Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I came across this article, by H. Vic Dannon, where he argues that the cardinality of a powerset is not necessarily strictly bigger than the cardinality of the set, and the problem arises when one starts applying properties of finite sets to infinite sets. But that's not the point I am concerned with... On pages 4-5 he describes a purported injection from reals to rationals, more precisely from (0, 1) to rationals. I am not very good at math, so as I read the description I couldn't find the mistake. Could someone please explain where his flaw is (I presume there is one)? Thank you very much.

share|cite|improve this question

closed as too localized by Arturo Magidin, Grigory M, Andrés Caicedo, Asaf Karagila, t.b. Jan 30 '12 at 18:41

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

No, it's not right. A "lexicographic list of real numbers in binary expansion" never includes any real number whose expansion contains infinitely many 1s; e.g., $(1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1\ldots)$ is not on his list. So his domain is not all of $\mathbb{R}$. His "list" only includes real numbers with terminating binary expansion, and those reals are certainly bijectable with $\mathbb{Q}$. The entire article shows some deep misunderstandings and ignorance of the basics of elementary set theory. – Arturo Magidin Jan 28 '12 at 1:30
But everything else here is good, right? :) – Dylan Moreland Jan 28 '12 at 1:33
up vote 14 down vote accepted

The problem with that argument is that his ‘dictionary listing of the Real numbers’ includes only those sequences that are $0$ from some point on. In other words, he gets only the so-called dyadic rationals in $(0,1)$, those that can be written as a fraction whose denominator is a power of $2$. In particular, it does not include $\sqrt2$, his assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. Since he lists only countably many of the real numbers, it’s no surprise that he is able to find an injection from them into the rationals. He could, in fact, simply have let $f(x)=x$ for each $x$ in his list, and $f$ would have been an injection from his list into the rationals!

The essay is a rather sad exhibition of someone’s reach greatly exceeding his grasp: the author clearly understands very little of the mathematics that he attempts to bring to bear on a non-existent problem.

share|cite|improve this answer
Fans of H. Vic Dannon might also like his proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, found here:… – I. J. Kennedy Jun 26 '12 at 23:59
@BrianM.Scott Just curious on your thoughts on alerting student to be aware of those math and physics "quacks." I recall years ago (20 or so) my receiving an unsolicited news letter in which the author(s) claimed to have demonstrative (and simple) proof that the special theory of relativity was incorrect. Recently, I found a treatise by H. Vic Dannon on Riemann versus Lebesgue integration in which he "refutes" certain foundations of the Lebesgue integral. – Dr. MV Jun 3 '15 at 16:12

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.