Prove the set of all dyadic numbers is countable

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












A number is said to be dyadic if it has the form $frack2^n$ for some integers $k$
and $n$ in $mathbb Z^+ $. Show that the set of all dyadic numbers is countable.



Here is a proof I have (but couldn't complete),



Proof:
Let $ M_k := frack2^n: n in mathbb Z^+ $ for each $k in mathbb Z^+$



To show that $M_k$ is countable for any $k$, I tried to construct a one-to-one mapping from $M_k to mathbb N$. But I couldn't be sure if such a mapping is correct: $frack2^m mapsto m-1$ (or while mapping is the left hand side always a single variable such as x so I have to do mapping like $x mapsto ...$?). After mapping, I will show that the function(mapping) is one-to-one. Since $M_k$ is countable and the countable union of countable sets is countable, the set of dyadic numbers is countable.










share|cite|improve this question



























    up vote
    3
    down vote

    favorite












    A number is said to be dyadic if it has the form $frack2^n$ for some integers $k$
    and $n$ in $mathbb Z^+ $. Show that the set of all dyadic numbers is countable.



    Here is a proof I have (but couldn't complete),



    Proof:
    Let $ M_k := frack2^n: n in mathbb Z^+ $ for each $k in mathbb Z^+$



    To show that $M_k$ is countable for any $k$, I tried to construct a one-to-one mapping from $M_k to mathbb N$. But I couldn't be sure if such a mapping is correct: $frack2^m mapsto m-1$ (or while mapping is the left hand side always a single variable such as x so I have to do mapping like $x mapsto ...$?). After mapping, I will show that the function(mapping) is one-to-one. Since $M_k$ is countable and the countable union of countable sets is countable, the set of dyadic numbers is countable.










    share|cite|improve this question

























      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite











      A number is said to be dyadic if it has the form $frack2^n$ for some integers $k$
      and $n$ in $mathbb Z^+ $. Show that the set of all dyadic numbers is countable.



      Here is a proof I have (but couldn't complete),



      Proof:
      Let $ M_k := frack2^n: n in mathbb Z^+ $ for each $k in mathbb Z^+$



      To show that $M_k$ is countable for any $k$, I tried to construct a one-to-one mapping from $M_k to mathbb N$. But I couldn't be sure if such a mapping is correct: $frack2^m mapsto m-1$ (or while mapping is the left hand side always a single variable such as x so I have to do mapping like $x mapsto ...$?). After mapping, I will show that the function(mapping) is one-to-one. Since $M_k$ is countable and the countable union of countable sets is countable, the set of dyadic numbers is countable.










      share|cite|improve this question















      A number is said to be dyadic if it has the form $frack2^n$ for some integers $k$
      and $n$ in $mathbb Z^+ $. Show that the set of all dyadic numbers is countable.



      Here is a proof I have (but couldn't complete),



      Proof:
      Let $ M_k := frack2^n: n in mathbb Z^+ $ for each $k in mathbb Z^+$



      To show that $M_k$ is countable for any $k$, I tried to construct a one-to-one mapping from $M_k to mathbb N$. But I couldn't be sure if such a mapping is correct: $frack2^m mapsto m-1$ (or while mapping is the left hand side always a single variable such as x so I have to do mapping like $x mapsto ...$?). After mapping, I will show that the function(mapping) is one-to-one. Since $M_k$ is countable and the countable union of countable sets is countable, the set of dyadic numbers is countable.







      functions elementary-set-theory rational-numbers






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago









      José Carlos Santos

      134k17108197




      134k17108197










      asked 2 hours ago









      Pumpkin

      4531417




      4531417




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          4
          down vote













          The set $mathbbZ^+timesmathbbZ^+$ is countable and, by definition,$$beginarraycccmathbbZ^+timesmathbbZ^+&longrightarrow&textdyadic numbers\(k,n)&mapsto&dfrac k2^nendarray$$is surjective. Therefore, the set of dyadic numbers is either finite or countable. But since it is infinite, it is countable.






          share|cite|improve this answer



























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Your mapping is just fine.



            Notice, however, that $0 not in mathbbZ^+$ and $0 not in mathbbN$ and thus you do not need to have $frack2^mmapsto m-1$.



            Also, it is totally fine to write the mapping like you did, with



            $$frack2^m mapsto m$$



            If it confuses you, you can also instead define a one-to-one mapping from $mathbbN to M_k$ by



            $$m mapsto frack2^m$$






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • But then $mathbb N to M_k $ wouldn't prove that $M_k$ is countable, I need to show the function is onto I believe.
              – Pumpkin
              1 hour ago










            • not necessarily, you need to find one-to-one correspondence in that case since the function could be one-to-one but the cardinality of $M_k$ could be larger than $mathbb N$. Also you can find a mapping $mathbb N to mathbb R $ that is one-to-one but their cardinality is not the same
              – Pumpkin
              43 mins ago











            • @Pumpkin I may have misled you! I read "one-to-one" as "bijection" because of my native language. Sorry for that! "One-to-one" means injective, doesn't it?
              – RGS
              40 mins ago










            • Clarifying, If you find a bijection $mathbbN to M_k$ you show that $mathbbN$ and $M_k$ have the same cardinality, hence showing that $M_k$ is countable.
              – RGS
              39 mins ago










            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            );
            );
            , "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2980856%2fprove-the-set-of-all-dyadic-numbers-is-countable%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest






























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            4
            down vote













            The set $mathbbZ^+timesmathbbZ^+$ is countable and, by definition,$$beginarraycccmathbbZ^+timesmathbbZ^+&longrightarrow&textdyadic numbers\(k,n)&mapsto&dfrac k2^nendarray$$is surjective. Therefore, the set of dyadic numbers is either finite or countable. But since it is infinite, it is countable.






            share|cite|improve this answer
























              up vote
              4
              down vote













              The set $mathbbZ^+timesmathbbZ^+$ is countable and, by definition,$$beginarraycccmathbbZ^+timesmathbbZ^+&longrightarrow&textdyadic numbers\(k,n)&mapsto&dfrac k2^nendarray$$is surjective. Therefore, the set of dyadic numbers is either finite or countable. But since it is infinite, it is countable.






              share|cite|improve this answer






















                up vote
                4
                down vote










                up vote
                4
                down vote









                The set $mathbbZ^+timesmathbbZ^+$ is countable and, by definition,$$beginarraycccmathbbZ^+timesmathbbZ^+&longrightarrow&textdyadic numbers\(k,n)&mapsto&dfrac k2^nendarray$$is surjective. Therefore, the set of dyadic numbers is either finite or countable. But since it is infinite, it is countable.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                The set $mathbbZ^+timesmathbbZ^+$ is countable and, by definition,$$beginarraycccmathbbZ^+timesmathbbZ^+&longrightarrow&textdyadic numbers\(k,n)&mapsto&dfrac k2^nendarray$$is surjective. Therefore, the set of dyadic numbers is either finite or countable. But since it is infinite, it is countable.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 1 hour ago









                José Carlos Santos

                134k17108197




                134k17108197




















                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote













                    Your mapping is just fine.



                    Notice, however, that $0 not in mathbbZ^+$ and $0 not in mathbbN$ and thus you do not need to have $frack2^mmapsto m-1$.



                    Also, it is totally fine to write the mapping like you did, with



                    $$frack2^m mapsto m$$



                    If it confuses you, you can also instead define a one-to-one mapping from $mathbbN to M_k$ by



                    $$m mapsto frack2^m$$






                    share|cite|improve this answer




















                    • But then $mathbb N to M_k $ wouldn't prove that $M_k$ is countable, I need to show the function is onto I believe.
                      – Pumpkin
                      1 hour ago










                    • not necessarily, you need to find one-to-one correspondence in that case since the function could be one-to-one but the cardinality of $M_k$ could be larger than $mathbb N$. Also you can find a mapping $mathbb N to mathbb R $ that is one-to-one but their cardinality is not the same
                      – Pumpkin
                      43 mins ago











                    • @Pumpkin I may have misled you! I read "one-to-one" as "bijection" because of my native language. Sorry for that! "One-to-one" means injective, doesn't it?
                      – RGS
                      40 mins ago










                    • Clarifying, If you find a bijection $mathbbN to M_k$ you show that $mathbbN$ and $M_k$ have the same cardinality, hence showing that $M_k$ is countable.
                      – RGS
                      39 mins ago














                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote













                    Your mapping is just fine.



                    Notice, however, that $0 not in mathbbZ^+$ and $0 not in mathbbN$ and thus you do not need to have $frack2^mmapsto m-1$.



                    Also, it is totally fine to write the mapping like you did, with



                    $$frack2^m mapsto m$$



                    If it confuses you, you can also instead define a one-to-one mapping from $mathbbN to M_k$ by



                    $$m mapsto frack2^m$$






                    share|cite|improve this answer




















                    • But then $mathbb N to M_k $ wouldn't prove that $M_k$ is countable, I need to show the function is onto I believe.
                      – Pumpkin
                      1 hour ago










                    • not necessarily, you need to find one-to-one correspondence in that case since the function could be one-to-one but the cardinality of $M_k$ could be larger than $mathbb N$. Also you can find a mapping $mathbb N to mathbb R $ that is one-to-one but their cardinality is not the same
                      – Pumpkin
                      43 mins ago











                    • @Pumpkin I may have misled you! I read "one-to-one" as "bijection" because of my native language. Sorry for that! "One-to-one" means injective, doesn't it?
                      – RGS
                      40 mins ago










                    • Clarifying, If you find a bijection $mathbbN to M_k$ you show that $mathbbN$ and $M_k$ have the same cardinality, hence showing that $M_k$ is countable.
                      – RGS
                      39 mins ago












                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote









                    Your mapping is just fine.



