Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The text I'm reading proves uncountability of the Cantor's set by showing that the Cantor's function is a surjective map from the Cantor's set onto [0, 1]. 

I think that it can be shown by direct use of the Cantor's diagonal argument for the Cantor's set, i.e., without use of the Cantor's function.

Am I right or am I missing something?

Posted
Just now, Genady said:

The text I'm reading proves uncountability of the Cantor's set by showing that the Cantor's function is a surjective map from the Cantor's set onto [0, 1]. 

I think that it can be shown by direct use of the Cantor's diagonal argument for the Cantor's set, i.e., without use of the Cantor's function.

Am I right or am I missing something?

The [0,1] map is probably the standard way of doing this but there are others eg in ternary.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.