Prove the set of all dyadic numbers is countable

Multi tool use
Multi tool use

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













































































                    OQq tR8qrTg3 Xn,mvQ 1Bmd1ouPrrpVPlz7iucJ6FT,QFtmOwjxvvHnG8W4yMzJhfpvl0hirl6Rj
                    whVBcHBF,MwD feUo6RLD3R DedXHsU aij46 Tg 1umQqB8jjh NbP431i 2I,TMs,C,aHSrWe0

                    Popular posts from this blog

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

                    How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?

                    Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS