Proving the continuity of the Cantor Function
$begingroup$
Consider the Cantor Set $C={0,1}^{omega}$, that is, the space of all sequences $(b_1,b_2,...)$ with each $b_iin{0,1}$. Define $g:Crightarrow[0,1]$ by $$g(b_1,b_2,...)=sumlimits_{i=1}^{infty}dfrac{b_i}{2^i}$$ In other words, $g(b_1,b_2,...)$ is the real number whose digits in base 2 are $0.b_1b_2...$
Prove that $g$ is continuous.
Here is my attempt:
Let sequences $(a_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ and $(b_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ be elements of the Cantor Set $C.$ For fixed $ninmathbb{N}$ let $A_n=(a_1,a_2,...,a_n)$ and $B_n=(b_1,b_2,...,b_n)$ be the first $n$ terms in each of those sequences. If $A_nneq B_n$, then $exists m=min{kin{1,2,...,n}:a_kneq b_k}$ and the following holds:
$$begin{array}{c}
left|sumlimits_{k=1}^ndfrac{a_k}{2^k}-sumlimits_{k=1}^ndfrac{b_k}{2^k}right|=left|sumlimits_{k=1}^ndfrac{a_k}{2^k}-dfrac{b_k}{2^k}right|geqdfrac{|a_m-b_m|}{2^m}-left|sumlimits_{k=m+1}^ndfrac{a_k}{2^k}-dfrac{b_k}{2^k}right|geq\ geqdfrac{|a_m-b_m|}{2^m}-sumlimits_{k=m+1}^ndfrac{|a_k-b_k|}{2^k} \
text{where $|a_m-b_m|$=1 and}\
sumlimits_{k=m+1}^ndfrac{|a_k-b_k|}{2^k}leq sumlimits_{k=m+1}^ndfrac{1}{2^k}=dfrac{1}{2^m}\
text{Now,}\
left|sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k}{2^k}-sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{b_k}{2^k}right|=left|sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|leq\
leqsumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{|a_k-b_k|}{2^k}leqsumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{1}{2^k}=dfrac{1}{2^n}\
text{Therefore, if $A_nneq B_n$, then}\
left|f(a)-f(b)right|=left|sumlimits_{k=1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|=left|sumlimits_{k=1}^{n}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}+sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|geq\
geqleft|sumlimits_{k=1}^{n}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|-left|sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|geqdfrac{1}{2^n}-dfrac{1}{2^n}=0
end{array}$$
I think I must have done something wrong because I wanted $|f(a)-f(b)|$ to be greater than or equal to something in terms of $m$ or $n$ so that I can say choose $n$ (or $m$) such that (something like) $dfrac{1}{2^n}<varepsilon$, but I just got 0 instead. How can I improve my proof so that I can achieve this?
real-analysis general-topology continuity cantor-set
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider the Cantor Set $C={0,1}^{omega}$, that is, the space of all sequences $(b_1,b_2,...)$ with each $b_iin{0,1}$. Define $g:Crightarrow[0,1]$ by $$g(b_1,b_2,...)=sumlimits_{i=1}^{infty}dfrac{b_i}{2^i}$$ In other words, $g(b_1,b_2,...)$ is the real number whose digits in base 2 are $0.b_1b_2...$
Prove that $g$ is continuous.
Here is my attempt:
Let sequences $(a_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ and $(b_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ be elements of the Cantor Set $C.$ For fixed $ninmathbb{N}$ let $A_n=(a_1,a_2,...,a_n)$ and $B_n=(b_1,b_2,...,b_n)$ be the first $n$ terms in each of those sequences. If $A_nneq B_n$, then $exists m=min{kin{1,2,...,n}:a_kneq b_k}$ and the following holds:
$$begin{array}{c}
left|sumlimits_{k=1}^ndfrac{a_k}{2^k}-sumlimits_{k=1}^ndfrac{b_k}{2^k}right|=left|sumlimits_{k=1}^ndfrac{a_k}{2^k}-dfrac{b_k}{2^k}right|geqdfrac{|a_m-b_m|}{2^m}-left|sumlimits_{k=m+1}^ndfrac{a_k}{2^k}-dfrac{b_k}{2^k}right|geq\ geqdfrac{|a_m-b_m|}{2^m}-sumlimits_{k=m+1}^ndfrac{|a_k-b_k|}{2^k} \
text{where $|a_m-b_m|$=1 and}\
sumlimits_{k=m+1}^ndfrac{|a_k-b_k|}{2^k}leq sumlimits_{k=m+1}^ndfrac{1}{2^k}=dfrac{1}{2^m}\
text{Now,}\
left|sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k}{2^k}-sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{b_k}{2^k}right|=left|sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|leq\
leqsumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{|a_k-b_k|}{2^k}leqsumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{1}{2^k}=dfrac{1}{2^n}\
text{Therefore, if $A_nneq B_n$, then}\
left|f(a)-f(b)right|=left|sumlimits_{k=1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|=left|sumlimits_{k=1}^{n}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}+sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|geq\
geqleft|sumlimits_{k=1}^{n}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|-left|sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|geqdfrac{1}{2^n}-dfrac{1}{2^n}=0
end{array}$$
I think I must have done something wrong because I wanted $|f(a)-f(b)|$ to be greater than or equal to something in terms of $m$ or $n$ so that I can say choose $n$ (or $m$) such that (something like) $dfrac{1}{2^n}<varepsilon$, but I just got 0 instead. How can I improve my proof so that I can achieve this?
