Recall that the Cantor set is defined as the intersection where

and is obtained by removing from each closed interval that makes up its open middle third, so

,

,

etc. Each is the union of closed intervals, each of length .

Let’s prove that is the interval . (Cf. Abbott, Understanding analysis, Exercise 3.3.6.)

1.

The usual proof consists in showing inductively that for all . This is easy: Note first that

,

where

and

.

This equality is verified by induction. Using this, we can use induction again to verify that, indeed, for all .

We clearly have that . To prove the converse, for each and each , pick such that . The sequence of is bounded, so it has a convergent subsequence . The corresponding subsequence has itself a convergent subsequence . One argues that their limit values belong to , because they belong to each , since these sets are nested and closed. Finally, it follows immediately that as well.

2.

A very elegant different argument is obtained by using an alternative characterization of : Note that each can be written in base three as

where each is , , or . By induction, one easily verifies that iff it admits such an expansion with . It follows that iff it admits an expansion where no is .

Given , we have , so we can write where the ternary expansion of has only s and s (so ), and the expansion of has only s and s: If

,

we can set where unless , in which case as well, and similarly where unless , in which case as well.

We then have that , and both and are in .

This construction has the further advantage of making clear that the typical admits continuum many () representations as sum of two members of : If we can split (where the expansions of only have s and s), we can set

.

This gives us as many representations as subsets of .

3.

The related problem of describing appears to be much more complicated. See here and here.

You assume $\omega_\alpha\subseteq M$ and $X\in M$ so that $X$ belongs to the transitive collapse of $M$ (because if $\pi$ is the collapsing map, $\pi(X)=\pi[X]=X$. You assume $|M|=\aleph_\alpha$ so that the transitive collapse of $M$ has size $\aleph_\alpha$. Since you also have that this transitive collapse is of the form $L_\beta$ for some $\beta$, it fol […]

Perhaps the following may clarify the comments: for any ordinal $\delta$, there is a Boolean-valued extension of the universe of sets where $2^{\aleph_0}>\aleph_\delta$ holds. If you rather talk of models than Boolean-valued extensions, what this says is that we can force while preserving all ordinals, and in fact all initial ordinals, and make the contin […]

I do not know of any active set theorists who think large cardinals are inconsistent. At least, within the realm of cardinals we have seriously studied. [Reinhardt suggested an ultimate axiom of the form "there is a non-trivial elementary embedding $j:V\to V$". Though some serious set theorists found it of possible interest immediately following it […]

There is a fantastic (and not too well-known) result of Shelah stating that $L({\mathcal P}(\lambda))$ is a model of choice whenever $\lambda$ is a singular strong limit of uncountable cofinality. This is a consequence of a more general theorem that can be found in 4.6/6.7 of "Set Theory without choice: not everything on cofinality is possible", Ar […]

In set theory, definitely the notion of a Woodin cardinal. First, it is not an entirely straightforward notion to guess. Significant large cardinals were up to that point defined as critical points of certain elementary embeddings. This is not the case here: Woodin cardinals need not be measurable. If $\kappa$ is Woodin, then $V_\kappa$ is a model of set the […]

Take $a_n=p$, where $p$ is the smallest prime dividing $n$. If a subsequence converges, it converges to a prime $p$, in which case except for finitely many initial terms, the sequence is eventually constant with value $p$. But the number of initial terms is arbitrary.

The precise consistency strength of the global failure of the generalized continuum hypothesis is somewhat technical to state. As far as I know, it has not been published, but I think we have a decent understanding of what the correct statement should be. The most relevant paper towards this result is MR2224051 (2007d:03082). Gitik, Moti Merimovich, Carmi. P […]

There are integrable functions that are not derivatives: Any function that is continuous except at a single point, where it has a jump discontinuity, is an example. (Derivatives have the intermediate value property.) More interestingly, we can ask whether the existence of an antiderivative ensures integrability. The answer depends on what integral you are co […]

$0^¶$ is the sharp for an inner model with a strong cardinal in the same sense that $0^\dagger$ is the sharp for an inner model with a measurable cardinal. In terms of mice, this is the first mouse containing two overlapping extenders. The effect of this is that, by iterating its top measure throughout the ordinals, you extend the bottom extender in a variet […]

Clearly $\omega^\omega\le(\omega+n)^\omega$. Also, $(\omega+n)^\omega\le (\omega^2)^\omega=\omega^{(2\cdot \omega)}=\omega^\omega$, and the equality follows. If you do not feel comfortable with the move from $(\omega^2)^\omega$ to $\omega^{(2\cdot \omega)}$, simply note the left-hand side is $\omega\cdot\omega\cdot\omega\cdot\dots$, where there are $2\cdot\o […]

[…] Solution to 3.3.6. […]