If $A$ is dense in $Bbb Q$, then it must be dense in $Bbb R$.
$begingroup$
I have $A$ is a subset of $mathbb{R}$. If $A$ is dense in $mathbb{Q}$, then it must be dense in $mathbb{R}$. I am confused because $A$ is dense in $mathbb{Q}$. Does that imply that between any two rational numbers, there exists a real number? I understand for anything to be dense in $Bbb R$, there must exist something that lies between any two real numbers. However, how does knowing something is dense in $mathbb{Q}$ prove that it must be dense in the reals? Any help is appreciated.
real-analysis real-numbers
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have $A$ is a subset of $mathbb{R}$. If $A$ is dense in $mathbb{Q}$, then it must be dense in $mathbb{R}$. I am confused because $A$ is dense in $mathbb{Q}$. Does that imply that between any two rational numbers, there exists a real number? I understand for anything to be dense in $Bbb R$, there must exist something that lies between any two real numbers. However, how does knowing something is dense in $mathbb{Q}$ prove that it must be dense in the reals? Any help is appreciated.
real-analysis real-numbers
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Not a proof, but it may help you to understand what's going on. For any pair of distinct real numbers, and any $a$ in-between, there is always a pair of rational numbers that also straddles $a$ and is also in-between the pair of real numbers. In fact there are infinitely many.
$endgroup$
– user334732
Mar 20 at 15:47
$begingroup$
And yes, there is always an irrational real number between any pair of rational numbers. In fact there is an uncountable infinity of them.
$endgroup$
– user334732
Mar 20 at 15:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have $A$ is a subset of $mathbb{R}$. If $A$ is dense in $mathbb{Q}$, then it must be dense in $mathbb{R}$. I am confused because $A$ is dense in $mathbb{Q}$. Does that imply that between any two rational numbers, there exists a real number? I understand for anything to be dense in $Bbb R$, there must exist something that lies between any two real numbers. However, how does knowing something is dense in $mathbb{Q}$ prove that it must be dense in the reals? Any help is appreciated.
real-analysis real-numbers
New contributor
$endgroup$
I have $A$ is a subset of $mathbb{R}$. If $A$ is dense in $mathbb{Q}$, then it must be dense in $mathbb{R}$. I am confused because $A$ is dense in $mathbb{Q}$. Does that imply that between any two rational numbers, there exists a real number? I understand for anything to be dense in $Bbb R$, there must exist something that lies between any two real numbers. However, how does knowing something is dense in $mathbb{Q}$ prove that it must be dense in the reals? Any help is appreciated.
real-analysis real-numbers
real-analysis real-numbers
New contributor
New contributor
edited Mar 21 at 1:10
Parcly Taxel
44.7k1376110
44.7k1376110
New contributor
asked Mar 20 at 15:26
Priti DPriti D
462
462
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
Not a proof, but it may help you to understand what's going on. For any pair of distinct real numbers, and any $a$ in-between, there is always a pair of rational numbers that also straddles $a$ and is also in-between the pair of real numbers. In fact there are infinitely many.
$endgroup$
– user334732
Mar 20 at 15:47
$begingroup$
And yes, there is always an irrational real number between any pair of rational numbers. In fact there is an uncountable infinity of them.
$endgroup$
– user334732
Mar 20 at 15:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Not a proof, but it may help you to understand what's going on. For any pair of distinct real numbers, and any $a$ in-between, there is always a pair of rational numbers that also straddles $a$ and is also in-between the pair of real numbers. In fact there are infinitely many.
$endgroup$
– user334732
Mar 20 at 15:47
$begingroup$
And yes, there is always an irrational real number between any pair of rational numbers. In fact there is an uncountable infinity of them.
$endgroup$
– user334732
Mar 20 at 15:48
$begingroup$
Not a proof, but it may help you to understand what's going on. For any pair of distinct real numbers, and any $a$ in-between, there is always a pair of rational numbers that also straddles $a$ and is also in-between the pair of real numbers. In fact there are infinitely many.
$endgroup$
– user334732
Mar 20 at 15:47
$begingroup$
Not a proof, but it may help you to understand what's going on. For any pair of distinct real numbers, and any $a$ in-between, there is always a pair of rational numbers that also straddles $a$ and is also in-between the pair of real numbers. In fact there are infinitely many.
$endgroup$
– user334732
Mar 20 at 15:47
$begingroup$
And yes, there is always an irrational real number between any pair of rational numbers. In fact there is an uncountable infinity of them.
$endgroup$
– user334732
Mar 20 at 15:48
$begingroup$
And yes, there is always an irrational real number between any pair of rational numbers. In fact there is an uncountable infinity of them.
