Proof that f maps an infinite set from Real Numbers to Rational Numbers

In summary, we need to show that there exists a q in the rational numbers for which the inverse of f, denoted f^{-1}(q), is an infinite set in the real numbers. To prove this, we assume the opposite and suppose that for all q in the rational numbers, the set f^{-1}(q) is finite. However, since every element in the real numbers is in one of these sets, the union of all f^{-1}(q) would be countable. This contradicts the fact that the real numbers are uncountable, leading to a contradiction and proving that there must exist a q for which f^{-1}(q) is an infinite set in the real numbers.
  • #1
burak100
33
0
infinite set

Homework Statement


[itex]f: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{Q} [/itex],

show that there is a [itex] q \in \mathbb{Q}[/itex] st. [itex]f^{-1}(q)[/itex] is infinite set in [itex] \mathbb{R}[/itex].

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



how can we show that is true?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Do you know R is uncountable? That would be a clue.
 
  • #3


infinite set means ; we can't find 1-1 correspondence between the set {1,...,n} and [itex]f^{-1}(q)[/itex] , here [itex]f^{-1}(q)[/itex] has n elements.
So, can we say [itex]f^{-1}(q)[/itex] is uncountable then we can't find 1-1 correspondence between the set {1,...,n}...?
 
  • #4


burak100 said:
infinite set means ; we can't find 1-1 correspondence between the set {1,...,n} and [itex]f^{-1}(q)[/itex] , here [itex]f^{-1}(q)[/itex] has n elements.
So, can we say [itex]f^{-1}(q)[/itex] is uncountable then we can't find 1-1 correspondence between the set {1,...,n}...?

Try to get the idea of your proof before you start writing symbols. Assume the opposite, that all of the f^(-1)(q) are finite. And you didn't answer my question. Do you know R is uncountable, and do you know what that means?
 
  • #5


yeah R is uncountable but I can't find a relation to this question..
 
  • #6


burak100 said:
yeah R is uncountable but I can't find a relation to this question..

Every element if R is in one of the f^(-1)(q) sets, right? Suppose they are all finite?
 
  • #7


I didn't understand clearly but ;

for all [itex]q \in \mathbb{Q}[/itex], we suppose all the sets, [itex] f^{-1}(q)[/itex] are finite. That means, every element of [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex] is one of these sets, [itex] f^{-1}(q)[/itex] ...right?
 
  • #8


burak100 said:
I didn't understand clearly but ;

for all [itex]q \in \mathbb{Q}[/itex], we suppose all the sets, [itex] f^{-1}(q)[/itex] are finite. That means, every element of [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex] is one of these sets, [itex] f^{-1}(q)[/itex] ...right?

Every element of R is in one of the f^(-1)(q) whether those sets are finite or not, just because f:R->Q. Pick an element x of R, for which q in Q is x in f^(-1)(q)??
 
  • #9


Dick said:
Every element of R is in one of the f^(-1)(q) whether those sets are finite or not, just because f:R->Q. Pick an element x of R, for which q in Q is x in f^(-1)(q)??

I think that is right because just now we said
" every element of R is in one of the set f^{-1}(q) "
 
  • #10


burak100 said:
I think that is right because just now we said
" every element of R is in one of the set f^{-1}(q) "

Yes, but can you tell me why?? Just because we said it doesn't prove it. You are going to need this as part of your proof.
 
Last edited:
  • #11


Ok. I think; we have [itex]\mathbb{R}= \bigcup\limits_{q \in \mathbb{Q}} f^{-1}(q)[/itex], and we suppose that for all q in Q , [itex]f^{-1}(q)[/itex] finite, then union would be countable but R is uncountable so contradiction... right?
 
  • #12


burak100 said:
Ok. I think; we have [itex]\mathbb{R}= \bigcup\limits_{q \in \mathbb{Q}} f^{-1}(q)[/itex], and we suppose that for all q in Q , [itex]f^{-1}(q)[/itex] finite, then union would be countable but R is uncountable so contradiction... right?

Right, if you are clear on why the union of all the f^(-1)(q) is R.
 

FAQ: Proof that f maps an infinite set from Real Numbers to Rational Numbers

How do you prove that a function maps an infinite set from Real Numbers to Rational Numbers?

To prove that a function f maps an infinite set from Real Numbers to Rational Numbers, we must show that for every real number x, there exists a rational number y such that f(x) = y. This can be done by providing a general formula for f(x) that produces a rational number for any given real number x.

Can you give an example of a function that maps an infinite set from Real Numbers to Rational Numbers?

Yes, the function f(x) = 1/x maps an infinite set from Real Numbers to Rational Numbers. For any real number x, the value of f(x) will always be a rational number since it can be written as a fraction (e.g. f(2) = 1/2, f(π) = 1/π).

Is it possible for a function to map an infinite set from Real Numbers to Rational Numbers without being continuous?

Yes, it is possible for a function to map an infinite set from Real Numbers to Rational Numbers without being continuous. For example, the function f(x) = 1/x maps an infinite set from Real Numbers to Rational Numbers, but it is not continuous at x = 0.

How does the mapping from Real Numbers to Rational Numbers differ from mapping to other number sets?

The main difference is that the mapping from Real Numbers to Rational Numbers involves finding a rational number output for any given real number input, whereas mapping to other number sets may involve finding an output in a different set (e.g. complex numbers, integers, etc.). Additionally, mapping to other number sets may have different criteria for being a valid mapping.

Can a function map an infinite set from Real Numbers to Rational Numbers and still have a finite range?

Yes, it is possible for a function to map an infinite set from Real Numbers to Rational Numbers and still have a finite range. For example, the function f(x) = 1/(x+1) maps an infinite set from Real Numbers to Rational Numbers, but its range is limited to the interval (0,1).

Back
Top