0
$\begingroup$

Imagine infinite intersection of $\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty\left(0,\,\frac1n\right)$ where $n$ is positive natural number.

Assume infinite intersection of $\left(0,\,\frac1n\right)$ is empty set. In other words, given any positive real number $p$ less than 1, there exists some $N$ such that $\frac1N$ is less than $p$. But then we have actually made one to one mapping from real numbers to rational numbers. But such a mapping is impossible for the difference of cardinality between real and rational numbers. So the infinite intersection of $\left(0,\,\frac1n\right)$ is not empty set. What's wrong with it?

$\endgroup$
0

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

You won't get a one-to-one mapping form $\mathbb R_+$ to $\mathbb Q$ in this way.

Every positive real is larger than some $\frac1n$, but nothing in what you say implies that two different positive reals are larger than different $\frac1n$s.

(In fact, you don't get a concrete mapping at all unless you either appeal to the Axiom of Choice to pick out for each of the $p$s one of the many $\frac1n$s that are smaller than it, or decide on a concrete way to choose between them -- say, always pick the smallest $n$ such that $\frac1n<p$. But in the latter case it is easy to see that, for example, the real numbers $\frac12+\frac17\pi$ and $\frac12+\frac18\pi$ both map to $\frac12$, so your correspondence is not one-to-one).

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, now I understand the argument above is false. But what about this. For any 1/n, there exists some real number p less than 1/n. Then, there exists infinite real number in the infinite intersection of (0,1/n). What's wrong with it then? $\endgroup$
    – PHilo
    Oct 9, 2016 at 6:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @PHilo: Just because you have found a real number smaller then $\frac1n$ doesn't mean that it will also be smaller than $\frac1m$ for a different $m$, so you have no reason to think you have actually found anything in the intersection. $\endgroup$ Oct 9, 2016 at 7:02
  • $\begingroup$ Because for every p < 1/n there is another 1/m < p so p is not in the intersection. $\endgroup$
    – fleablood
    Oct 9, 2016 at 7:44
0
$\begingroup$

Assume infinite intersection of (0,1/n) is empty set. In other words, given any positive real number p less than 1, there exists some N such that 1/N is less than p. But then we have actually made one to one mapping from real numbers to rational numbers. But such a mapping is impossible for the difference of cardinality between real and rational numbers. So the infinite intersection of (0,1/n) is not empty set. What's wrong with it?

The claim that the mapping is one-to-one is unjustified and false. Otherwise (assuming AC) the argument seems correct.

$\endgroup$

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.