Re: Cantor set
- From: Andersen <andersen_800@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:48:27 +0200
Dave Seaman wrote:
One way to see this is to notice that 1/3 can be written as
(0.02222...)_3. Any number having a base-3 representation that contains
no 1's is a member of the Cantor set.
This is my problem. Because the Cantor set was indeed defined as the way you defined it in my book. But 1/3 is (0.1)_3 right? So (0.0222...)_3 is some other number. Because of this (apparently faulty reasoning), (0.1)_3 is not in the Cantor set, hence the intervals that should be removed from [0,1] should have their first brackets in the inclusive form.
Where am I wrong? Is it so that (0.1)_3 = (0.02222...)_3 ? If so, then why?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor set
- From: Arturo Magidin
- Re: Cantor set
- References:
- Cantor set
- From: Andersen
- Re: Cantor set
- From: Dave Seaman
- Cantor set
- Prev by Date: Re: product
- Next by Date: Re: The Collatz discrete primes!
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor set
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor set
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|