real-analysis general-topology continuity cantor-set
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What topology are you putting on the set of sequences (as an aside I don't think I have ever seen that set called the Cantor set before).
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Dec 1 '18 at 22:50
$begingroup$
The question didn't specify a specific topology, sorry.
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 1 '18 at 23:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider the Cantor Set $C={0,1}^{omega}$, that is, the space of all sequences $(b_1,b_2,...)$ with each $b_iin{0,1}$. Define $g:Crightarrow[0,1]$ by $$g(b_1,b_2,...)=sumlimits_{i=1}^{infty}dfrac{b_i}{2^i}$$ In other words, $g(b_1,b_2,...)$ is the real number whose digits in base 2 are $0.b_1b_2...$
Prove that $g$ is continuous.
Here is my attempt:
Let sequences $(a_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ and $(b_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ be elements of the Cantor Set $C.$ For fixed $ninmathbb{N}$ let $A_n=(a_1,a_2,...,a_n)$ and $B_n=(b_1,b_2,...,b_n)$ be the first $n$ terms in each of those sequences. If $A_nneq B_n$, then $exists m=min{kin{1,2,...,n}:a_kneq b_k}$ and the following holds:
$$begin{array}{c}
left|sumlimits_{k=1}^ndfrac{a_k}{2^k}-sumlimits_{k=1}^ndfrac{b_k}{2^k}right|=left|sumlimits_{k=1}^ndfrac{a_k}{2^k}-dfrac{b_k}{2^k}right|geqdfrac{|a_m-b_m|}{2^m}-left|sumlimits_{k=m+1}^ndfrac{a_k}{2^k}-dfrac{b_k}{2^k}right|geq\ geqdfrac{|a_m-b_m|}{2^m}-sumlimits_{k=m+1}^ndfrac{|a_k-b_k|}{2^k} \
text{where $|a_m-b_m|$=1 and}\
sumlimits_{k=m+1}^ndfrac{|a_k-b_k|}{2^k}leq sumlimits_{k=m+1}^ndfrac{1}{2^k}=dfrac{1}{2^m}\
text{Now,}\
left|sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k}{2^k}-sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{b_k}{2^k}right|=left|sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|leq\
leqsumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{|a_k-b_k|}{2^k}leqsumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{1}{2^k}=dfrac{1}{2^n}\
text{Therefore, if $A_nneq B_n$, then}\
left|f(a)-f(b)right|=left|sumlimits_{k=1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|=left|sumlimits_{k=1}^{n}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}+sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|geq\
geqleft|sumlimits_{k=1}^{n}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|-left|sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|geqdfrac{1}{2^n}-dfrac{1}{2^n}=0
end{array}$$
I think I must have done something wrong because I wanted $|f(a)-f(b)|$ to be greater than or equal to something in terms of $m$ or $n$ so that I can say choose $n$ (or $m$) such that (something like) $dfrac{1}{2^n}<varepsilon$, but I just got 0 instead. How can I improve my proof so that I can achieve this?
real-analysis general-topology continuity cantor-set
$endgroup$
Consider the Cantor Set $C={0,1}^{omega}$, that is, the space of all sequences $(b_1,b_2,...)$ with each $b_iin{0,1}$. Define $g:Crightarrow[0,1]$ by $$g(b_1,b_2,...)=sumlimits_{i=1}^{infty}dfrac{b_i}{2^i}$$ In other words, $g(b_1,b_2,...)$ is the real number whose digits in base 2 are $0.b_1b_2...$
Prove that $g$ is continuous.
