Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

Is there a way to prove the following result using connectedness?


Let $J=\mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q}$ denote the set of irrational numbers. There is no continuous map $f: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that $f(\mathbb{Q}) \subseteq J$ and $f(J) \subseteq \mathbb{Q}$.

share|cite|improve this question
Please make your post self-contained by incorporating the statement. It takes forever for planetmath to render for me. Maintaining the link is fine, so one can see how it is proved there. – Ross Millikan Aug 4 '11 at 18:18
@Ross Millikan: just edited it. – user10 Aug 4 '11 at 18:22
@user10 actually the link is down. – LeGrandDODOM Feb 21 '14 at 23:56
I searched planetmath to find the original linked argument; I think it is here and here If it moves again but stays on the site, a Google search such as switch rational irrational baire will find it. – Jonas Meyer Jul 7 at 14:42
up vote 46 down vote accepted

Here's a way to use connectedness, really amounting to using the intermediate value theorem.

If $f(\mathbb{Q})\subseteq \mathbb R\setminus\mathbb Q$ and $f(\mathbb R\setminus \mathbb Q)\subseteq\mathbb Q$, then $f(0)\neq f(\sqrt 2)$. Because intervals are connected in $\mathbb R$ and $f$ is continuous, $f[0,\sqrt 2]$ is connected. Because connected subsets of $\mathbb R$ are intervals, $f[0,\sqrt 2]$ contains the interval $\left[\min\{f(0),f(\sqrt 2)\},\max\{f(0),f(\sqrt 2)\}\right]$. The set of irrational numbers in this interval is uncountable, yet contained in the countable set $f(\mathbb Q)$, a contradiction.

A slightly briefer outline: The hypothesis implies that $f$ is nonconstant with range contained in the countable set $\mathbb Q\cup f(\mathbb Q)$, whereas the intermediate value theorem and uncountability of $\mathbb R$ imply that a nonconstant continuous function $f:\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$ has uncountable range.

share|cite|improve this answer
thank you, beautiful argument. – user10 Aug 4 '11 at 18:31
More elementary than a proof using Baire Category! – GEdgar Aug 4 '11 at 18:52
I like the second paragraph version – Hagen von Eitzen Dec 29 '13 at 23:13

Suppose there is such a mapping $f$. Consider $g:[0,1]\to \mathbb{R}$ defined by $$g(x)=f(x)-x.$$ Suppose that $g(x)\in \mathbb{Q}$ for some $x\in [0,1]$. Then:

  • if $x\in J$, then $g(x)-f(x)\in \mathbb{Q}$, i.e. $x\in \mathbb{Q}$.
  • if $x\in \mathbb{Q}$, then $g(x)+x\in \mathbb{Q}$, i.e. $f(x)\in \mathbb{Q}$, i.e. $x\in J$

both produce contradictions. Thus $g([0,1])\subseteq J$. Since $f$ is continuous, $g$ is continuous, and then $g([0,1])=[\min g,\max g]$. If $g$ is not constant then there exists $r$ a rational in $[\min g,\max g]$. By the intermediate value theorem, there exists $z\in[0,1]$ such that $g(z)=r$, but this is impossible because $g([0,1])\subseteq J$. Therefore, $g$ must be constant and then $$f(x)=c+x$$ with $c\in J$. Particularly, $f(c)=2c$ which, as Jonas pointed, is contradictory to the hypothesis. Therefore $f$ can not exist.

share|cite|improve this answer
A quicker way to finish once you have $f(x)=c+x$ is to note that $f(c)=2c$ is irrational, contradicting the hypothesis. +1: This is a nice alternative that can handle a more general situation. Note that cardinality need not be considered, and in fact $\mathbb Q$ can be replaced by any subgroup of $\mathbb R$. – Jonas Meyer Aug 4 '11 at 19:43
yes, that's true and thank you @Jonas, I will correct for the sake of simplicity. – leo Aug 4 '11 at 19:48
To clarify my previous comment, I should have said that this argument applies verbatim if $\mathbb Q$ is replaced by any dense subgroup of $\mathbb R$ containing $2$. The last restriction could be handled by rescaling if necessary. – Jonas Meyer Aug 4 '11 at 20:06
Yes, I had some doubts after I wrote my comment. – leo Aug 4 '11 at 20:39
Hey Leo, how do you conclude that $g([0,1]) \subset $\mathbb{I}$ from the two contradictions above? – Kamil Jul 7 at 9:24

Another simple proof:

Because $f$ is continuous and by connectedness, $f([0,1])=[a,b]$ for some $a<b$. Now define $$g : x \mapsto \frac{1}{p} \left(f(x)-q \right), \ \text{where} \ p,q \in \mathbb{Q}.$$

In particular, $g(x)$ is rational iff $f(x)$ is rationnal, ie. $g$ has the same property that $f$.

Notice that $g([0,1])= \left[ \frac{a-q}{p}, \frac{b-q}{p} \right]$. Therefore, if $b-1 \leq q \leq a$ and $p \geq b-q$ then $g : [0,1] \to [0,1]$ and classically $g$ has a fixed point $x_0 \in [0,1]$.

Finally we deduce that $x_0 \in \mathbb{Q}$ iff $x_0 = g(x_0) \notin \mathbb{Q}$, a contradiction.

share|cite|improve this answer
This uses compactness as well as connectedness of $[0,1]$ to conclude that $f([0,1])$ is a closed, bounded interval. – Jonas Meyer Jul 23 '13 at 15:10
Very nice proof. – leo Dec 30 '13 at 1:51
If $f([0,1])=[-1,1]$, then you are suggesting to consider $g(x)=f(x)$ in order to find a function $[0,1] \to [0,1]$, so it doesn't seem to work. – Seirios Aug 12 '15 at 5:49
Yes, you are right. Define $g(x)=\left\lvert\dfrac{f(x)}{\left\lceil \max(\left\lvert a \right\rvert,\left\lvert b\right\rvert)\right\rceil}\right\rvert$. I think that it will work. – user 170039 Aug 13 '15 at 13:48
I think so. But now, your solution does not seem to be really simpler than the original. – Seirios Aug 14 '15 at 6:46

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.