5
$\begingroup$

Let $X \subset \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0 }$. Suppose there exists $C>0$ such that for any finite subset $\{x_1,x_2,...,x_n\}\subset X$ $\sum_{i=1}^{n}x_i \leq C$. Show that $X$ is countable.

I am quite lost in trying to solve this exercise. I've only thought about $\mathcal{P}_{<\infty}(X)=\{A\subset X:\#(A)<\infty\}$, and I found out that $\#(\mathcal{P}_{<\infty}(X))=\aleph_{0}$ if $\#(X)=\aleph_{0}$ and $(\mathcal{P}_{<\infty}(X))=\mathfrak{c}$ if $\#(X)=\mathfrak{c}$. However I can't go any further, and I don't even know if this is useful somehow. Any hint?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hint: Try to show that $X \cap [\frac{1}{k}, \infty)$ is finite for each $k \in \mathbb N$. $\endgroup$
    – user99914
    May 18 '15 at 4:05
  • $\begingroup$ I am more than certain that this question was asked before, more than once. I'm too busy to find a duplicate, at this moment, though. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    May 18 '15 at 5:31
1
$\begingroup$

Consider $$ X_n=X\cap(1/n,\infty). $$ Then $\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty X_n=X$. If all the $X_n$'s were countable, then so would be $X$. Hence, for some $m\in\mathbb N$, we have that $\lvert X_{m}\rvert>\aleph_0$. Let $x_1,\ldots,x_N\in X_m$, where $N>cm$. Then $$ x_1+\cdots+x_N>\frac{N}{m}>c. $$

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I don't see where you are using the uncountability of $X_m$ $\endgroup$ May 18 '15 at 4:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Joaquin: Yiorgos is using the well-known fact that a countable union of countable sets is countable. Hence, by contraposition, if $ X $ is uncountable, then $ X_{n} $ is uncountable for some $ n \in \Bbb{N} $. $\endgroup$ May 18 '15 at 5:30
  • $\begingroup$ A more transparent way to argue might be: "If all the $X_n$s were finite, then $X$ would be countable (a countable union of finite sets); so some $X_m$ is infinite, so we can pick $>cm$-many elements of $X_m$, and the sum of these (finitely many) elements must be $>c$." It isn't important for $X_m$ to be uncountable, it just needs to be infinite. There's an interesting dichotomy here: in order for us to know that some $X_m$ is infinite, we need $X$ to be uncountable, at which point we know that some $X_m$ is actually not just infinite, but uncountable. $\endgroup$ May 18 '15 at 5:36
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that was the problem I was having when trying to write the solution (once they gave me the hint.) Because the $ X_{n}$ could all be countable, and that would also work!. So the essential difference is that the sets $ X_n $ are finite $\endgroup$ May 18 '15 at 13:08
0
$\begingroup$

Assume some point of $X$ is an interior point, $x$. Fix $r>0$ such the neighborhood of radius $r$ around $x$ is contained in $X$. This neighborhood has infinitely many points of $X$.

Choose $k$ such that $kx>C$, then pick $k-1$ many $x_i$ from the neighborhood around $x$ such that each $x_i>x$. Then the sum of all $k$ elements is greater than $C$, thus by contradiction, no point of $X$ can be an interior point.

Then any point in $X$ must be either an isolated point or a limit point of $X$ (or both). The set of isolated points is obviously countable, so the question becomes how many limit points there are.

For any nonzero limit point, there are infinitely many points in $X$ in any neighborhood of that limit point. Thus, by a similar process as above, we can create another contradiction to show that no such limit point exists. Of course, a limit point at $0$ is still possible, but that is not a problem in terms of countability.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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