A community for students.
Here's the question you clicked on:
 0 viewing
anonymous
 5 years ago
A piecewise function is defined as follows: for all rational numbers, f(x) = 1, for all irrational numbers, f(x) = 0. will the resulting graph be a line on f(x) = 0 with discontinuities? a line on f(x) = 1 with discontinuities, or a scattering of individual points?
anonymous
 5 years ago
A piecewise function is defined as follows: for all rational numbers, f(x) = 1, for all irrational numbers, f(x) = 0. will the resulting graph be a line on f(x) = 0 with discontinuities? a line on f(x) = 1 with discontinuities, or a scattering of individual points?

This Question is Closed

dumbcow
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0i tend to agree with line on y=0 with discontinuities, there are far more irrational numbers than rational when looking at all real numbers

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0is that because they are uncountable?

dumbcow
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0kind of , rational numbers are uncountable too but for every gap between 2 rational numbers there could be an infinite number of irrational numbers

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0well you will "see" two lines , y = 1 and y = 0

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0it doesnt matter there are more irrationals than rational, so what

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Are there more irrational numbers than rational is really the question

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0as far as you are concerned, between any two irrationals is a rational, between any two rationals is an irrational, etc

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0or more generally, pick two points, between them is an irrational and a rational

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0pick 2 distinct points

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0so it is a scattering of individual points, neither line exists

dumbcow
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0very true, imagine we had a microscope ;)

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0right, its not a line ,. but at the macro level it "looks" like a line

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0So the argument I have heard that because irrational numbers are uncountable, it is a "larger" infinity than the countable set of rational numbers, is false  or that there is only one more

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0that is a true statement, but that doesnt mean that you can order them , rational, irrational, rational, irrational, etc

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0on the number line. so ...

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0it gets even weirder. between any 2 rationals is an irrational. between any two irrationals is a rational. so where exactly are all the "extra" irrationals ?

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0between any 2 rational numbers there exists an irrational number. between any 2 irrational numbers there exists a rational number. so you might think, the number of rational and irrational should be about the same, since you can keep going with this statement

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0okay, you said, "that is a true statement, but that doesnt mean that you can order them , rational, irrational, rational, irrational, etc" does that mean that there can and cannot be two irrational numbers without a rational between them?

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0there cannot be two distinct irrationals without a rational between them, correct

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0so its kind of paradoxical

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Do you have a good source where I could read more? Wiki gets too techie too quickly

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0yeah, thats true. well you can google cantor's infinity

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0but this question is not addressed specifically, its something that my math professor told me

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0there are many layman easy websites

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Yeah, I want something between the two levels

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0yeah i know the feeling

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Also, I think it's neat to see hebrew letters come into math for this question!

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0well college libraries have some gradual immersion books

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0the big question in advanced math, does there exist a cardinality between aleph null ( natural numbers) and the cardinality of the real numbers

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0it can be shown that aleph null is the "least" infinity , as weird as that sounds

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0and we can make a hierarchy of infinite cardinalities. use the natural number cardinality, and take the cardinality of the power set of the natural numbers

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0so we start with  N  , where N = { 1,2,3,...}

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0where N  means cardinality , that means the size of the set

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0now we know for any set , P (S) > S

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0P(S) is the power set of S

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0only for finite sets?

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0it comes in handy for infinite sets

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0the number of permutations within the set

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0right, thats the shorthand for it

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0well, its the set of all subsets of the set

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0i dont know about permutations, hmmm

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I thought infinity was defined as the set that has the same cardinality as any of its proper subsets

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0yes thats a definition of an infinite set

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0but im talking about power set, what is the power set operation

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0ok say you have { 1, 2 } , the power set is { {}, {1}, {2} , {1,2} }

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0S= { 1, 2 } , then P(S)= { {}, {1}, {2} , {1,2} }

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0now cantor proved a delightful theorem , that  P ( S)  >  S for any set S

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0so the powerset of integers is larger I mean has a higher cardinality than the set of integers

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0 P ( N )  >  N  , correct ?

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I sense a trick coming up...

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0ok it turns out that R which we use shorthand c , it turns out R =  P ( N )  ,

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0now the question is, is there an infinity between N and  P ( N ) 

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0is the real numbers the smallest infinity after the natural numbers

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Wouldn't rational and irrational be smaller than real?

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0we have a hierarchy of infinities, N < P(N) < P (P(N)) < ...

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0oh boy, rational is the same cardinality as natural numbers

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0the irrationals are uncountable

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0So cantor's work doesn't cover uncountable sets?

anonymous
 5 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I find it hard to assign the same cardinality to rationals as naturals, which means I only have a working understanding of cardinality and not a real grasp on it.
Ask your own question
Sign UpFind more explanations on OpenStudy
Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.
spraguer
(Moderator)
5
→ View Detailed Profile
is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...
23
 Teamwork 19 Teammate
 Problem Solving 19 Hero
 Engagement 19 Mad Hatter
 You have blocked this person.
 ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...
Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.