$endgroup$
– user334732
Mar 20 at 15:48
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
$A$ is dense in $mathbb{Q}$ if for any two rationals $q_1 < q_2$ there is some $ain A cap mathbb{Q}$ such that $q_1<a<q_2$. The dyadic rationals would be an example. Here is the way to think about the puzzle of nested dense sets. If you give me two reals $r_1$ and $r_2$ can I find a $q_1$ in between them? Yes. Why? because $mathbb{Q}$ is dense is $mathbb{R}$. Can I find two values? $q_1$ and $q_2$ in between $r_1$ and $r_2$? Because if I could find two... then I could exploit the density of $mathbb{Q}$ to finish the job.
We are given two reals and then we find $q_1,q_2$ inbetween the reals and then we find some $ain A$ inbetween these rationals. All told we have the following inequality: $$r_1<q_1<a<q_2<r_2$$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Isn't it 'for any two $q_1, q_2 in mathbb Q$ there exists $ain Acolor{red}{capmathbb Q}$ such that $q_1 < a < q_2$' ...? (Plus, of course, an assumption of $q_1<q_2.$)
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 15:49
$begingroup$
@CiaPan. I think you are right. This was written hastily.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 15:51
$begingroup$
:) I'm not familiar with the definition, but I thought about irrationals – they are certainly dense in reals, but I would hesitate to accept they are dense in rationals, which would fit your former formulation. Hence the red part.
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 15:59
$begingroup$
I don't think that it would have fit because I defined it as a subset. So it would read "the irrational reals are dense in the rationals if (1) they are a subset of the rationals and (2) there is an irrational between any two rationals." So it wouldn't meet the (1)st criteria. So we might be dancing around equivalent or similar variations on the same concept.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 16:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since $A$ is dense in $Bbb Q$ so $overline A cap Bbb Q = Bbb Q subseteq overline A.$ So $Bbb R = overline {Bbb Q} subseteq overline A subseteq Bbb R.$ Therefore $overline A = Bbb R.$ This shows that $A$ is dense in $Bbb R.$
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Looks good to me. I would add the line: Where $A$ overbar refers to the closure of a set. It's unclear to me whether the OP is familiar with this expression so maybe a link to? mathworld.wolfram.com/SetClosure.html. +1
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 15:45
$begingroup$
This is true for any arbitrary metric space @Mason. Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. Let $Y$ be metric subspace of $X.$ Let $A subseteq X.$ Then the closure of $A$ in $Y$ say $overline {A}^Y = overline A cap Y,$ where $overline A$ is the closure of $A$ in $X.$
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Mar 20 at 15:49
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Does that imply that between any two rational numbers, there exists a real number?
Well, if $a$ and $b$ are distinct rationals, then $(a+b)/2$ is a real number that's between them. It's also rational. And, if you want an irrational number that's between them, take something like $a+(b-a)/sqrt{2}$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
@RingØ Or $a=b=mathrm{anything}$. Edited to add the necessary "distinct". Thanks!
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Mar 20 at 23:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Another proof. $A$ being dense in $mathbb{Q}$ means that for any $qinmathbb{Q}$ there is a sequence in $A$ converging to $q$.
Let $rinmathbb{R}$. Since $mathbb{Q}$ is dense in $mathbb{R}$, there is a sequence ${q_n}_{n=1}^infty$ converging to $r$. For each $n$, pick a sequence ${a_{n,i}}_{i=1}^infty$ in $A$ converging to $q_n$. For each $n$, choose $k_n$ such that for all $ige k_n$ we have
$$|a_{n,i}-q_n|<2^{-n}.$$
Claim: The sequence ${a_{n,k_n}}_{n=1}^infty$ converges to $r$.
Proof: Let $epsilon>0$. Choose $N$ such that for each $nge N$ we have
$$|r-q_n|<frac{epsilon}{2}qquadtext{and}qquad2^{-N}<frac{epsilon}{2} .$$
Then for each $nge N$ we have
$$|r-a_{n,k_n}|le|r-q_n|+|q_n-a_{n,k_n}|<epsilon ,$$
consluding the proof.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Another definition of "dense" is that every open neighborhood of $mathbb Q$ has a member of $A$. And using that definition, we want to prove that every open neighborhood of $mathbb R$ has a member of $A$. So suppose we take a neighborhood $N_1$ of $r$ in $mathbb R$. Since $mathbb Q$ is dense in $mathbb R$, there is rational $q$ in $N_1$. We can take a neighborhood $N_2$ of $q$ that is a subset of $N_1$, and there will be $a$ in that neighborhood, and thus $a$ will be in $N_1$ as well.
Basically, $A$ being dense in $mathbb Q$ means that for every $q$, there is $a$ "close" to $q$, and $mathbb Q$ being dense in $mathbb R$ means that for every $r$, there is $q$ "close" to $r$. So given any $r$, we take $q$ "close" to $r$, then we take $a$ "close" to $q$, and $a$ is "close" to $r$.
