0
$\begingroup$

My question is based in the following result:

"The measure of the set of rational numbers in [0,1] is zero"

The argument asociated with this result is constructed over the fact we can list the rational numbers in a way like this:

{0} ,{1}, {1/2}, {1/3, 2/3}, {1/4 3/4}, {1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5} .... and cover them (each number) with intervals with length $\epsilon/2^{n+1}$, proceed to sum them and obtains

"Total length covered"=$\epsilon(1/2+1/4+1/8+...)=\epsilon$, Since $\epsilon$ can be made as small as we please, the measure of the rational numbers is zero.

This is OK, but that should mean (and I want to prove that) this cover can't cover the whole [0,1], otherwise we're claiming that [0,1] has measure zero. How to prove that this cover is not enough for covering [0,1]?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Well, you just did. What more more needs to be proven? Such a cover can have arbitrarily small measure but the measure of $[0,1] = 1$ is not arbitrarily small. So it can't cover $[0,1]$. There is nothing more you need to prove. You are COMPLETELY done! $\endgroup$ – fleablood Apr 15 '18 at 7:31
  • $\begingroup$ You're right. I just wanted to see if there is a way of characterizing the numbers I would exclude of this covering. $\endgroup$ – Mauro Cruz Apr 15 '18 at 7:42
1
$\begingroup$

It follows from Roth's theorem that for every algebraic number $\alpha \in [0,1]$ (that is, every $\alpha$ that is the root of some polynomial with rational coefficients) there is a sufficiently small $\epsilon > 0$ for which $\alpha$ won't be included in the union. That proves that $[0,1]$ is eventually not entirely covered.

One particular instance of Roth's theorem says that the inequality $$ \left|\alpha - \frac pq\right| < \frac1{q^3} $$ is satisfied for only finitely many fractions $\frac pq$. The size $\frac{\epsilon}{2^{n+1}}$ that we include around the $n^{\text{th}}$ rational number $\frac{p_n}{q_n}$ decays much faster than $\frac1{q_n^3}$. So for any fixed $\epsilon$ (say, for $\epsilon = 1$) there will only be finitely many intervals containing $\alpha$.

If those intervals are around the fractions $\frac{p_1}{q_1}, \dots, \frac{p_k}{q_k}$, then for each of them we can look at the distance $\left|\alpha - \frac{p_i}{q_i}\right|$, and choose $\epsilon$ small enough so that $\alpha$ is left out of the interval around $\frac{p_i}{q_i}$. If we do this for all $k$ fractions, then we have ensured that $\alpha$ is not contained in any of the intervals.

In fact, the same argument shows that for every number with finite irrationality measure, there is a small enough $\epsilon>0$ such that it gets excluded. Only really weird transcendental numbers that have infinitely many ridiculously good rational approximations will stay in the union of this cover for all $\epsilon>0$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I guess when you are refering to algebraic numbers, you're talking about the irrational ones. On the other hand, do you mean that those irrational numbers covered for a number INFINITE of intervals never "escape" from this cover? $\endgroup$ – Mauro Cruz Apr 15 '18 at 7:26
  • $\begingroup$ Right, the irrational ones. Numbers covered by an infinite number of intervals might escape from this cover, but it's harder to prove: if we try to choose an $\epsilon$ small enough for each of the infinitely many intervals, we might end up having to choose $\epsilon=0$. $\endgroup$ – Misha Lavrov Apr 15 '18 at 16:17
3
$\begingroup$

By the Heine-Borel theorem, if an infinite sequence of open intervals cover the compact set $[0,1]$, then a finite subcollection do. It is not hard to prove that if intervals $I_1,\ldots,I_n$ cover $[0,1]$ then the sum of their lengths is at least $1$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I agree, but I'm looking for how to show this particular cover does not cover [0,1] $\endgroup$ – Mauro Cruz Apr 15 '18 at 7:04
  • $\begingroup$ @MauroCruz This is a proof by contradiction. If it did cover $[0,1]$, then the sum of its lengths would be at least $1$, so once the sum of lengths is less than $1$, it cannot cover $[0,1]$. $\endgroup$ – Misha Lavrov Apr 15 '18 at 7:12

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.