$omega^omega$ correspondence with $mathbb R$-irrationality












-1












$begingroup$


Here in the second comment I do not understand why $omega^omega$ corresponds to irrational numbers? :
In my experience one typically identifies $ω^ω$ with the irrational elements of R; and then we call them "reals" because they are equinumerous, and in particular "isomorphic up to a countable set".



QUESTION: What can we say about irrationality of $f=(2,2,2,2,...)$ goes to $(0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,...)$
which is not irrational since it repeats the $0,0,1$ pattern forever,right? And yet, it doesn't end wiht eventually all $1$'s.






continuity real-numbers integers natural-numbers







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The usual correspondence maps elements of $omega^omega$ to infinite continued fractions, i.e., irrationals in $(0,1)$. It is not clear at all what the example you give is supposed to be.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Jan 3 at 16:40






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The mapping that Noah Schweber gave in his post is not the one I was talking about. He does mention the one I was talking about in the sentence right before: it is the mapping that takes $(a_1, a_2, a_3, ldots)$ to $frac 1{a_1 + frac1{a_2 + frac1{a_3 + cdots}}}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    Jan 3 at 16:42










  • $begingroup$
    @MeesdeVries That explains my question, at least partially. However, how do I prove that all such $f's$ from $omega$ to $omega$ get map to irrationals via this continued fractions? What if there is a tail of $0$'s? Do they also map to irrational numbers?
    $endgroup$
    – user122424
    Jan 3 at 16:48








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In particular, $(2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, ldots)$ goes to an $x$ satisfying $x = frac1{2 + x}$, so $x = sqrt2 - 1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    Jan 3 at 16:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @zwim The OP is using the notation correctly: ordinals are sets, and in particular $omega$ is the set of all finite ordinals, and is generally used instead of "$mathbb{N}$" in logic.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Jan 3 at 17:45
















-1












$begingroup$


Here in the second comment I do not understand why $omega^omega$ corresponds to irrational numbers? :
In my experience one typically identifies $ω^ω$ with the irrational elements of R; and then we call them "reals" because they are equinumerous, and in particular "isomorphic up to a countable set".



QUESTION: What can we say about irrationality of $f=(2,2,2,2,...)$ goes to $(0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,...)$
which is not irrational since it repeats the $0,0,1$ pattern forever,right? And yet, it doesn't end wiht eventually all $1$'s.






continuity real-numbers integers natural-numbers







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The usual correspondence maps elements of $omega^omega$ to infinite continued fractions, i.e., irrationals in $(0,1)$. It is not clear at all what the example you give is supposed to be.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Jan 3 at 16:40






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The mapping that Noah Schweber gave in his post is not the one I was talking about. He does mention the one I was talking about in the sentence right before: it is the mapping that takes $(a_1, a_2, a_3, ldots)$ to $frac 1{a_1 + frac1{a_2 + frac1{a_3 + cdots}}}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    Jan 3 at 16:42










  • $begingroup$
    @MeesdeVries That explains my question, at least partially. However, how do I prove that all such $f's$ from $omega$ to $omega$ get map to irrationals via this continued fractions? What if there is a tail of $0$'s? Do they also map to irrational numbers?
    $endgroup$
    – user122424
    Jan 3 at 16:48








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In particular, $(2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, ldots)$ goes to an $x$ satisfying $x = frac1{2 + x}$, so $x = sqrt2 - 1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    Jan 3 at 16:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @zwim The OP is using the notation correctly: ordinals are sets, and in particular $omega$ is the set of all finite ordinals, and is generally used instead of "$mathbb{N}$" in logic.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Jan 3 at 17:45














-1












-1








-1





$begingroup$


Here in the second comment I do not understand why $omega^omega$ corresponds to irrational numbers? :
In my experience one typically identifies $ω^ω$ with the irrational elements of R; and then we call them "reals" because they are equinumerous, and in particular "isomorphic up to a countable set".



