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

We list all the rational numbers in $\mathbb{R}\bigcap\lbrack0,3\rbrack$ here, $$\{x_1,x_2,x_3,...\},$$ with the order from small to large. Then we define the ball $B(x_i,r_i)$, $$B(x_i,r_i)=\{x\arrowvert x_i-r_i\le x\le x_i+r_i\}$$ We take $r_i=1/2^i(1\le i<\infty)$.

Now there exists one question here.

Do these balls $(\bigcup_{1\le i<\infty}B(x_i,r_i))$ cover the interval $[0,3]$?

If they can cover the interval,then $$m(\bigcup_{1\le i<\infty}B(x_i,r_i))\le\sum_{1\le i<\infty} B(x_i,r_i)=2< m([0,3])$$ it leads to a contradiction.

If they cannot cover the interval,then there must exist a positive integer $N$,such that $$x_{N+1}-x_N>\frac{1}{2^N}+\frac{1}{2^{N+1}}>\frac{1}{2^N}$$ I just cannot imagine there exist the two adjacent rational numbers that are so far apart (their distance is larger than one rational number $\frac{1}{2^N}$). That's impossible! We can insert another rational number $x_N+\frac{1}{2^N}$ between $x_N$ and $x_{N+1}$.This leads to a contradiction.

I just cannot find any mistakes from above words.Who can find an answer?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

The rationals in your interval are densely ordered. That is, between any two rationals $r \lt s$ in the interval, there is a rational $x$ such that $r \lt x \lt s$. So although the rationals in your interval can be listed (they are a countably infinite set), they cannot be listed "from small to large."

Added: More concretely, as pointed out by David Mitra, let $x_1$ be the first element in the supposed list, presumably $0$, and let $x_2$ be the second element in the list. Then $(x_1+x_2)/2$ is a rational in our interval, and it lies between $x_1$ and $x_2$ in the usual ordering of the rationals. So if the list is "from small to large" it cannot include the rational number $(x_1+x_2)/2$.

share|cite|improve this answer
If you don't mind Andre, I'll add: @Juntao Huang In particular, take the first two rationals in your list. There is a rational number in between them. – David Mitra May 12 '12 at 18:10
Ok!I got it!I have a wrong hypothesis here.Thank you all! – Juntao Huang May 13 '12 at 0:34

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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