• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Proving a Set is Not Dense in the Set of All Real Numbers

Unknown Soldier

Banned
Banned
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
1,541
Location
Williamsport, PA
Basic Beliefs
Truth Seeker
It has been proved that the set of all rational numbers is dense in the set of all real numbers. What this means is that if a and b are real numbers where a < b, then there is a rational number p/q such that a < p/q < b. In other words, there is a rational number between every two real numbers.

If we define the set N10 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}, then is the set {p/q ∈ Q : p ∈ Z and q ∈ N10} dense in the set of real numbers? Observe that the set {p/q ∈ Q : p ∈ Z and q ∈ N10} is a subset of the set of all rational numbers Q. {p/q ∈ Q : p ∈ Z and q ∈ N10} and Q differ in that any element of Q has any nonzero integer in the denominator while {p/q ∈ Q : p ∈ Z and q ∈ N10} is restricted to denominators in the set N10 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}. So for example 1/11 is a rational number but 1/11 is not an element of {p/q ∈ Q : p ∈ Z and q ∈ N10} because the denominator 11 is not in the set N10 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}.

My first guess was that no, {p/q ∈ Q : p ∈ Z and q ∈ N10} is not dense in the set of real numbers because the denominator q is restricted to the values in the set N10 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}. I realized that if I could find just one instance of real numbers a and b where a < b and there is no p/q ∈ {p/q ∈ Q : p ∈ Z and q ∈ N10} such that a < p/q < b, then {p/q ∈ Q : p ∈ Z and q ∈ N10} is not dense in the set of real numbers.

My next step involved analyzing the inequality a < p/q < b. I know that q is any natural number from 1 to 10, but what of the integer p? It dawned on me that I can disprove the density of {p/q ∈ Q : p ∈ Z and q ∈ N10} in the set of real numbers by showing exhaustively that any integer p divided by any q ∈ N10 cannot fit between all real numbers a and b.

Returning to the inequality a < p/q < b I multiplied by q getting aq < p < bq. So eureka! I realized that if there is no integer p between aq and bq for real numbers a and b and all q in the set N10 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}, then there is no rational number in the set {p/q ∈ Q : p ∈ Z and q ∈ N10} between a and b.

But what real numbers a and b have no such p/q between them? I started out experimenting with crunching numbers in my spreadsheet program, Calc. I figured that a good place to start is with rational numbers like a = 1/11 and b = 3/11 because natural numbers 11 and greater are not in the set N10 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}. So I analyzed 1/11 < p/q < 3/11 and its derivative q/11 < p < 3q/11. Sadly, I found that there are some integers p such that q/11 < p < 3q/11 for some q in N10 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}. What that meant was that there are some elements of {p/q ∈ Q : p ∈ Z and q ∈ N10} between 1/11 and 3/11.

I seemed to be on to something nevertheless. So I tried some more natural numbers greater than 10 and noticed that as their values increased, then the values p/q that fit inside a and b decreased! After more number crunching, I discovered that a = 1/31 and b = 3/31 have no rational numbers p/q between them where q is in the set N10 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}. See the attached spreadsheet. We can then conclude that the set {p/q ∈ Q : p ∈ Z and q ∈ N10} is not dense in the set of real numbers.

It just goes to show what hard work and a love for the truth can do.
 

Attachments

  • Density Computations.png
    Density Computations.png
    29.4 KB · Views: 4
I wish I understood number theory and real analysis. I'd blame fate, but I recognize that's an easy excuse. Nonetheless, I genuinely admire and appreciate the intelligence displayed by those who engage in these complex discussions.

That is all I have.
 
I wish I understood number theory and real analysis. I'd blame fate, but I recognize that's an easy excuse. Nonetheless, I genuinely admire and appreciate the intelligence displayed by those who engage in these complex discussions.

That is all I have.
I wish I understood real analysis too, and I've been studying it for two years! It's very challenging because you need to rely on your own logical thinking rather than just apply techniques.

So do you understand what I posted? I was hoping that somebody would confirm my conclusion based on the premises.

So thanks for the polite response. I don't get many of those around here.
 
Regrettably, no I don't understand any of it. I punched it into chat Gpt and asked what sort of math is this. And it answered number theory and real analysis and also gave a more detailed reply but those two words was enough for me to come back here and post my appreciation and respect in a more concise way. I usually put my replies in it to have it correct my punctuation and wording to be better understood. I didn't do it with this reply.as you may be able to tell. But I don't want to derail your discussion. 😄
 
Regrettably, no I don't understand any of it. I punched it into chat Gpt and asked what sort of math is this. And it answered number theory and real analysis and also gave a more detailed reply but those two words was enough for me to come back here and post my appreciation and respect in a more concise way. I usually put my replies in it to have it correct my punctuation and wording to be better understood. I didn't do it with this reply.as you may be able to tell. But I don't want to derail your discussion. 😄
ChatGPT is right; the problem I posted is an exercise from my real analysis text. But it also can be seen as a problem from set theory.