QUESTION: What can we say about irrationality of $f=(2,2,2,2,...)$ goes to $(0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,...)$
which is not irrational since it repeats the $0,0,1$ pattern forever,right? And yet, it doesn't end wiht eventually all $1$'s.






continuity real-numbers integers natural-numbers







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Here in the second comment I do not understand why $omega^omega$ corresponds to irrational numbers? :
In my experience one typically identifies $ω^ω$ with the irrational elements of R; and then we call them "reals" because they are equinumerous, and in particular "isomorphic up to a countable set".



QUESTION: What can we say about irrationality of $f=(2,2,2,2,...)$ goes to $(0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0,...)$
which is not irrational since it repeats the $0,0,1$ pattern forever,right? And yet, it doesn't end wiht eventually all $1$'s.






continuity real-numbers integers natural-numbers




continuity real-numbers integers natural-numbers






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 3 at 16:39







user122424

















asked Jan 3 at 16:31









user122424user122424

1,1462716




1,1462716








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The usual correspondence maps elements of $omega^omega$ to infinite continued fractions, i.e., irrationals in $(0,1)$. It is not clear at all what the example you give is supposed to be.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Jan 3 at 16:40






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The mapping that Noah Schweber gave in his post is not the one I was talking about. He does mention the one I was talking about in the sentence right before: it is the mapping that takes $(a_1, a_2, a_3, ldots)$ to $frac 1{a_1 + frac1{a_2 + frac1{a_3 + cdots}}}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    Jan 3 at 16:42










  • $begingroup$
    @MeesdeVries That explains my question, at least partially. However, how do I prove that all such $f's$ from $omega$ to $omega$ get map to irrationals via this continued fractions? What if there is a tail of $0$'s? Do they also map to irrational numbers?
    $endgroup$
    – user122424
    Jan 3 at 16:48








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In particular, $(2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, ldots)$ goes to an $x$ satisfying $x = frac1{2 + x}$, so $x = sqrt2 - 1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    Jan 3 at 16:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @zwim The OP is using the notation correctly: ordinals are sets, and in particular $omega$ is the set of all finite ordinals, and is generally used instead of "$mathbb{N}$" in logic.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Jan 3 at 17:45














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The usual correspondence maps elements of $omega^omega$ to infinite continued fractions, i.e., irrationals in $(0,1)$. It is not clear at all what the example you give is supposed to be.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Jan 3 at 16:40






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The mapping that Noah Schweber gave in his post is not the one I was talking about. He does mention the one I was talking about in the sentence right before: it is the mapping that takes $(a_1, a_2, a_3, ldots)$ to $frac 1{a_1 + frac1{a_2 + frac1{a_3 + cdots}}}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    Jan 3 at 16:42










  • $begingroup$
    @MeesdeVries That explains my question, at least partially. However, how do I prove that all such $f's$ from $omega$ to $omega$ get map to irrationals via this continued fractions? What if there is a tail of $0$'s? Do they also map to irrational numbers?
    $endgroup$
    – user122424
    Jan 3 at 16:48








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In particular, $(2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, ldots)$ goes to an $x$ satisfying $x = frac1{2 + x}$, so $x = sqrt2 - 1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mees de Vries
    Jan 3 at 16:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @zwim The OP is using the notation correctly: ordinals are sets, and in particular $omega$ is the set of all finite ordinals, and is generally used instead of "$mathbb{N}$" in logic.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Jan 3 at 17:45








2




2




$begingroup$
The usual correspondence maps elements of $omega^omega$ to infinite continued fractions, i.e., irrationals in $(0,1)$. It is not clear at all what the example you give is supposed to be.
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Jan 3 at 16:40




$begingroup$
The usual correspondence maps elements of $omega^omega$ to infinite continued fractions, i.e., irrationals in $(0,1)$. It is not clear at all what the example you give is supposed to be.
$endgroup$
– Andrés E. Caicedo
Jan 3 at 16:40




1




1




$begingroup$
The mapping that Noah Schweber gave in his post is not the one I was talking about. He does mention the one I was talking about in the sentence right before: it is the mapping that takes $(a_1, a_2, a_3, ldots)$ to $frac 1{a_1 + frac1{a_2 + frac1{a_3 + cdots}}}$.
$endgroup$
– Mees de Vries
Jan 3 at 16:42




