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.

The description below comes from József Beck. Combinatorial games. Tic-tac-toe theory, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, 114. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, MR2402857 (2009g:91038). Given a finite set $S$ of points in the plane $\mathbb R^2$, consider the following game between two players Maker and Breaker. The players alternat […]

Yes. This is a consequence of the Davis-Matiyasevich-Putnam-Robinson work on Hilbert's 10th problem, and some standard number theory. A number of papers have details of the $\Pi^0_1$ sentence. To begin with, take a look at the relevant paper in Mathematical developments arising from Hilbert's problems (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Northern Illinois Un […]

I am looking for references discussing two inequalities that come up in the study of the dynamics of Newton's method on real-valued polynomials (in one variable). The inequalities are fairly different, but it seems to make sense to ask about both of them in the same post. Most of the details below are fairly elementary, they are mostly included for comp […]

Let $C$ be the standard Cantor middle-third set. As a consequence of the Baire category theorem, there are numbers $r$ such that $C+r$ consists solely of irrational numbers, see here. What would be an explicit example of a number $r$ with this property? Short of an explicit example, are there any references addressing this question? A natural approach would […]

Not necessarily. That $\mathfrak m$ is consistently singular is proved in MR0947850 (89m:03045) Kunen, Kenneth. Where $\mathsf{MA}$ first fails. J. Symbolic Logic 53(2), (1988), 429–433. There, Ken shows that $\mathfrak{m}$ can be singular of cofinality $\omega_1$. (Both links above are behind paywalls.)

No, the rank of a set $x$ is the least $\alpha$ such that $x\in V_{\alpha+1}$. Note that if $\alpha$ is limit, any $x\in V_\alpha$ belongs to some $V_\beta$ with $\beta

The real numbers are the usual thing. Surreal numbers are not real numbers, so no, they are not an example of non-constructible reals. Any real $r$ can be written as an infinite sequence $(n;d_1,d_2,\dots)$ where $n$ in an integer and the $d_i$ are digits. Whether the real is rational, constructible or not, is irrelevant. Any rational number, in fact, any al […]

Following Tomas's suggestion, I am posting this as an answer: I encountered this problem while directing a Master's thesis two years ago, and again (in a different setting) with another thesis last year. I seem to recall that I somehow got to this while reading slides of a talk by Paul Pollack. Anyway, I like to deduce the results asked in the prob […]

This is a beautiful and truly fundamental result, and so there are several good quality presentations. Try MR1321144. Kanamori, Akihiro. The higher infinite. Large cardinals in set theory from their beginnings. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994. xxiv+536 pp. ISBN: 3-540-57071-3, or any of the newer editions (the 2003 second ed […]

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!