How do you show that the set of infinite sequences with entries in $\Bbb R$ is uncountably infinite-dimensional as a vector space over $\Bbb R$.
Asked
Active
Viewed 1,295 times
2 Answers
5
Step 1: There is a family $\{A_r\mid r\in\Bbb R\}$ such that $A_r\subseteq\Bbb N$, and for $r\neq r'$ the intersection $A_r\cap A_{r'}$ is finite.
Step 2: Consider the characteristic functions of $A_r$ from the family of Step 1. Can they be linearly dependent?
(Another option is to use a diagonal argument to show that given any countable family of vectors, there is one not spanned by them. The above method has the benefit of showing that the dimension is as large as it can be, not just uncountable.)
Asaf Karagila
- 393,674
-
I don't quite understand the family set. – John von Neumann Feb 06 '17 at 13:48
-
What don't you understand about it? – Asaf Karagila Feb 06 '17 at 13:51
-
How you know that there's an existence of such a family – John von Neumann Feb 06 '17 at 13:57
-
Me? I proved that. Now you have to prove that also. You can find the answer on this site if you run into too much difficulties. Try thinking about branches in a binary tree, or sequences of rationals. – Asaf Karagila Feb 06 '17 at 14:01
-
3To the OP: Let $f:\mathbb Q\to \mathbb N$ be a bijection. For each $r\in \mathbb R$ let $(q_n(r))n$ be a sequence of rationals converging to $r.$ Let $A_r={f(q_n(r))}_n;.$.......For distinct reals $r,r'$ the set $B(r,r')={q_n(r)}_n\cap {q_n(r')}_n$ is finite .[.... Because, with $d =|r-r'|/2,$ if $n>n_0$ implies $|q_n(r)-r|<d$ and $|q_n(r')-r'|<d$, then $ n>n_0$ implies $ n\not \in B(r,r')$.....]. So $A_r\cap A{r'}={f(q_n(r))}_n\cap {f(q_n(r'))}_n$ is finite. – DanielWainfleet Feb 06 '17 at 15:15
0
Hint: For each $n \in \mathbb N$,can you see that $ \mathbb R ^n$ sits in your vector space?
Math Lover
- 3,602
-
-
-
So how do you prove that it's uncountably infinite? It could be countably infinite as well. – John von Neumann Feb 06 '17 at 12:45
-
-
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1409963/a-banach-space-cannot-have-a-denumerable-basiswhy-is-it-true/1411478#1411478 – Peter Melech Feb 06 '17 at 12:45
-
I have no idea what's that. Can we stick to linear algebra and basic set theory exclusively? – John von Neumann Feb 06 '17 at 12:52
-
No, I don´t think so. You really need the Baire´s theorem,it´s a basic principle of functional analysis – Peter Melech Feb 06 '17 at 12:55
-
@Peter: Why is $\Bbb{R^N}$ a Banach space? (I mean, it can be, but why is it naturally a Banach space? What is the definition of your norm?) – Asaf Karagila Feb 06 '17 at 13:21
-
@Asaf Karagila It isn´t naturally but contains one,that by Baire can´t have a countable Hamel basis e.g.$\ell^{\infty}$, thus $\mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{N}}$ can´t have a countabel Hamel basis as it seems You found a way without Baire – Peter Melech Feb 06 '17 at 13:23
-
2@Peter: That's right, you can apply Baire's theorem on subspaces of $\Bbb{R^N}$. But nevertheless, this is not "the natural approach". See my answer. – Asaf Karagila Feb 06 '17 at 13:30