$begingroup$
The mapping that Noah Schweber gave in his post is not the one I was talking about. He does mention the one I was talking about in the sentence right before: it is the mapping that takes $(a_1, a_2, a_3, ldots)$ to $frac 1{a_1 + frac1{a_2 + frac1{a_3 + cdots}}}$.
$endgroup$
– Mees de Vries
Jan 3 at 16:42












$begingroup$
@MeesdeVries That explains my question, at least partially. However, how do I prove that all such $f's$ from $omega$ to $omega$ get map to irrationals via this continued fractions? What if there is a tail of $0$'s? Do they also map to irrational numbers?
$endgroup$
– user122424
Jan 3 at 16:48






$begingroup$
@MeesdeVries That explains my question, at least partially. However, how do I prove that all such $f's$ from $omega$ to $omega$ get map to irrationals via this continued fractions? What if there is a tail of $0$'s? Do they also map to irrational numbers?
$endgroup$
– user122424
Jan 3 at 16:48






1




1




$begingroup$
In particular, $(2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, ldots)$ goes to an $x$ satisfying $x = frac1{2 + x}$, so $x = sqrt2 - 1$.
$endgroup$
– Mees de Vries
Jan 3 at 16:49




$begingroup$
In particular, $(2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, ldots)$ goes to an $x$ satisfying $x = frac1{2 + x}$, so $x = sqrt2 - 1$.
$endgroup$
– Mees de Vries
Jan 3 at 16:49




1




1




$begingroup$
@zwim The OP is using the notation correctly: ordinals are sets, and in particular $omega$ is the set of all finite ordinals, and is generally used instead of "$mathbb{N}$" in logic.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Jan 3 at 17:45




$begingroup$
@zwim The OP is using the notation correctly: ordinals are sets, and in particular $omega$ is the set of all finite ordinals, and is generally used instead of "$mathbb{N}$" in logic.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Jan 3 at 17:45










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

As noted above, you're conflating two different homeomorphisms between $omega^omega$ and $mathbb{R}setminusmathbb{Q}$. It seems you're most interested in the continued fraction map, so let me say a bit about that one.



Given an infinite sequence $A=(a_i)_{iinomega}$ of natural numbers - which in logic include $0$, so you'll see some "$1+$"s here which you won't in other contexts - the corresponding continued fraction is $$F_A=(1+a_0)+{1over (1+a_1)+{1over (1+a_2)+{1over ...}}}.$$ The following is a basic fact about continued fractions (and not a result from logic):




$F_A$ is always defined and irrational and every irrational $alpha$ is equal to $F_A$ for exactly one $A$.




See here for a proof. This implies immediately that the map $Amapsto F_A$ is a bijection from $omega^omega$ to $mathbb{R}setminus mathbb{Q}$, and with a bit of thought we can also see that it's continuous in both directions.




Note that the proof of the basic fact above is nontrivial. This is the main virtue of the bijection mentioned in my answer to your previous question: it's less natural but much easier to see that it is indeed a homeomorphism.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @zwim I don't think you read my answer carefully - I used $1+a_i$ instead of $a_i$ to deal with precisely this issue. E.g. taking $a_0=a_1=a_2=...=0$, we get $F_A=varphi$. I believe my answer is correct as written.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Jan 3 at 20:29












  • $begingroup$
    Is there a continuous bijection between $omega^omega$ and entire $mathbb R$?
    $endgroup$
    – user122424
    Jan 19 at 19:06












  • $begingroup$
    @user122424 Yes - indeed, if $mathcal{X}$ is any "interesting" (= nonempty and perfect) Polish space, then there is a continuous bijection from $omega^omega$ to $mathcal{X}$. I believe this was first proved by Sierpinski; it should be in Kechris' descriptive set theory book. Of course, order matters here - as I noted above, there is not even any nonconstant continuous map from $mathbb{R}$ to $omega^omega$.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Jan 19 at 19:23













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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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%2f3060748%2fomega-omega-correspondence-with-mathbb-r-irrationality%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1












$begingroup$

As noted above, you're conflating two different homeomorphisms between $omega^omega$ and $mathbb{R}setminusmathbb{Q}$. It seems you're most interested in the continued fraction map, so let me say a bit about that one.