It's analogous to "If everyone lives close to a school, and every school is close to library, then everyone lives close to a library.", although there's some additional rigor regarding the term "close" that has to be introduced.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a more general statement of this theorem. Let $X$ be a topological space and suppose $Z subset Y subset X$. If $Y$ is dense in $X$ and $Z$ is dense in $Y$ (w.r.t. the subset topology) then $Z$ is dense in $X$.
To prove this, suppose $Z$ is not dense in $X$. Then there exists $A$ open and non-empty in $X$ such that $Z cap A = emptyset$. Then we have two cases depending on if $A' = Y cap A$ is non-empty. If $A'$ is empty then $A cap Y = emptyset$ therefore $Y$ is not dense in $X$. Else $A'$ is non-empty and open in $Y$ w.r.t. the subset topology, and $A' cap Z = emptyset$. Hence $Z$ is not dense in $Y$. Either way we have a contradiction.
$endgroup$
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
});
}
});
Priti D is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2f3155595%2fif-a-is-dense-in-bbb-q-then-it-must-be-dense-in-bbb-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
$A$ is dense in $mathbb{Q}$ if for any two rationals $q_1 < q_2$ there is some $ain A cap mathbb{Q}$ such that $q_1<a<q_2$. The dyadic rationals would be an example. Here is the way to think about the puzzle of nested dense sets. If you give me two reals $r_1$ and $r_2$ can I find a $q_1$ in between them? Yes. Why? because $mathbb{Q}$ is dense is $mathbb{R}$. Can I find two values? $q_1$ and $q_2$ in between $r_1$ and $r_2$? Because if I could find two... then I could exploit the density of $mathbb{Q}$ to finish the job.
We are given two reals and then we find $q_1,q_2$ inbetween the reals and then we find some $ain A$ inbetween these rationals. All told we have the following inequality: $$r_1<q_1<a<q_2<r_2$$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Isn't it 'for any two $q_1, q_2 in mathbb Q$ there exists $ain Acolor{red}{capmathbb Q}$ such that $q_1 < a < q_2$' ...? (Plus, of course, an assumption of $q_1<q_2.$)
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 15:49
$begingroup$
@CiaPan. I think you are right. This was written hastily.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 15:51
$begingroup$
:) I'm not familiar with the definition, but I thought about irrationals – they are certainly dense in reals, but I would hesitate to accept they are dense in rationals, which would fit your former formulation. Hence the red part.
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 15:59
$begingroup$
I don't think that it would have fit because I defined it as a subset. So it would read "the irrational reals are dense in the rationals if (1) they are a subset of the rationals and (2) there is an irrational between any two rationals." So it wouldn't meet the (1)st criteria. So we might be dancing around equivalent or similar variations on the same concept.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 16:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$A$ is dense in $mathbb{Q}$ if for any two rationals $q_1 < q_2$ there is some $ain A cap mathbb{Q}$ such that $q_1<a<q_2$. The dyadic rationals would be an example. Here is the way to think about the puzzle of nested dense sets. If you give me two reals $r_1$ and $r_2$ can I find a $q_1$ in between them? Yes. Why? because $mathbb{Q}$ is dense is $mathbb{R}$. Can I find two values? $q_1$ and $q_2$ in between $r_1$ and $r_2$? Because if I could find two... then I could exploit the density of $mathbb{Q}$ to finish the job.
We are given two reals and then we find $q_1,q_2$ inbetween the reals and then we find some $ain A$ inbetween these rationals. All told we have the following inequality: $$r_1<q_1<a<q_2<r_2$$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Isn't it 'for any two $q_1, q_2 in mathbb Q$ there exists $ain Acolor{red}{capmathbb Q}$ such that $q_1 < a < q_2$' ...? (Plus, of course, an assumption of $q_1<q_2.$)
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 15:49
$begingroup$
@CiaPan. I think you are right. This was written hastily.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 15:51
$begingroup$
:) I'm not familiar with the definition, but I thought about irrationals – they are certainly dense in reals, but I would hesitate to accept they are dense in rationals, which would fit your former formulation. Hence the red part.
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 15:59
$begingroup$
I don't think that it would have fit because I defined it as a subset. So it would read "the irrational reals are dense in the rationals if (1) they are a subset of the rationals and (2) there is an irrational between any two rationals." So it wouldn't meet the (1)st criteria. So we might be dancing around equivalent or similar variations on the same concept.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 16:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$A$ is dense in $mathbb{Q}$ if for any two rationals $q_1 < q_2$ there is some $ain A cap mathbb{Q}$ such that $q_1<a<q_2$. The dyadic rationals would be an example. Here is the way to think about the puzzle of nested dense sets. If you give me two reals $r_1$ and $r_2$ can I find a $q_1$ in between them? Yes. Why? because $mathbb{Q}$ is dense is $mathbb{R}$. Can I find two values? $q_1$ and $q_2$ in between $r_1$ and $r_2$? Because if I could find two... then I could exploit the density of $mathbb{Q}$ to finish the job.
