Re: Uncountable many reals without Cantor
From: Daryl McCullough (daryl_at_atc-nycorp.com)
Date: 11/30/04
- Next message: Marc Satterwhite: "Re: 100% Convinced vs. 100% Committed"
- Previous message: Rally: "Re: 100% Convinced vs. 100% Committed"
- In reply to: Dave Seaman: "Re: Uncountable many reals without Cantor"
- Next in thread: Dave Seaman: "Re: Uncountable many reals without Cantor"
- Reply: Dave Seaman: "Re: Uncountable many reals without Cantor"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 30 Nov 2004 10:27:24 -0800
Dave Seaman says...
>>>(*) sum length(I_n) >= 1.
>>>
>>>How do you _prove_ that?
>
>> Assume the opposite, put the intervals end to end etc. This kind of
>> thing is proven in the beginning of any Real Variables text, e.g.
>> Royden. Where do you see a problem?
>
>Sounds like you want to use induction on the number of intervals.
>Problem is, induction works only if the number of intervals is finite.
>
>Hint: that's where compactness comes in.
Just for clarification of this comment.
Compactness for a topological space means the following: X is compact
if for any collection of open sets U_i whose union is X, there is a
finite subcollection whose union is also X. So a closed interval of
finite length is compact, but an open interval is not.
I was confused at first because I was misremembering the definition
of compactness. I remembered a definition along the lines of "X is
compact if every Cauchy sequence converges". That doesn't directly
help much.
-- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
- Next message: Marc Satterwhite: "Re: 100% Convinced vs. 100% Committed"
- Previous message: Rally: "Re: 100% Convinced vs. 100% Committed"
- In reply to: Dave Seaman: "Re: Uncountable many reals without Cantor"
- Next in thread: Dave Seaman: "Re: Uncountable many reals without Cantor"
- Reply: Dave Seaman: "Re: Uncountable many reals without Cantor"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|