If you like, we can start with the concept of set density. One set has depth in another set if all the elements of the first set have values between the values of the elements of the other set. For example, let's define two sets as

A = {2, 4}
B = {1, 3, 5}

Observe that the first element of set A, 2, is between 1 and 3 which are both elements of set B. Likewise, 4, the second element of set A, is between 3 and 5 which are elements of set B. So all the elements of set A have values between the values of pairs of elements of set B. Set A then has depth in set B.

But set B does not have depth in set A since 1, the first element of set B, has no value that fits between two elements of set A.
 
That's seems simple. So even if set is A = { 0, 2, 4}? Would set B = {1, 3, 5} have still have no depth with set A because there is no 6 in set A? and if there was a 6 in set A then set A wouldn't have depth with set B because there is no 7 in set B so on and so on?
 
So even if set is A = { 0, 2, 4}? Would set B = {1, 3, 5} have still have no depth with set A because there is no 6 in set A?
We should define the universal set as the set of all real numbers, R. Note that the sets we are analyzing are subsets of R.

So adding 6 to set A will give density to B in A, but adding any real number to set A that's greater than 5 will suffice to give density to set B in set A.
and if there was a 6 in set A then set A wouldn't have depth with set B because there is no 7 in set B
It's best to write out the sets, and

So we have
A = {0, 2, 4, 6}
B = {1, 3, 5}

So yes, there are no two elements a and b in set B where a < 6 < b, and therefore set A has no depth in set B. It should be emphasized that although adding 7 to set B will give density to A in B, the element we add to set B need not be 7; that element only needs to be a real number greater than 6.

Oh...and we would also need a negative real element a in set B so that we have a < 0 < b because 0 is an element of set A.
so on and so on?
Care should be taken when using vague phrases like "and so on" in mathematics. The phrase's meaning should be clear from the context.

Notice that the sets we've defined so far are finite sets. The concept of set density can apply to infinite sets too. So let's analyze the set of all natural numbers N and the set of even natural numbers, E.

N = {1, 2, 3, ...}
E = {2, 4, 6, ...}

Both N and E are infinite sets. Observe that set E has density in set N because every even natural number is between two odd natural numbers which should be apparent if we write out N a bit more:

N = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, ...}.

If that's clear than we can move on.
 
Last edited:
Regrettably, no I don't understand any of it. I punched it into chat Gpt and asked what sort of math is this. And it answered number theory and real analysis and also gave a more detailed reply but those two words was enough for me to come back here and post my appreciation and respect in a more concise way. I usually put my replies in it to have it correct my punctuation and wording to be better understood. I didn't do it with this reply.as you may be able to tell. But I don't want to derail your discussion. 😄
I have used MIT Open Course Ware for math. Many have video recorded lectures, problem sets, and course notes. You can just watch the classroom lectures by some of the best math teachers.

Math from algebra to calculus to advanced math.

 
It's best to write out the sets, and we should define the universal set as the set of all real numbers, R. Note that the sets we are analyzing are subsets of R.

So we have
A = {0, 2, 4, 6}
B = {1, 3, 5}

So yes, there are no two elements a and b in set B where a < 6 < b, and therefore set A has no depth in set B. It should be emphasized that although adding 7 to set B will give density to A in B, the element we add to set B need not be 7; that element only needs to be a real number greater than 6.

Ok I think I understand. You want me to note that we're dealing with real numbers I presume for a reason you'll reveal later. I also understand that any number greater than 6 added to subset B will give density to A in B.

Care should be taken when using vague phrases like "and so on" in mathematics. The phrase's meaning should be clear from the context.
Agreed. I'll try to avoid vague phrases. :)

Notice that the sets we've defined so far are finite sets. The concept of set density can apply to infinite sets too. So let's analyze the set of all natural numbers N and the set of even natural numbers, E.

N = {1, 2, 3, ...}
E = {2, 4, 6, ...}

Both N and E are infinite sets. Observe that set E has density in set N because every even natural number is between two odd natural numbers which should be apparent if we write out N a bit more:

N = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, ...}.

If that's clear than we can move on.

I believe I understand. However, I'm uncertain about the best way to demonstrate it to you.
 