We are given two reals and then we find $q_1,q_2$ inbetween the reals and then we find some $ain A$ inbetween these rationals. All told we have the following inequality: $$r_1<q_1<a<q_2<r_2$$
$endgroup$
$A$ is dense in $mathbb{Q}$ if for any two rationals $q_1 < q_2$ there is some $ain A cap mathbb{Q}$ such that $q_1<a<q_2$. The dyadic rationals would be an example. Here is the way to think about the puzzle of nested dense sets. If you give me two reals $r_1$ and $r_2$ can I find a $q_1$ in between them? Yes. Why? because $mathbb{Q}$ is dense is $mathbb{R}$. Can I find two values? $q_1$ and $q_2$ in between $r_1$ and $r_2$? Because if I could find two... then I could exploit the density of $mathbb{Q}$ to finish the job.
We are given two reals and then we find $q_1,q_2$ inbetween the reals and then we find some $ain A$ inbetween these rationals. All told we have the following inequality: $$r_1<q_1<a<q_2<r_2$$
edited Mar 20 at 15:52
answered Mar 20 at 15:41
MasonMason
1,7951630
1,7951630
1
$begingroup$
Isn't it 'for any two $q_1, q_2 in mathbb Q$ there exists $ain Acolor{red}{capmathbb Q}$ such that $q_1 < a < q_2$' ...? (Plus, of course, an assumption of $q_1<q_2.$)
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 15:49
$begingroup$
@CiaPan. I think you are right. This was written hastily.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 15:51
$begingroup$
:) I'm not familiar with the definition, but I thought about irrationals – they are certainly dense in reals, but I would hesitate to accept they are dense in rationals, which would fit your former formulation. Hence the red part.
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 15:59
$begingroup$
I don't think that it would have fit because I defined it as a subset. So it would read "the irrational reals are dense in the rationals if (1) they are a subset of the rationals and (2) there is an irrational between any two rationals." So it wouldn't meet the (1)st criteria. So we might be dancing around equivalent or similar variations on the same concept.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 16:01
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Isn't it 'for any two $q_1, q_2 in mathbb Q$ there exists $ain Acolor{red}{capmathbb Q}$ such that $q_1 < a < q_2$' ...? (Plus, of course, an assumption of $q_1<q_2.$)
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 15:49
$begingroup$
@CiaPan. I think you are right. This was written hastily.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 15:51
$begingroup$
:) I'm not familiar with the definition, but I thought about irrationals – they are certainly dense in reals, but I would hesitate to accept they are dense in rationals, which would fit your former formulation. Hence the red part.
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 15:59
$begingroup$
I don't think that it would have fit because I defined it as a subset. So it would read "the irrational reals are dense in the rationals if (1) they are a subset of the rationals and (2) there is an irrational between any two rationals." So it wouldn't meet the (1)st criteria. So we might be dancing around equivalent or similar variations on the same concept.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 16:01
1
1
$begingroup$
Isn't it 'for any two $q_1, q_2 in mathbb Q$ there exists $ain Acolor{red}{capmathbb Q}$ such that $q_1 < a < q_2$' ...? (Plus, of course, an assumption of $q_1<q_2.$)
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 15:49
$begingroup$
Isn't it 'for any two $q_1, q_2 in mathbb Q$ there exists $ain Acolor{red}{capmathbb Q}$ such that $q_1 < a < q_2$' ...? (Plus, of course, an assumption of $q_1<q_2.$)
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 15:49
$begingroup$
@CiaPan. I think you are right. This was written hastily.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 15:51
$begingroup$
@CiaPan. I think you are right. This was written hastily.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 15:51
$begingroup$
:) I'm not familiar with the definition, but I thought about irrationals – they are certainly dense in reals, but I would hesitate to accept they are dense in rationals, which would fit your former formulation. Hence the red part.
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 15:59
$begingroup$
:) I'm not familiar with the definition, but I thought about irrationals – they are certainly dense in reals, but I would hesitate to accept they are dense in rationals, which would fit your former formulation. Hence the red part.
