a Wadge initial se […]

Craig: For a while, there was some research on improving bounds on the number of variables or degree of unsolvable Diophantine equations. Unfortunately, I never got around to cataloging the known results in any systematic way, so all I can offer is some pointers to relevant references, but I am not sure of what the current records are. Perhaps the first pape […]

Yes. Consider, for instance, Conway's base 13 function $c$, or any function that is everywhere discontinuous and has range $\mathbb R$ in every interval. Pick continuous bijections $f_n:\mathbb R\to(-1/n,1/n)$ for $n\in\mathbb N^+$. Pick a strictly decreasing sequence $(x_n)_{n\ge1}$ converging to $0$. Define $f$ by setting $f(x)=0$ if $x=0$ or $\pm x_n […]

One way we formalize this "limitation" idea is via interpretative power. John Steel describes this approach carefully in several places, so you may want to read what he says, in particular at Solomon Feferman, Harvey M. Friedman, Penelope Maddy, and John R. Steel. Does mathematics need new axioms?, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 6 (4), (2000), 401 […]

"There are" examples of discontinuous homomorphisms between Banach algebras. However, the quotes are there because the question is independent of the usual axioms of set theory. I quote from the introduction to W. Hugh Woodin, "A discontinuous homomorphism from $C(X)$ without CH", J. London Math. Soc. (2) 48 (1993), no. 2, 299-315, MR1231 […]

This is Hausdorff's formula. Recall that $\tau^\lambda$ is the cardinality of the set ${}^\lambda\tau$ of functions $f\!:\lambda\to\tau$, and that $\kappa^+$ is regular for all $\kappa$. Now, there are two possibilities: If $\alpha\ge\tau$, then $2^\alpha\le\tau^\alpha\le(2^\alpha)^\alpha=2^\alpha$, so $\tau^\alpha=2^\alpha$. In particular, if $\alpha\g […]

Fix a model $M$ of a theory for which it makes sense to talk about $\omega$ ($M$ does not need to be a model of set theory, it could even be simply an ordered set with a minimum in which every element has an immediate successor and every element other than the minimum has an immediate predecessor; in this case we could identify $\omega^M$ with $M$ itself). W […]

The study of finite choice axioms is quite interesting. Besides the reference given in Asaf's answer, there are a few papers covering this topic in detail. If you can track it down, I suggest you read MR0360275 (50 #12725) Reviewed. Conway, J. H. Effective implications between the "finite'' choice axioms. In Cambridge Summer School in Mat […]

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!