2
$\begingroup$

Let $E$ be the set of all $x \in [0,1]$ whose decimal expansion contains only the digits $4$ and $7$.

  1. Is $E$ countable?
  2. Is $E$ dense in $[0,1]$?
  3. Is $E$ compact?
  4. Is $E$ perfect?
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Cantor diagonalization shows that it is not countable. It can't be dense because every such number is $\geq 0.4$ $\endgroup$ – Prahlad Vaidyanathan Sep 6 '13 at 8:59
1
$\begingroup$

The set E is not dense in $[0,1]$; there is no sequence in E converging to, say 1, since $d(1,E)\geq 1-0.8=0.2 $ But $E$ is closed in $[0,1]$; take any x in $E^c$ . Then the decimal expansion of x has at least one term $a_n$ with $a_n \neq 4$ ; specifically, for any x in the complement, $d(x,E) \geq 10^n$ , where n is the first decimal place in the decimal expansion of x where $n \neq {4,7} $ . This allows you to build a 'hood (neighborhood) $B(x, 1/2(10^n))$ contained entirely in the complement.

And E is not countable; it has measure larger than 0, since it contains the subintervals (0.4, 0.5) and (0.7, 0.8) ; every countable set has measure zero.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How does it contain 0.57 for instance? $\endgroup$ – Arash Sep 6 '13 at 12:54
  • $\begingroup$ Yes; it does, but it contains a whole open interval, and the interval is homeomorphic to the reals, so E is countable. But I'm not saying it contains only those two intervals, tho. $\endgroup$ – DBFdalwayse Sep 6 '13 at 22:14
6
$\begingroup$

The smallest number in $E$ is $0.\overline 4=\frac49$, and the largest is $0.\overline7=\frac79$; let $E_0=\left[\frac49,\frac79\right]$. No member of $E$ lies strictly between $0.4\overline7=\frac4{10}+\frac7{90}=\frac{43}{90}$ and $0.7\overline4=\frac7{10}+\frac4{90}=\frac{67}{90}$, though both of these numbers are in $E$; let $$E_1=\left[\frac49,\frac{43}{90}\right]\cup\left[\frac{67}{90},\frac79\right]\;.$$

No member of $E$ lies strictly between $0.44\overline7=\frac{403}{900}$ and $0.47\overline4=\frac{427}{900}$ or strictly between $0.74\overline7=\frac{673}{900}$ and $0.77\overline4=\frac{697}{900}$; let

$$E_2=\left[\frac49,\frac{403}{900}\right]\cup\left[\frac{427}{900},\frac{43}{90}\right]\cup\left[\frac{67}{90},\frac{673}{900}\right]\cup\left[\frac{697}{900},\frac79\right]\;.$$

If you continue in this fashion, you’ll find that each $E_n$ is the union of $2^n$ pairwise disjoint closed intervals, each of length $\frac1{3\cdot10^n}$. Clearly $E_0\supseteq E_1\supseteq E_2\supseteq\ldots$, and it’s not hard to see further that $E=\bigcap_{n\ge 0}E_n$.

If you’re familiar with the construction of the middle-thirds Cantor set, this should look very familiar: this is in fact a Cantor set, i.e., a topological space homeomorphic to the middle-thirds Cantor set, so it has the same topological properties, and they can be proved in the same ways. For instance, $E$ is an intersection of compact sets, so it’s compact.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

By using Cantor diagonal argument, $E$ will be uncountable.

It will not be dense in the interval because the minimum of $E$ is $0.44444...=\frac{4}{9}$ and below this point one can find a point which is neither a limit point nor a point of $E$.

Every point of $E$, say $e$ is a limit point. For each neighborhood $N_r(e)$ one can find $n$ such that $10^{-n}<r$ so by choosing the digits after $n$-th position equal to $4$ or $7$ different from $e$, one finds another point of $E$ in it.

If there is a limit point $d$ not in $E$, then one can find a minimum position, say $k$ in which the digit is not 4 or 7. Now $d(e,d)$ for all $e\in E$, can be bounded as: $$ d(e,d)=a_1 10^{-k}+a_1 10^{-k-1}+....>10^{-k} $$ So there will be no points in $E$ for a neighborhood of $d$ of radius $r<10^{-k}$ so it cannot be a limit point. So $E$ is closed.

$E$ is closed and bounded in $[0,1] $ so it will be compact.

$E$ is perfect because it is closed and every point of $E$ is its limit points.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ the lower bound of $d(e,d)$ should be $10^-k$. only the $k$ th position is different, all the other positions are same. Am I correct ? $\endgroup$ – aaaaaa Sep 6 '13 at 12:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Prasenjit Yes, you are right! Thanks for the comment. $\endgroup$ – Arash Sep 6 '13 at 12:22

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.