$endgroup$
– CiaPan
Mar 20 at 15:59
$begingroup$
I don't think that it would have fit because I defined it as a subset. So it would read "the irrational reals are dense in the rationals if (1) they are a subset of the rationals and (2) there is an irrational between any two rationals." So it wouldn't meet the (1)st criteria. So we might be dancing around equivalent or similar variations on the same concept.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 16:01
$begingroup$
I don't think that it would have fit because I defined it as a subset. So it would read "the irrational reals are dense in the rationals if (1) they are a subset of the rationals and (2) there is an irrational between any two rationals." So it wouldn't meet the (1)st criteria. So we might be dancing around equivalent or similar variations on the same concept.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 16:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since $A$ is dense in $Bbb Q$ so $overline A cap Bbb Q = Bbb Q subseteq overline A.$ So $Bbb R = overline {Bbb Q} subseteq overline A subseteq Bbb R.$ Therefore $overline A = Bbb R.$ This shows that $A$ is dense in $Bbb R.$
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Looks good to me. I would add the line: Where $A$ overbar refers to the closure of a set. It's unclear to me whether the OP is familiar with this expression so maybe a link to? mathworld.wolfram.com/SetClosure.html. +1
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 15:45
$begingroup$
This is true for any arbitrary metric space @Mason. Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. Let $Y$ be metric subspace of $X.$ Let $A subseteq X.$ Then the closure of $A$ in $Y$ say $overline {A}^Y = overline A cap Y,$ where $overline A$ is the closure of $A$ in $X.$
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Mar 20 at 15:49
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since $A$ is dense in $Bbb Q$ so $overline A cap Bbb Q = Bbb Q subseteq overline A.$ So $Bbb R = overline {Bbb Q} subseteq overline A subseteq Bbb R.$ Therefore $overline A = Bbb R.$ This shows that $A$ is dense in $Bbb R.$
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Looks good to me. I would add the line: Where $A$ overbar refers to the closure of a set. It's unclear to me whether the OP is familiar with this expression so maybe a link to? mathworld.wolfram.com/SetClosure.html. +1
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 15:45
$begingroup$
This is true for any arbitrary metric space @Mason. Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. Let $Y$ be metric subspace of $X.$ Let $A subseteq X.$ Then the closure of $A$ in $Y$ say $overline {A}^Y = overline A cap Y,$ where $overline A$ is the closure of $A$ in $X.$
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Mar 20 at 15:49
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since $A$ is dense in $Bbb Q$ so $overline A cap Bbb Q = Bbb Q subseteq overline A.$ So $Bbb R = overline {Bbb Q} subseteq overline A subseteq Bbb R.$ Therefore $overline A = Bbb R.$ This shows that $A$ is dense in $Bbb R.$
$endgroup$
Since $A$ is dense in $Bbb Q$ so $overline A cap Bbb Q = Bbb Q subseteq overline A.$ So $Bbb R = overline {Bbb Q} subseteq overline A subseteq Bbb R.$ Therefore $overline A = Bbb R.$ This shows that $A$ is dense in $Bbb R.$
answered Mar 20 at 15:40
Dbchatto67Dbchatto67
2,166320
2,166320
2
$begingroup$
Looks good to me. I would add the line: Where $A$ overbar refers to the closure of a set. It's unclear to me whether the OP is familiar with this expression so maybe a link to? mathworld.wolfram.com/SetClosure.html. +1
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 15:45
$begingroup$
This is true for any arbitrary metric space @Mason. Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. Let $Y$ be metric subspace of $X.$ Let $A subseteq X.$ Then the closure of $A$ in $Y$ say $overline {A}^Y = overline A cap Y,$ where $overline A$ is the closure of $A$ in $X.$
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Mar 20 at 15:49
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Looks good to me. I would add the line: Where $A$ overbar refers to the closure of a set. It's unclear to me whether the OP is familiar with this expression so maybe a link to? mathworld.wolfram.com/SetClosure.html. +1
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 15:45
$begingroup$
This is true for any arbitrary metric space @Mason. Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. Let $Y$ be metric subspace of $X.$ Let $A subseteq X.$ Then the closure of $A$ in $Y$ say $overline {A}^Y = overline A cap Y,$ where $overline A$ is the closure of $A$ in $X.$
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Mar 20 at 15:49
2
2
$begingroup$
Looks good to me. I would add the line: Where $A$ overbar refers to the closure of a set. It's unclear to me whether the OP is familiar with this expression so maybe a link to? mathworld.wolfram.com/SetClosure.html. +1
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 15:45
$begingroup$
Looks good to me. I would add the line: Where $A$ overbar refers to the closure of a set. It's unclear to me whether the OP is familiar with this expression so maybe a link to? mathworld.wolfram.com/SetClosure.html. +1
$endgroup$
– Mason
Mar 20 at 15:45
$begingroup$
This is true for any arbitrary metric space @Mason. Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. Let $Y$ be metric subspace of $X.$ Let $A subseteq X.$ Then the closure of $A$ in $Y$ say $overline {A}^Y = overline A cap Y,$ where $overline A$ is the closure of $A$ in $X.$
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Mar 20 at 15:49
$begingroup$
This is true for any arbitrary metric space @Mason. Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. Let $Y$ be metric subspace of $X.$ Let $A subseteq X.$ Then the closure of $A$ in $Y$ say $overline {A}^Y = overline A cap Y,$ where $overline A$ is the closure of $A$ in $X.$
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Mar 20 at 15:49
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Does that imply that between any two rational numbers, there exists a real number?