Here is my attempt:
Let sequences $(a_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ and $(b_n)_{ninmathbb{N}}$ be elements of the Cantor Set $C.$ For fixed $ninmathbb{N}$ let $A_n=(a_1,a_2,...,a_n)$ and $B_n=(b_1,b_2,...,b_n)$ be the first $n$ terms in each of those sequences. If $A_nneq B_n$, then $exists m=min{kin{1,2,...,n}:a_kneq b_k}$ and the following holds:
$$begin{array}{c}
left|sumlimits_{k=1}^ndfrac{a_k}{2^k}-sumlimits_{k=1}^ndfrac{b_k}{2^k}right|=left|sumlimits_{k=1}^ndfrac{a_k}{2^k}-dfrac{b_k}{2^k}right|geqdfrac{|a_m-b_m|}{2^m}-left|sumlimits_{k=m+1}^ndfrac{a_k}{2^k}-dfrac{b_k}{2^k}right|geq\ geqdfrac{|a_m-b_m|}{2^m}-sumlimits_{k=m+1}^ndfrac{|a_k-b_k|}{2^k} \
text{where $|a_m-b_m|$=1 and}\
sumlimits_{k=m+1}^ndfrac{|a_k-b_k|}{2^k}leq sumlimits_{k=m+1}^ndfrac{1}{2^k}=dfrac{1}{2^m}\
text{Now,}\
left|sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k}{2^k}-sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{b_k}{2^k}right|=left|sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|leq\
leqsumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{|a_k-b_k|}{2^k}leqsumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{1}{2^k}=dfrac{1}{2^n}\
text{Therefore, if $A_nneq B_n$, then}\
left|f(a)-f(b)right|=left|sumlimits_{k=1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|=left|sumlimits_{k=1}^{n}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}+sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|geq\
geqleft|sumlimits_{k=1}^{n}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|-left|sumlimits_{k=n+1}^{infty}dfrac{a_k-b_k}{2^k}right|geqdfrac{1}{2^n}-dfrac{1}{2^n}=0
end{array}$$
I think I must have done something wrong because I wanted $|f(a)-f(b)|$ to be greater than or equal to something in terms of $m$ or $n$ so that I can say choose $n$ (or $m$) such that (something like) $dfrac{1}{2^n}<varepsilon$, but I just got 0 instead. How can I improve my proof so that I can achieve this?
real-analysis general-topology continuity cantor-set
real-analysis general-topology continuity cantor-set
edited Dec 1 '18 at 23:43
111
asked Dec 1 '18 at 22:47
111111
275
275
$begingroup$
What topology are you putting on the set of sequences (as an aside I don't think I have ever seen that set called the Cantor set before).
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Dec 1 '18 at 22:50
$begingroup$
The question didn't specify a specific topology, sorry.
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 1 '18 at 23:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What topology are you putting on the set of sequences (as an aside I don't think I have ever seen that set called the Cantor set before).
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Dec 1 '18 at 22:50
$begingroup$
The question didn't specify a specific topology, sorry.
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 1 '18 at 23:12
$begingroup$
What topology are you putting on the set of sequences (as an aside I don't think I have ever seen that set called the Cantor set before).
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Dec 1 '18 at 22:50
$begingroup$
What topology are you putting on the set of sequences (as an aside I don't think I have ever seen that set called the Cantor set before).
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Dec 1 '18 at 22:50
$begingroup$
The question didn't specify a specific topology, sorry.
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 1 '18 at 23:12
$begingroup$
The question didn't specify a specific topology, sorry.
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 1 '18 at 23:12
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Your method of proof will work. Taking your idea, I think we can streamline it, in the following way:
Let $epsilon>0$ be given and let $(epsilon_k)$ be the binary sequence representing $epsilon.$ Take the ternary sequence for the $delta$ (that we will show to work) to be $delta_k=2epsilon_k$.
Now, let $N$ be the first non-zero digit of $delta$ and $epsilon.$ Then, if $|x-y|<delta$, it must be the case that $x$ and $y$ agree on the first $N-1$ digits. Hence, the first $N-1$ digits of $g(x)$ and $g(y)$ are the same, as well, by definition of $g$. But then, $|g(x)-g(y)|<epsilon.$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your help. Should I omit the calculation in my proof that's says that $|f(a)-f(b)|geq0$? This calculation does not seem to help me at all
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 2 '18 at 2:56
1
$begingroup$
Yes, you can delete it, because all you have proven there is that if two numbers are not equal, then the absolute value of their difference is positive, which is, of course, true. Your basic idea is good, though.
