The following question was a problem in an Analysis exam:
Let n∈N. Define An:={k2n|k∈Z,0≤k≤2n}. Let A∞=∪n∈NAn .
Compute ¯A∞ (closure of A∞) and A∘∞ (the interior of A∞).
I have solved the problem. I got the answer as ¯A∞=[0,1] and A∘∞=ϕ.
But as I wondered about the problem, I observed that A∞ was a strict subset of Q∩[0,1] and was still dense in [0,1]. This set me thinking; I asked myself if can I get a minimally dense (in [0,1]) subset of A∞?
So I defined P∞=∪n∈NPn where Pn:={k2n|k∈Z,k is prime ,0≤k≤2n}. And then I defined Dn:=An∖Pn and D∞ appropriately. I could show that D∞ is dense in [0,1] and that it is a strict subset of A∞.
So I have up to two questions: (dense always means dense in [0,1] in the following questions)
0)Does there exist a minimally dense subset of Q∩[0,1]? If it does, how do we find it?
1) Does there exist a minimally dense subset of A∞? If it does, how do we find it?
2) Is P∞ dense?
Thanks,
Isomorphism
Answer
We show that the set P∞ defined by the OP is dense in [0,1].
Let x∈(0,1). We will show that x can be well-approximated by numbers of the form p2n, where p is prime.
Take n very large, and let m2n∈(0,1) be a very good approximation to x (absolute value of the error <ϵ/2), with m a very large integer. So if x is very close to 0, we still make sure that the numerator m is large, by taking 2n huge.
A not too difficult result (given the Prime Number Theorem!) about prime gaps is that for any given ϵ, and large enough k, there is always a prime between pk and pk(1+ϵ).
Let q be the largest prime which is ≤m. By the result quoted above, if m is large enough there is a prime p in the interval $q
We show that p2n is within ϵ of x. It is enough to show that p2n is within ϵ/2 of m2n.
Note that p>m, and $p
(There is a small deliberate gap in the argument, since for x extremely close to 1, we could have p>2n. Then we use q/2n.)
Comment: There is nothing special about 2n here. The sequence (2n) can be replaced by any integer sequence (an) which is not bounded above. An interesting choice is to let (an) be the sequence of primes. The proof is the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment