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

Let $G$ be the set of rational numbers of the form $m/n$ , where $m,n$ are positive integers and $n \leq g $ for some possitive integer $g$. Suppose it is bounded by $1/k$ , k is a positive integer less than g.

Prove or disprove that, cardinality of set $G$ is finite.

share|cite|improve this question
Hint: Is G bounded? – peoplepower Aug 12 '12 at 15:55
yes it should be bounded I did some error – mehdi Aug 12 '12 at 15:56
"Bounded by $1/k$"? Is that an upper bound, or a lower bound, or what? The set $G$ as defined in the first sentence is not bounded. If there's a boundedness condition, it should be part of the stated definition of $G$. And it should be stated clearly. As now written, it's hard to be sure what is meant. – Michael Hardy Aug 12 '12 at 16:03
lower bound is 1/g (from definition no other smaller rational can be written), upper bound is 1/k since k is les than g – mehdi Aug 12 '12 at 16:06
$\cfrac1 g$ is a strictly smaller rational than $\cfrac1 k$, and (as far as I can tell from the definition given) is an element of $G$. $2$ is a strictly larger rational than $\cfrac1 k$, and again seems to be an element of $G$. – Cameron Buie Aug 12 '12 at 16:31
up vote 2 down vote accepted

More generally, let $g$ be a positive integer and $M$ a positive real number, and let $G$ be the set of rational numbers $m/n$ such that $m$ and $n$ are positive integers, $m/n\le M$, and $n\le g$; then $G$ is finite.

To see this, note first that there are only $g$ possible denominators for members of $G$, namely, the integers $1,2,\dots,g$. Let $n$ be one of these denominators. Then $m/n\le M$ if and only if $m\le Mn$. In other words, $m/n\in G$ if and only if $m$ is one of the $Mn$ integers $1,2,\dots,Mn$. In particular, since $n\le g$, we must have $Mn\le Mg$. Thus, there are only $g$ possible denominators, and for each of them there are at most $Mg$ possible numerators, so altogether there are at most $g(Mg)=Mg^2$ possible fractions in $G$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks this was better – mehdi Aug 12 '12 at 16:10
Why are we assuming that $G$ is bounded above? – Cameron Buie Aug 12 '12 at 16:34
@Cameron: Because mehdi added that hypothesis to the problem. – Brian M. Scott Aug 12 '12 at 16:37

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.