$endgroup$
– Matematleta
Dec 2 '18 at 3:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can prove a homeomorphism from $[0,1]^omega$ with the product topology to the same set with the dictionary topology, and then use the fact that the functions from $[0,1]^omega$ to $[0,1]$ are continuous as open sets in $[0,1]$ will give an open preimage in the dictionary order.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't think $g$ is injective, is it?
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 1 '18 at 23:37
$begingroup$
(1,0,0,...) and (0,1,1,...) will give the same number, so it isn't.
$endgroup$
– NL1992
Dec 1 '18 at 23:40
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021941%2fproving-the-continuity-of-the-cantor-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Your method of proof will work. Taking your idea, I think we can streamline it, in the following way:
Let $epsilon>0$ be given and let $(epsilon_k)$ be the binary sequence representing $epsilon.$ Take the ternary sequence for the $delta$ (that we will show to work) to be $delta_k=2epsilon_k$.
Now, let $N$ be the first non-zero digit of $delta$ and $epsilon.$ Then, if $|x-y|<delta$, it must be the case that $x$ and $y$ agree on the first $N-1$ digits. Hence, the first $N-1$ digits of $g(x)$ and $g(y)$ are the same, as well, by definition of $g$. But then, $|g(x)-g(y)|<epsilon.$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your help. Should I omit the calculation in my proof that's says that $|f(a)-f(b)|geq0$? This calculation does not seem to help me at all
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 2 '18 at 2:56
1
$begingroup$
Yes, you can delete it, because all you have proven there is that if two numbers are not equal, then the absolute value of their difference is positive, which is, of course, true. Your basic idea is good, though.
$endgroup$
– Matematleta
Dec 2 '18 at 3:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your method of proof will work. Taking your idea, I think we can streamline it, in the following way:
Let $epsilon>0$ be given and let $(epsilon_k)$ be the binary sequence representing $epsilon.$ Take the ternary sequence for the $delta$ (that we will show to work) to be $delta_k=2epsilon_k$.
Now, let $N$ be the first non-zero digit of $delta$ and $epsilon.$ Then, if $|x-y|<delta$, it must be the case that $x$ and $y$ agree on the first $N-1$ digits. Hence, the first $N-1$ digits of $g(x)$ and $g(y)$ are the same, as well, by definition of $g$. But then, $|g(x)-g(y)|<epsilon.$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your help. Should I omit the calculation in my proof that's says that $|f(a)-f(b)|geq0$? This calculation does not seem to help me at all
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 2 '18 at 2:56
1
$begingroup$
Yes, you can delete it, because all you have proven there is that if two numbers are not equal, then the absolute value of their difference is positive, which is, of course, true. Your basic idea is good, though.
$endgroup$
– Matematleta
Dec 2 '18 at 3:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your method of proof will work. Taking your idea, I think we can streamline it, in the following way:
Let $epsilon>0$ be given and let $(epsilon_k)$ be the binary sequence representing $epsilon.$ Take the ternary sequence for the $delta$ (that we will show to work) to be $delta_k=2epsilon_k$.
Now, let $N$ be the first non-zero digit of $delta$ and $epsilon.$ Then, if $|x-y|<delta$, it must be the case that $x$ and $y$ agree on the first $N-1$ digits. Hence, the first $N-1$ digits of $g(x)$ and $g(y)$ are the same, as well, by definition of $g$. But then, $|g(x)-g(y)|<epsilon.$
$endgroup$
Your method of proof will work. Taking your idea, I think we can streamline it, in the following way:
Let $epsilon>0$ be given and let $(epsilon_k)$ be the binary sequence representing $epsilon.$ Take the ternary sequence for the $delta$ (that we will show to work) to be $delta_k=2epsilon_k$.
Now, let $N$ be the first non-zero digit of $delta$ and $epsilon.$ Then, if $|x-y|<delta$, it must be the case that $x$ and $y$ agree on the first $N-1$ digits. Hence, the first $N-1$ digits of $g(x)$ and $g(y)$ are the same, as well, by definition of $g$. But then, $|g(x)-g(y)|<epsilon.$
answered Dec 2 '18 at 2:28
MatematletaMatematleta
10.4k2918
10.4k2918
$begingroup$
Thank you for your help. Should I omit the calculation in my proof that's says that $|f(a)-f(b)|geq0$? This calculation does not seem to help me at all
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 2 '18 at 2:56
1
$begingroup$
Yes, you can delete it, because all you have proven there is that if two numbers are not equal, then the absolute value of their difference is positive, which is, of course, true. Your basic idea is good, though.
