Re: MY LIST of the subsets of N
From: Jim Ferry (corklebath_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/01/04
- Next message: Larry Bud: "Re: Why we must go back to Roman Numerals"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Rigorous proof of natural numbers' properties (by Edmund Landau)."
- In reply to: David P. Ferguson: "MY LIST of the subsets of N"
- Next in thread: Peter Webb: "Re: MY LIST of the subsets of N"
- Reply: Peter Webb: "Re: MY LIST of the subsets of N"
- Reply: Mikito Harakiri: "Re: MY LIST of the subsets of N"
- Reply: Michael Stemper: "Re: MY LIST of the subsets of N"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 1 Jul 2004 13:04:33 -0700
Wow! This is really cool, David!
I haven't gone through all the details of your algorithm, but what
strikes me is that you've implicitly defined a function f that assigns
a natural number to every subset of the natural numbers. For example,
f({1}) = 1,
f({2}) = 2,
f({1,2}) = 3,
f({3}) = 4.
The function f (let's call it Ferguson's function) simply assigns to
each subset S of the natural numbers the location at which it appears
in the list your algorithm generates.
I believe that you've shown, for example, that f({n}) = 2^(n-1).
I'm curious about the value of f(S) when S is the set of (positive)
odd numbers. Can you work out what that would be? It's probably
pretty big, but I wonder of it's odd or even.
For that matter, what is f(S) when S is the set of (positive) prime
numbers? Oooh, I wonder if it is itself prime!
You know, I sense a more general question here. For which subsets
S is the number f(S) itself a member of S? Hmmm . . .
Well 1 is a member of {1}, and 2 is a member of {2}, certainly, but
3 is not a member of {1,2}, and 4 is not a member of {3}.
Let T be the set of numbers f(S) such that f(S) is not a member of S.
So T = {3,4,...}. What is T exactly? Could someone figure this out?
And what is f(T)? And is f(T) a member of T?
Let's see . . . if f(T) were a member of T then, wait a minute . . .
but if f(T) were not a member of T then . . . ummm.
Very curious function this f.
- Next message: Larry Bud: "Re: Why we must go back to Roman Numerals"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Rigorous proof of natural numbers' properties (by Edmund Landau)."
- In reply to: David P. Ferguson: "MY LIST of the subsets of N"
- Next in thread: Peter Webb: "Re: MY LIST of the subsets of N"
- Reply: Peter Webb: "Re: MY LIST of the subsets of N"
- Reply: Mikito Harakiri: "Re: MY LIST of the subsets of N"
- Reply: Michael Stemper: "Re: MY LIST of the subsets of N"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|