Rubic
Okay, so I need to figure out how to solve this problem where I have to prove that the set of real numbers R is uncountable. Hmm, I remember hearing about Cantor's diagonal argument, but I'm not entirely sure how it works. Let me try to recall and work through it step by step.
First, what does it mean for a set to be uncountable? I think a set is countable if its elements can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers. So, like, the set of integers is countable because you can list them as 0, 1, -1, 2, -2, 3, -3, and so on. But real numbers are different. They're not just whole numbers or fractions; they include all the decimals, right? So the idea is that you can't list all real numbers in a sequence because there's always another one you're missing.
Cantor's diagonal argument is supposed to show that no matter how you try to list all real numbers between 0 and 1, there will always be some number that's not in your list. That would mean the real numbers can't be put into a countable list, hence they're uncountable. Let me try to formalize this.
Suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that the real numbers between 0 and 1 are countable. Then, there exists a bijection from the natural numbers to this interval. In other words, we can list all real numbers in [0,1) like this:
0.a₁₁a₁₂a₁₃a₁₄...
0.a₂₁a₂₂a₂₃a₂₄...
0.a₃₁a₃₂a₃₃a₃₄...
0.a₄₁a₄₂a₄₃a₄₄...
...
Each a_ij represents the j-th decimal digit of the i-th real number in the list. Now, the key idea is to construct a real number that isn't in this list. To do that, we'll create a number by changing each diagonal entry. For example, let's define a number b = 0.b₁b₂b₃b₄... where each b_i is different from a_ii. If we make sure that b_i ≠ a_ii for every i, then b can't be equal to any number in the list. Because if b were equal to, say, the n-th number in the list, then their n-th digits would have to be the same, but we constructed b such that b_n ≠ a_nn. Therefore, b is not in the list, which contradicts our initial assumption that the list contains all real numbers in [0,1).
Wait, but I need to be careful with decimal representations. Some numbers have two representations, like 0.999... equals 1.000... So, maybe I should choose the digits of b in such a way that it avoids this ambiguity. For example, I can choose b_i to be 5 if a_ii is not 5, and 6 if a_ii is 5. That way, b will have a unique decimal expansion and won't end with all 9s or all 0s. This avoids the problem of dual representations.
Let me try to write this more formally. Suppose we have a list of real numbers in [0,1):
r₁ = 0.a₁₁a₁₂a₁₃...
r₂ = 0.a₂₁a₂₂a₂₃...
r₃ = 0.a₃₁a₃₂a₃₃...
...
Construct the number b = 0.b₁b₂b₃... where each b_i = 5 if a_ii ≠ 5, and b_i = 6 if a_ii = 5. Then, b is different from each r_i in at least the i-th decimal place. Therefore, b is not in the list, which contradicts the assumption that the list contains all real numbers. Hence, the real numbers are uncountable.
But wait, is there a way this could fail? Let's test it with a simple example. Suppose someone tries to list the real numbers as follows:
0.000000...
0.111111...
0.222222...
0.333333...
0.444444...
0.555555...
...
Then, the diagonal digits are 0,1,2,3,4,5,... So constructing b by changing each diagonal digit: if a_ii is not 5, set b_i to 5; if a_ii is 5, set b_i to 6. In this case, the diagonal digits are 0,1,2,3,4,5,... So b would be 0.555555... But wait, that's the 6th number in the list. Oh no, that's a problem! Because if we follow the rule, when a_ii is 5 (which happens at i=6), we set b_i to 6. So b would be 0.555556..., right? Because the 6th digit is changed from 5 to 6. So the number is 0.555556..., which is not in the list. The original list had 0.555555... as the 6th element, but our constructed b is different. So that works.
Another example: suppose the list is:
0.0
0.1
0.11
0.111
0.1111
...