$endgroup$
– Matematleta
Dec 2 '18 at 3:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you for your help. Should I omit the calculation in my proof that's says that $|f(a)-f(b)|geq0$? This calculation does not seem to help me at all
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 2 '18 at 2:56
1
$begingroup$
Yes, you can delete it, because all you have proven there is that if two numbers are not equal, then the absolute value of their difference is positive, which is, of course, true. Your basic idea is good, though.
$endgroup$
– Matematleta
Dec 2 '18 at 3:02
$begingroup$
Thank you for your help. Should I omit the calculation in my proof that's says that $|f(a)-f(b)|geq0$? This calculation does not seem to help me at all
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 2 '18 at 2:56
$begingroup$
Thank you for your help. Should I omit the calculation in my proof that's says that $|f(a)-f(b)|geq0$? This calculation does not seem to help me at all
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 2 '18 at 2:56
1
1
$begingroup$
Yes, you can delete it, because all you have proven there is that if two numbers are not equal, then the absolute value of their difference is positive, which is, of course, true. Your basic idea is good, though.
$endgroup$
– Matematleta
Dec 2 '18 at 3:02
$begingroup$
Yes, you can delete it, because all you have proven there is that if two numbers are not equal, then the absolute value of their difference is positive, which is, of course, true. Your basic idea is good, though.
$endgroup$
– Matematleta
Dec 2 '18 at 3:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can prove a homeomorphism from $[0,1]^omega$ with the product topology to the same set with the dictionary topology, and then use the fact that the functions from $[0,1]^omega$ to $[0,1]$ are continuous as open sets in $[0,1]$ will give an open preimage in the dictionary order.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't think $g$ is injective, is it?
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 1 '18 at 23:37
$begingroup$
(1,0,0,...) and (0,1,1,...) will give the same number, so it isn't.
$endgroup$
– NL1992
Dec 1 '18 at 23:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can prove a homeomorphism from $[0,1]^omega$ with the product topology to the same set with the dictionary topology, and then use the fact that the functions from $[0,1]^omega$ to $[0,1]$ are continuous as open sets in $[0,1]$ will give an open preimage in the dictionary order.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't think $g$ is injective, is it?
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 1 '18 at 23:37
$begingroup$
(1,0,0,...) and (0,1,1,...) will give the same number, so it isn't.
$endgroup$
– NL1992
Dec 1 '18 at 23:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can prove a homeomorphism from $[0,1]^omega$ with the product topology to the same set with the dictionary topology, and then use the fact that the functions from $[0,1]^omega$ to $[0,1]$ are continuous as open sets in $[0,1]$ will give an open preimage in the dictionary order.
$endgroup$
You can prove a homeomorphism from $[0,1]^omega$ with the product topology to the same set with the dictionary topology, and then use the fact that the functions from $[0,1]^omega$ to $[0,1]$ are continuous as open sets in $[0,1]$ will give an open preimage in the dictionary order.
answered Dec 1 '18 at 23:18
NL1992NL1992
7311
7311
$begingroup$
I don't think $g$ is injective, is it?
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 1 '18 at 23:37
$begingroup$
(1,0,0,...) and (0,1,1,...) will give the same number, so it isn't.
$endgroup$
– NL1992
Dec 1 '18 at 23:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't think $g$ is injective, is it?
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 1 '18 at 23:37
$begingroup$
(1,0,0,...) and (0,1,1,...) will give the same number, so it isn't.
$endgroup$
– NL1992
Dec 1 '18 at 23:40
$begingroup$
I don't think $g$ is injective, is it?
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 1 '18 at 23:37
$begingroup$
I don't think $g$ is injective, is it?
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 1 '18 at 23:37
$begingroup$
(1,0,0,...) and (0,1,1,...) will give the same number, so it isn't.
$endgroup$
– NL1992
Dec 1 '18 at 23:40
$begingroup$
(1,0,0,...) and (0,1,1,...) will give the same number, so it isn't.
$endgroup$
– NL1992
Dec 1 '18 at 23:40
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021941%2fproving-the-continuity-of-the-cantor-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
What topology are you putting on the set of sequences (as an aside I don't think I have ever seen that set called the Cantor set before).
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Dec 1 '18 at 22:50
$begingroup$
The question didn't specify a specific topology, sorry.
$endgroup$
– 111
Dec 1 '18 at 23:12