Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Assume AC. Let $x_\alpha$ be a well-ordering of $\mathbb{R}$. For all $\alpha < \mathfrak{c}$, let $F(x_\alpha) = x_{\alpha+1}$.

Can it be proven that $F$ is discontinuous everywhere?

share|improve this question
    
Is $F$ intended to be defined on $x_\alpha$ where $\alpha \geq c$? If so, how is it defined? –  Logan Nov 2 '12 at 6:39
    
I guess I'm confused. Unless I misunderstand, as phrased there is no guarantee that $F$ is defined on all of $R$. Equipollent is a cardinal relation, so even though $c$ is equipollent to $R$ it might not be order-isomorphic to the well ordering on $R$. There are many ordinals equipollent to $R$ and by choosing the smallest you make it likely that many elements of $R$ won't be included in the definition of $F$. –  Logan Nov 2 '12 at 6:46
1  
Dan, I feel that the answer is yes or it depends on CH in some way. I have no idea what the argument should be, though. Interesting question, by the way (+1). –  Asaf Karagila Nov 2 '12 at 7:16
3  
For some reason noone has pointed this out yet: $F$ is not a bijection. Its range misses $x_0$ and all $x_\alpha$ with $\alpha$ limit ordinal. –  Stefan Geschke Nov 2 '12 at 7:43
1  
@Dan Brumleve: Yes, sure, the question is completely valid. I just wanted to clear up this misconception. –  Stefan Geschke Nov 2 '12 at 7:49
show 7 more comments

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

$F$ can be continuous at some points, if the well-ordering is defined in the right way. For example, choose your well ordering so that each real number in $(0,1)$ is a unique limit ordinal in $c$. That is, if $T:\mathbb{R} \rightarrow c$ maps each element $x \in \mathbb{R}$ to the element $\alpha$ of $c$ such that $x_\alpha=x$, then we want $x \in (0,1) \Rightarrow \alpha$ is a limit ordinal or 0.

There are enough limit ordinals to accomplish this, because the cardinality of $c$ is the cardinality of $\mathbb{N} \times L(c)$ where $L(c)$ is (the set of all limit ordinals in $c$) $\cup$ 0. So the number of limit ordinals must have the same cardinality as $c$, and the same cardinality as (0,1).

Further define $T$ so that $T(x) = T(x-2)+1$ for all $x \in (2,3)$. At this point $T$ is still injective, because $T(x-2)+1$ is not a limit ordinal.

Now extend $T$ to the rest of $\mathbb{R}$ where it hasn't already been defined in such a way that it is bijective.

With $x_\alpha$ defined in terms of this $T$, F will be continuous on $(0,1)$. In fact, it will be identically equal to $f(x)=x+2$ on $(0,1)$.

share|improve this answer
    
Points whose index is not a successor ordinals are not in the image of $F$. So if you make $(0,1)$ into limit ordinals you just ensured $F(x)\notin(0,1)$ for all $x\in\mathbb R$. –  Asaf Karagila Nov 2 '12 at 7:57
    
@AsafKaragila I wasn't trying to put $F(x) \in (0,1)$. I was trying to get $F$ to map $(0,1)$ onto (2,3) continuously. $T$ is a bijection sending (0,1) to limits and (2,3) to successors of limits, and $F$ is a continuous function R->R sending (0,1) to (2,3). –  Logan Nov 2 '12 at 8:05
    
I think this works fine for the domain $\mathbb{R}^+$. That is good enough for me, but I am going to work through it a little more before accepting. –  Dan Brumleve Nov 3 '12 at 17:01
    
The domain can be $\mathbb{R}$ if we map $[-1,1)$ to $L(\frak c)$ instead, counting down from $[-1,0)$ and counting up from $[0, 1)$. In that case $f(x) = x+1$ when $x \ge 0$ and $f(x) = x-1$ when $x \lt 0$ and it has a single discontinuity at $x = 0$. –  Dan Brumleve Nov 3 '12 at 18:16
    
as described here, the domain can be literally anything that contains (0,1)$\cup$(2,3) and has the cardinality of the continuum. –  Logan Nov 3 '12 at 20:35
show 3 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

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.