Then the diagonal digits are 0,1,1,1,1,... So constructing b: first digit is 5 (since a_11=0≠5), then the rest are 5 because a_22=1≠5, etc. So b=0.55555..., which is not in the list. The list only has numbers with a finite number of 1s, so 0.55555... is not there. That works.
But what if the list contains numbers with different digit patterns? Let's say someone tries to list all possible decimals. The diagonal argument still applies because no matter how you arrange them, the constructed b will differ from each in at least one digit. Therefore, it can't be in the list.
However, I need to ensure that the construction of b doesn't end up with a number that has a different representation. For example, if b ends with all 9s, which is equivalent to a number with all 0s. But by choosing digits as 5 or 6, we avoid that issue because 5 and 6 are not 9 or 0. So b's decimal expansion is unique and doesn't have an alternative representation. Therefore, the argument holds.
Another point to consider: the diagonal argument works for any list, no matter how cleverly constructed. So even if someone tries to list real numbers in a different way, like by alternating digits or something, the diagonalization will still produce a number not in the list.
Therefore, the conclusion is that the assumption that the real numbers are countable leads to a contradiction, so the real numbers must be uncountable.
Wait, but I should also mention that Cantor's diagonal argument is specifically for showing the uncountability of the real numbers, and it's a proof by contradiction. The key steps are:
Assume the real numbers in [0,1) are countable.
Then, there exists a list containing all such numbers.
Construct a number not in the list by diagonalization.
Contradiction arises, so the initial assumption is false.
Hence, [0,1) is uncountable, and since it's a subset of R, R is also uncountable.
Is there anything else I need to check? Maybe the fact that the argument applies to any base, not just base 10. But the choice of base 10 is arbitrary; the same idea works in any base. Also, the choice of 5 and 6 is arbitrary; any two distinct digits could be used as long as they're not 0 and 9 to avoid dual representations.
Another possible objection: what if the list is not complete? But the assumption is that the list is complete if we're assuming countability. The diagonal number shows that even if you try to list them all, you miss one, hence the list can't be complete.
Therefore, I think the argument holds. So the proof is correct.
To prove that the set of real numbers (\mathbb{R}) is uncountable, we employ Cantor's diagonal argument, a proof by contradiction. Here's the step-by-step explanation:
Assume the contrary: Suppose (\mathbb{R}) is countable. Then, the interval ([0, 1)) (which is a subset of (\mathbb{R})) must also be countable. This means there exists a bijection (f: \mathbb{N} \to [0, 1)), allowing us to list all real numbers in ([0, 1)) as:
[
\begin{align*}
f(1) &= 0.a_{11}a_{12}a_{13}a_{14}\ldots \
f(2) &= 0.a_{21}a_{22}a_{23}a_{24}\ldots \
f(3) &= 0.a_{31}a_{32}a_{33}a_{34}\ldots \
&\vdots
\end{align*}
]
where (a_{ij}) represents the (j)-th decimal digit of the (i)-th number.
Construct a diagonal number: Define a real number (b = 0.b_1b_2b_3b_4\ldots) where each digit (b_i) is chosen as follows:
[
b_i = \begin{cases}
5 & \text{if } a_{ii} \neq 5, \
6 & \text{if } a_{ii} = 5.
\end{cases}
]
This ensures (b) differs from every number in the list at the (i)-th decimal place.
Avoid dual representations: By using digits 5 and 6, (b) cannot have an alternate representation (e.g., (0.999\ldots = 1.000\ldots)), ensuring uniqueness.
Contradiction: Since (b) differs from (f(n)) in the (n)-th digit for all (n \in \mathbb{N}), (b) is not in the list. This contradicts the assumption that the list contains all real numbers in ([0, 1)).
Conclusion: The initial assumption that ([0, 1)) (and thus (\mathbb{R})) is countable is false. Therefore, (\mathbb{R}) is uncountable.
(\boxed{\mathbb{R} \text{ is uncountable}})
https://www.18122.com/url/usdt/usdt2777.jpeg
页:
[1]