Regrettably, no I don't understand any of it. I punched it into chat Gpt and asked what sort of math is this. And it answered number theory and real analysis and also gave a more detailed reply but those two words was enough for me to come back here and post my appreciation and respect in a more concise way. I usually put my replies in it to have it correct my punctuation and wording to be better understood. I didn't do it with this reply.as you may be able to tell. But I don't want to derail your discussion. 😄
I have used MIT Open Course Ware for math. Many have video recorded lectures, problem sets, and course notes. You can just watch the classroom lectures by some of the best math teachers.

Math from algebra to calculus to advanced math.


It appears I might need to revisit high school education. I never graduated because I was barred from New York's school districts after an incident involving the hospitalization of my high school's star football player. Since then, I haven't set foot in any educational institution. Instead of my usual routine of watching pseudo-scientific cosmic videos on YouTube, which typically lull me to sleep, I'll check out that educational video you mentioned.
 
It's best to write out the sets, and we should define the universal set as the set of all real numbers, R. Note that the sets we are analyzing are subsets of R.

So we have
A = {0, 2, 4, 6}
B = {1, 3, 5}

So yes, there are no two elements a and b in set B where a < 6 < b, and therefore set A has no depth in set B. It should be emphasized that although adding 7 to set B will give density to A in B, the element we add to set B need not be 7; that element only needs to be a real number greater than 6.

Ok I think I understand. You want me to note that we're dealing with real numbers I presume for a reason you'll reveal later. I also understand that any number greater than 6 added to subset B will give density to A in B.
I'm using the set of all real numbers as the universal set because that is usually the universal set used in real analysis. Also, the problem I presented in the OP involves the set of all real numbers.
Care should be taken when using vague phrases like "and so on" in mathematics. The phrase's meaning should be clear from the context.
Agreed. I'll try to avoid vague phrases. :)
Actually, the phrase "and so on" is used a lot in mathematical discourse. It often becomes handy when describing something large like an algorithm or a set when it's impractical or impossible to list everything or explain everything.
Notice that the sets we've defined so far are finite sets. The concept of set density can apply to infinite sets too. So let's analyze the set of all natural numbers N and the set of even natural numbers, E.

N = {1, 2, 3, ...}
E = {2, 4, 6, ...}

Both N and E are infinite sets. Observe that set E has density in set N because every even natural number is between two odd natural numbers which should be apparent if we write out N a bit more:

N = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, ...}.

If that's clear than we can move on.

I believe I understand. However, I'm uncertain about the best way to demonstrate it to you.
If you can bear with me a little bit longer, we're almost done with explaining the problem in the OP.

Now that we've discussed set density, let's see why the set of all natural numbers is dense in the set of real numbers. As you may know, the set of rational numbers is a subset of the real numbers. So if you have a rational number like 1/2 or 3/2, then you also have real numbers because rational numbers are real numbers. So let's define a set of real numbers as

A = {1/2, 1, 3/2, 2, 5/2, 3, 7/2, ...}

Note that all of the natural numbers are elements of set A. Also, every natural number in set A is between two rational numbers or real numbers. In general, if n is any natural number, then we have

(2n - 1)/2 < n < (2n + 1)/2

and (2n - 1)/2, n, and (2n + 1)/2 are all elements of set A. So this analysis shows that the natural numbers is dense in the set of real numbers.

We're almost there!
 
Unknown Soldier, your willingness to guide me is truly appreciated, even if my own inclination to learn doesn't match your dedication. This is a personal trait I'm not particularly proud of. Nevertheless, our conversation, which has turned into a rather enjoyable lesson, is something I want to continue.

With that said, I'm currently revisiting the concepts of natural and rational numbers to better grasp the material. So, bear with me as I progress at a measured pace. Think of it like a leisurely played chess game between acquaintances who only meet sporadically.
 
Unknown Soldier, your willingness to guide me is truly appreciated, even if my own inclination to learn doesn't match your dedication.
I've found that learning is something to be learned. When I was in high school I had to develop good study habits which helped me a lot when I got to college. Now I'm retired, but I suppose I'll be a student the rest of my life.
This is a personal trait I'm not particularly proud of.
Not everybody is cut out for academics. So as long as you're getting by, I wouldn't be too concerned about it.
Nevertheless, our conversation, which has turned into a rather enjoyable lesson, is something I want to continue.
That's good. I enjoy tutoring, and I wish I could find a good tutor of my own. Real analysis is "real hard." It's harder than calculus.
With that said, I'm currently revisiting the concepts of natural and rational numbers to better grasp the material. So, bear with me as I progress at a measured pace. Think of it like a leisurely played chess game between acquaintances who only meet sporadically.
In that case I'd recommend you study basic set theory. See Basic Set Theory for an online introduction,
 
Back
Top Bottom