Well, if $a$ and $b$ are distinct rationals, then $(a+b)/2$ is a real number that's between them. It's also rational. And, if you want an irrational number that's between them, take something like $a+(b-a)/sqrt{2}$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
@RingØ Or $a=b=mathrm{anything}$. Edited to add the necessary "distinct". Thanks!
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Mar 20 at 23:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Does that imply that between any two rational numbers, there exists a real number?
Well, if $a$ and $b$ are distinct rationals, then $(a+b)/2$ is a real number that's between them. It's also rational. And, if you want an irrational number that's between them, take something like $a+(b-a)/sqrt{2}$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
@RingØ Or $a=b=mathrm{anything}$. Edited to add the necessary "distinct". Thanks!
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Mar 20 at 23:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Does that imply that between any two rational numbers, there exists a real number?
Well, if $a$ and $b$ are distinct rationals, then $(a+b)/2$ is a real number that's between them. It's also rational. And, if you want an irrational number that's between them, take something like $a+(b-a)/sqrt{2}$.
$endgroup$
Does that imply that between any two rational numbers, there exists a real number?
Well, if $a$ and $b$ are distinct rationals, then $(a+b)/2$ is a real number that's between them. It's also rational. And, if you want an irrational number that's between them, take something like $a+(b-a)/sqrt{2}$.
edited Mar 20 at 23:17
answered Mar 20 at 22:14
David RicherbyDavid Richerby
2,25511324
2,25511324
$begingroup$
@RingØ Or $a=b=mathrm{anything}$. Edited to add the necessary "distinct". Thanks!
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Mar 20 at 23:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@RingØ Or $a=b=mathrm{anything}$. Edited to add the necessary "distinct". Thanks!
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Mar 20 at 23:18
$begingroup$
@RingØ Or $a=b=mathrm{anything}$. Edited to add the necessary "distinct". Thanks!
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Mar 20 at 23:18
$begingroup$
@RingØ Or $a=b=mathrm{anything}$. Edited to add the necessary "distinct". Thanks!
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Mar 20 at 23:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Another proof. $A$ being dense in $mathbb{Q}$ means that for any $qinmathbb{Q}$ there is a sequence in $A$ converging to $q$.
Let $rinmathbb{R}$. Since $mathbb{Q}$ is dense in $mathbb{R}$, there is a sequence ${q_n}_{n=1}^infty$ converging to $r$. For each $n$, pick a sequence ${a_{n,i}}_{i=1}^infty$ in $A$ converging to $q_n$. For each $n$, choose $k_n$ such that for all $ige k_n$ we have
$$|a_{n,i}-q_n|<2^{-n}.$$
Claim: The sequence ${a_{n,k_n}}_{n=1}^infty$ converges to $r$.
Proof: Let $epsilon>0$. Choose $N$ such that for each $nge N$ we have
$$|r-q_n|<frac{epsilon}{2}qquadtext{and}qquad2^{-N}<frac{epsilon}{2} .$$
Then for each $nge N$ we have
$$|r-a_{n,k_n}|le|r-q_n|+|q_n-a_{n,k_n}|<epsilon ,$$
consluding the proof.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Another proof. $A$ being dense in $mathbb{Q}$ means that for any $qinmathbb{Q}$ there is a sequence in $A$ converging to $q$.
Let $rinmathbb{R}$. Since $mathbb{Q}$ is dense in $mathbb{R}$, there is a sequence ${q_n}_{n=1}^infty$ converging to $r$. For each $n$, pick a sequence ${a_{n,i}}_{i=1}^infty$ in $A$ converging to $q_n$. For each $n$, choose $k_n$ such that for all $ige k_n$ we have
$$|a_{n,i}-q_n|<2^{-n}.$$
Claim: The sequence ${a_{n,k_n}}_{n=1}^infty$ converges to $r$.
Proof: Let $epsilon>0$. Choose $N$ such that for each $nge N$ we have
$$|r-q_n|<frac{epsilon}{2}qquadtext{and}qquad2^{-N}<frac{epsilon}{2} .$$
Then for each $nge N$ we have
$$|r-a_{n,k_n}|le|r-q_n|+|q_n-a_{n,k_n}|<epsilon ,$$
consluding the proof.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Another proof. $A$ being dense in $mathbb{Q}$ means that for any $qinmathbb{Q}$ there is a sequence in $A$ converging to $q$.
Let $rinmathbb{R}$. Since $mathbb{Q}$ is dense in $mathbb{R}$, there is a sequence ${q_n}_{n=1}^infty$ converging to $r$. For each $n$, pick a sequence ${a_{n,i}}_{i=1}^infty$ in $A$ converging to $q_n$. For each $n$, choose $k_n$ such that for all $ige k_n$ we have
$$|a_{n,i}-q_n|<2^{-n}.$$
Claim: The sequence ${a_{n,k_n}}_{n=1}^infty$ converges to $r$.
Proof: Let $epsilon>0$. Choose $N$ such that for each $nge N$ we have
$$|r-q_n|<frac{epsilon}{2}qquadtext{and}qquad2^{-N}<frac{epsilon}{2} .$$
Then for each $nge N$ we have
$$|r-a_{n,k_n}|le|r-q_n|+|q_n-a_{n,k_n}|<epsilon ,$$
consluding the proof.
$endgroup$
Another proof. $A$ being dense in $mathbb{Q}$ means that for any $qinmathbb{Q}$ there is a sequence in $A$ converging to $q$.
Let $rinmathbb{R}$. Since $mathbb{Q}$ is dense in $mathbb{R}$, there is a sequence ${q_n}_{n=1}^infty$ converging to $r$. For each $n$, pick a sequence ${a_{n,i}}_{i=1}^infty$ in $A$ converging to $q_n$. For each $n$, choose $k_n$ such that for all $ige k_n$ we have
$$|a_{n,i}-q_n|<2^{-n}.$$
Claim: The sequence ${a_{n,k_n}}_{n=1}^infty$ converges to $r$.
Proof: Let $epsilon>0$. Choose $N$ such that for each $nge N$ we have
$$|r-q_n|<frac{epsilon}{2}qquadtext{and}qquad2^{-N}<frac{epsilon}{2} .$$
Then for each $nge N$ we have
$$|r-a_{n,k_n}|le|r-q_n|+|q_n-a_{n,k_n}|<epsilon ,$$
consluding the proof.
answered Mar 20 at 22:33
Daniel Robert-NicoudDaniel Robert-Nicoud
20.5k33797
20.5k33797
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Another definition of "dense" is that every open neighborhood of $mathbb Q$ has a member of $A$. And using that definition, we want to prove that every open neighborhood of $mathbb R$ has a member of $A$. So suppose we take a neighborhood $N_1$ of $r$ in $mathbb R$. Since $mathbb Q$ is dense in $mathbb R$, there is rational $q$ in $N_1$. We can take a neighborhood $N_2$ of $q$ that is a subset of $N_1$, and there will be $a$ in that neighborhood, and thus $a$ will be in $N_1$ as well.
Basically, $A$ being dense in $mathbb Q$ means that for every $q$, there is $a$ "close" to $q$, and $mathbb Q$ being dense in $mathbb R$ means that for every $r$, there is $q$ "close" to $r$. So given any $r$, we take $q$ "close" to $r$, then we take $a$ "close" to $q$, and $a$ is "close" to $r$.
It's analogous to "If everyone lives close to a school, and every school is close to library, then everyone lives close to a library.", although there's some additional rigor regarding the term "close" that has to be introduced.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Another definition of "dense" is that every open neighborhood of $mathbb Q$ has a member of $A$. And using that definition, we want to prove that every open neighborhood of $mathbb R$ has a member of $A$. So suppose we take a neighborhood $N_1$ of $r$ in $mathbb R$. Since $mathbb Q$ is dense in $mathbb R$, there is rational $q$ in $N_1$. We can take a neighborhood $N_2$ of $q$ that is a subset of $N_1$, and there will be $a$ in that neighborhood, and thus $a$ will be in $N_1$ as well.
Basically, $A$ being dense in $mathbb Q$ means that for every $q$, there is $a$ "close" to $q$, and $mathbb Q$ being dense in $mathbb R$ means that for every $r$, there is $q$ "close" to $r$. So given any $r$, we take $q$ "close" to $r$, then we take $a$ "close" to $q$, and $a$ is "close" to $r$.
It's analogous to "If everyone lives close to a school, and every school is close to library, then everyone lives close to a library.", although there's some additional rigor regarding the term "close" that has to be introduced.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Another definition of "dense" is that every open neighborhood of $mathbb Q$ has a member of $A$. And using that definition, we want to prove that every open neighborhood of $mathbb R$ has a member of $A$. So suppose we take a neighborhood $N_1$ of $r$ in $mathbb R$. Since $mathbb Q$ is dense in $mathbb R$, there is rational $q$ in $N_1$. We can take a neighborhood $N_2$ of $q$ that is a subset of $N_1$, and there will be $a$ in that neighborhood, and thus $a$ will be in $N_1$ as well.
Basically, $A$ being dense in $mathbb Q$ means that for every $q$, there is $a$ "close" to $q$, and $mathbb Q$ being dense in $mathbb R$ means that for every $r$, there is $q$ "close" to $r$. So given any $r$, we take $q$ "close" to $r$, then we take $a$ "close" to $q$, and $a$ is "close" to $r$.
It's analogous to "If everyone lives close to a school, and every school is close to library, then everyone lives close to a library.", although there's some additional rigor regarding the term "close" that has to be introduced.
