Existence of x,y so that x-y is in Z-{0}.

  • Thread starter WWGD
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Existence
In summary, the conversation discusses the problem of finding x and y in a measurable subset of the Real line with m(E)>1 such that x-y is in ## \mathbb Z-{0} ##. The proposed solution involves restricting the quotient ## \mathbb R / \mathbb Z |_E ## and showing that there must be more than one representative of each clase of the quotient in E. The conversation also presents a detailed argument using translated sets and Lebesgue measure to arrive at a contradiction.
  • #1
WWGD
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,321
11,159
Hi, let E be a measurable subset of the Real line with m(E)>1 . I want to show
there are x,y in E so that x-y is in ## \mathbb Z-{0} ##. My idea is to restrict the
quotient ## \mathbb R / \mathbb Z |_E ##. This quotient cannot be contained in
[0,1], since m([0,1])=1 and m(E)>1. From this I want to show that there must be
more than one representative of each clase of the quotient in E , but I am having
trouble tightening up the argument. Any ideas?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Suppose there are no such ##x,y \in E##.

For each integer ##k##, let ##E_k = E \cap [k, k+1)##. Then the ##E_k##'s are measurable and pairwise disjoint, with ##\sum m(E_k) = m(E)##.

Now consider the translated sets ##F_k = E_k - k##, in other words, ##F_k## is ##E_k## translated by ##k##, so ##F_k \subset [0,1)##.

If ##F_k \cap F_m \neq \emptyset## for some ##k \neq m##, then there are ##x_k \in E_k## and ##x_m \in E_m## such that ##x_k - k = x_m - m##, so ##x_k - x_m \in \mathbb{Z} \setminus \{0\}##, contrary to our assumption above. So the ##F_k##'s are pairwise disjoint.

Now Lebesgue measure is translation-invariant, so each ##F_k## is measurable with ##m(F_k) = m(E_k)##. By countable additivity,
$$m\left(\bigcup_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} F_k\right) = \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} m(F_k) =\sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} m(E_k) = m(E) > 1$$
But on the other hand, each ##F_k \subset [0,1)## for each ##k##, and therefore also ##\bigcup_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} F_k \subset [0,1)##, which means that
$$m\left(\bigcup_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} F_k\right) \leq 1$$
So we have a contradiction.
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara

FAQ: Existence of x,y so that x-y is in Z-{0}.

1. What does "x-y is in Z-{0}" mean in terms of the existence of x and y?

The statement "x-y is in Z-{0}" means that the difference between x and y is a non-zero integer, or in other words, x and y are not equal.

2. Is it possible for x and y to be any real numbers and still satisfy the given condition?

No, x and y must be integers in order for the difference between them to be in the set Z-{0}. Real numbers can have a non-integer difference, which would not satisfy the condition.

3. How does the existence of x and y with x-y being in Z-{0} relate to the concept of rational numbers?

The existence of x and y with x-y being in Z-{0} means that the difference between them is a rational number, since it is a non-zero integer. This shows that the set Z-{0} contains all rational numbers.

4. Can you give an example of x and y that satisfy the given condition?

One example could be x=3 and y=1, since 3-1=2 and 2 is a non-zero integer, making it in the set Z-{0}.

5. How does this statement relate to the concept of mathematical proofs?

This statement can be proven using mathematical proofs by showing that there exists a solution for x and y that satisfy the given condition. This proof would involve using logic and mathematical principles to demonstrate that the statement is true.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
490
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
795
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
4K
Back
Top