                    Notice, however, that $0 not in mathbbZ^+$ and $0 not in mathbbN$ and thus you do not need to have $frack2^mmapsto m-1$.



                    Also, it is totally fine to write the mapping like you did, with



                    $$frack2^m mapsto m$$



                    If it confuses you, you can also instead define a one-to-one mapping from $mathbbN to M_k$ by



                    $$m mapsto frack2^m$$






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    Your mapping is just fine.



                    Notice, however, that $0 not in mathbbZ^+$ and $0 not in mathbbN$ and thus you do not need to have $frack2^mmapsto m-1$.



                    Also, it is totally fine to write the mapping like you did, with



                    $$frack2^m mapsto m$$



                    If it confuses you, you can also instead define a one-to-one mapping from $mathbbN to M_k$ by



                    $$m mapsto frack2^m$$







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered 1 hour ago









                    RGS

                    8,59211129




                    8,59211129











                    • But then $mathbb N to M_k $ wouldn't prove that $M_k$ is countable, I need to show the function is onto I believe.
                      – Pumpkin
                      1 hour ago










                    • not necessarily, you need to find one-to-one correspondence in that case since the function could be one-to-one but the cardinality of $M_k$ could be larger than $mathbb N$. Also you can find a mapping $mathbb N to mathbb R $ that is one-to-one but their cardinality is not the same
                      – Pumpkin
                      43 mins ago











                    • @Pumpkin I may have misled you! I read "one-to-one" as "bijection" because of my native language. Sorry for that! "One-to-one" means injective, doesn't it?
                      – RGS
                      40 mins ago










                    • Clarifying, If you find a bijection $mathbbN to M_k$ you show that $mathbbN$ and $M_k$ have the same cardinality, hence showing that $M_k$ is countable.
                      – RGS
                      39 mins ago
















                    • But then $mathbb N to M_k $ wouldn't prove that $M_k$ is countable, I need to show the function is onto I believe.
                      – Pumpkin
                      1 hour ago










                    • not necessarily, you need to find one-to-one correspondence in that case since the function could be one-to-one but the cardinality of $M_k$ could be larger than $mathbb N$. Also you can find a mapping $mathbb N to mathbb R $ that is one-to-one but their cardinality is not the same
                      – Pumpkin
                      43 mins ago











                    • @Pumpkin I may have misled you! I read "one-to-one" as "bijection" because of my native language. Sorry for that! "One-to-one" means injective, doesn't it?
                      – RGS
                      40 mins ago










                    • Clarifying, If you find a bijection $mathbbN to M_k$ you show that $mathbbN$ and $M_k$ have the same cardinality, hence showing that $M_k$ is countable.
                      – RGS
                      39 mins ago















                    But then $mathbb N to M_k $ wouldn't prove that $M_k$ is countable, I need to show the function is onto I believe.
                    – Pumpkin
                    1 hour ago




                    But then $mathbb N to M_k $ wouldn't prove that $M_k$ is countable, I need to show the function is onto I believe.
                    – Pumpkin
                    1 hour ago












                    not necessarily, you need to find one-to-one correspondence in that case since the function could be one-to-one but the cardinality of $M_k$ could be larger than $mathbb N$. Also you can find a mapping $mathbb N to mathbb R $ that is one-to-one but their cardinality is not the same
                    – Pumpkin
                    43 mins ago





                    not necessarily, you need to find one-to-one correspondence in that case since the function could be one-to-one but the cardinality of $M_k$ could be larger than $mathbb N$. Also you can find a mapping $mathbb N to mathbb R $ that is one-to-one but their cardinality is not the same
                    – Pumpkin
                    43 mins ago













                    @Pumpkin I may have misled you! I read "one-to-one" as "bijection" because of my native language. Sorry for that! "One-to-one" means injective, doesn't it?
                    – RGS
                    40 mins ago




                    @Pumpkin I may have misled you! I read "one-to-one" as "bijection" because of my native language. Sorry for that! "One-to-one" means injective, doesn't it?
                    – RGS
                    40 mins ago












                    Clarifying, If you find a bijection $mathbbN to M_k$ you show that $mathbbN$ and $M_k$ have the same cardinality, hence showing that $M_k$ is countable.
                    – RGS
                    39 mins ago




                    Clarifying, If you find a bijection $mathbbN to M_k$ you show that $mathbbN$ and $M_k$ have the same cardinality, hence showing that $M_k$ is countable.
                    – RGS
                    39 mins ago

















                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2980856%2fprove-the-set-of-all-dyadic-numbers-is-countable%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest













































































                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                    Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                    How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?