$endgroup$
Another definition of "dense" is that every open neighborhood of $mathbb Q$ has a member of $A$. And using that definition, we want to prove that every open neighborhood of $mathbb R$ has a member of $A$. So suppose we take a neighborhood $N_1$ of $r$ in $mathbb R$. Since $mathbb Q$ is dense in $mathbb R$, there is rational $q$ in $N_1$. We can take a neighborhood $N_2$ of $q$ that is a subset of $N_1$, and there will be $a$ in that neighborhood, and thus $a$ will be in $N_1$ as well.
Basically, $A$ being dense in $mathbb Q$ means that for every $q$, there is $a$ "close" to $q$, and $mathbb Q$ being dense in $mathbb R$ means that for every $r$, there is $q$ "close" to $r$. So given any $r$, we take $q$ "close" to $r$, then we take $a$ "close" to $q$, and $a$ is "close" to $r$.
It's analogous to "If everyone lives close to a school, and every school is close to library, then everyone lives close to a library.", although there's some additional rigor regarding the term "close" that has to be introduced.
answered Mar 20 at 22:42
AcccumulationAcccumulation
7,1352619
7,1352619
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a more general statement of this theorem. Let $X$ be a topological space and suppose $Z subset Y subset X$. If $Y$ is dense in $X$ and $Z$ is dense in $Y$ (w.r.t. the subset topology) then $Z$ is dense in $X$.
To prove this, suppose $Z$ is not dense in $X$. Then there exists $A$ open and non-empty in $X$ such that $Z cap A = emptyset$. Then we have two cases depending on if $A' = Y cap A$ is non-empty. If $A'$ is empty then $A cap Y = emptyset$ therefore $Y$ is not dense in $X$. Else $A'$ is non-empty and open in $Y$ w.r.t. the subset topology, and $A' cap Z = emptyset$. Hence $Z$ is not dense in $Y$. Either way we have a contradiction.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a more general statement of this theorem. Let $X$ be a topological space and suppose $Z subset Y subset X$. If $Y$ is dense in $X$ and $Z$ is dense in $Y$ (w.r.t. the subset topology) then $Z$ is dense in $X$.
To prove this, suppose $Z$ is not dense in $X$. Then there exists $A$ open and non-empty in $X$ such that $Z cap A = emptyset$. Then we have two cases depending on if $A' = Y cap A$ is non-empty. If $A'$ is empty then $A cap Y = emptyset$ therefore $Y$ is not dense in $X$. Else $A'$ is non-empty and open in $Y$ w.r.t. the subset topology, and $A' cap Z = emptyset$. Hence $Z$ is not dense in $Y$. Either way we have a contradiction.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a more general statement of this theorem. Let $X$ be a topological space and suppose $Z subset Y subset X$. If $Y$ is dense in $X$ and $Z$ is dense in $Y$ (w.r.t. the subset topology) then $Z$ is dense in $X$.
To prove this, suppose $Z$ is not dense in $X$. Then there exists $A$ open and non-empty in $X$ such that $Z cap A = emptyset$. Then we have two cases depending on if $A' = Y cap A$ is non-empty. If $A'$ is empty then $A cap Y = emptyset$ therefore $Y$ is not dense in $X$. Else $A'$ is non-empty and open in $Y$ w.r.t. the subset topology, and $A' cap Z = emptyset$. Hence $Z$ is not dense in $Y$. Either way we have a contradiction.
$endgroup$
There is a more general statement of this theorem. Let $X$ be a topological space and suppose $Z subset Y subset X$. If $Y$ is dense in $X$ and $Z$ is dense in $Y$ (w.r.t. the subset topology) then $Z$ is dense in $X$.
To prove this, suppose $Z$ is not dense in $X$. Then there exists $A$ open and non-empty in $X$ such that $Z cap A = emptyset$. Then we have two cases depending on if $A' = Y cap A$ is non-empty. If $A'$ is empty then $A cap Y = emptyset$ therefore $Y$ is not dense in $X$. Else $A'$ is non-empty and open in $Y$ w.r.t. the subset topology, and $A' cap Z = emptyset$. Hence $Z$ is not dense in $Y$. Either way we have a contradiction.
answered Mar 20 at 23:34
bitesizebobitesizebo
1,59618
1,59618
add a comment |
add a comment |
Priti D is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Priti D is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Priti D is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Priti D is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2f3155595%2fif-a-is-dense-in-bbb-q-then-it-must-be-dense-in-bbb-r%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
$begingroup$
Not a proof, but it may help you to understand what's going on. For any pair of distinct real numbers, and any $a$ in-between, there is always a pair of rational numbers that also straddles $a$ and is also in-between the pair of real numbers. In fact there are infinitely many.
$endgroup$
– user334732
Mar 20 at 15:47
$begingroup$
And yes, there is always an irrational real number between any pair of rational numbers. In fact there is an uncountable infinity of them.
$endgroup$
– user334732
Mar 20 at 15:48