Given an infinite sequence $A=(a_i)_{iinomega}$ of natural numbers - which in logic include $0$, so you'll see some "$1+$"s here which you won't in other contexts - the corresponding continued fraction is $$F_A=(1+a_0)+{1over (1+a_1)+{1over (1+a_2)+{1over ...}}}.$$ The following is a basic fact about continued fractions (and not a result from logic):




$F_A$ is always defined and irrational and every irrational $alpha$ is equal to $F_A$ for exactly one $A$.




See here for a proof. This implies immediately that the map $Amapsto F_A$ is a bijection from $omega^omega$ to $mathbb{R}setminus mathbb{Q}$, and with a bit of thought we can also see that it's continuous in both directions.




Note that the proof of the basic fact above is nontrivial. This is the main virtue of the bijection mentioned in my answer to your previous question: it's less natural but much easier to see that it is indeed a homeomorphism.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @zwim I don't think you read my answer carefully - I used $1+a_i$ instead of $a_i$ to deal with precisely this issue. E.g. taking $a_0=a_1=a_2=...=0$, we get $F_A=varphi$. I believe my answer is correct as written.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Jan 3 at 20:29












  • $begingroup$
    Is there a continuous bijection between $omega^omega$ and entire $mathbb R$?
    $endgroup$
    – user122424
    Jan 19 at 19:06












  • $begingroup$
    @user122424 Yes - indeed, if $mathcal{X}$ is any "interesting" (= nonempty and perfect) Polish space, then there is a continuous bijection from $omega^omega$ to $mathcal{X}$. I believe this was first proved by Sierpinski; it should be in Kechris' descriptive set theory book. Of course, order matters here - as I noted above, there is not even any nonconstant continuous map from $mathbb{R}$ to $omega^omega$.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Jan 19 at 19:23


















1












$begingroup$

As noted above, you're conflating two different homeomorphisms between $omega^omega$ and $mathbb{R}setminusmathbb{Q}$. It seems you're most interested in the continued fraction map, so let me say a bit about that one.



Given an infinite sequence $A=(a_i)_{iinomega}$ of natural numbers - which in logic include $0$, so you'll see some "$1+$"s here which you won't in other contexts - the corresponding continued fraction is $$F_A=(1+a_0)+{1over (1+a_1)+{1over (1+a_2)+{1over ...}}}.$$ The following is a basic fact about continued fractions (and not a result from logic):




$F_A$ is always defined and irrational and every irrational $alpha$ is equal to $F_A$ for exactly one $A$.




See here for a proof. This implies immediately that the map $Amapsto F_A$ is a bijection from $omega^omega$ to $mathbb{R}setminus mathbb{Q}$, and with a bit of thought we can also see that it's continuous in both directions.




Note that the proof of the basic fact above is nontrivial. This is the main virtue of the bijection mentioned in my answer to your previous question: it's less natural but much easier to see that it is indeed a homeomorphism.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @zwim I don't think you read my answer carefully - I used $1+a_i$ instead of $a_i$ to deal with precisely this issue. E.g. taking $a_0=a_1=a_2=...=0$, we get $F_A=varphi$. I believe my answer is correct as written.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Jan 3 at 20:29












  • $begingroup$
    Is there a continuous bijection between $omega^omega$ and entire $mathbb R$?
    $endgroup$
    – user122424
    Jan 19 at 19:06












  • $begingroup$
    @user122424 Yes - indeed, if $mathcal{X}$ is any "interesting" (= nonempty and perfect) Polish space, then there is a continuous bijection from $omega^omega$ to $mathcal{X}$. I believe this was first proved by Sierpinski; it should be in Kechris' descriptive set theory book. Of course, order matters here - as I noted above, there is not even any nonconstant continuous map from $mathbb{R}$ to $omega^omega$.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Jan 19 at 19:23
















1












1








1





$begingroup$

As noted above, you're conflating two different homeomorphisms between $omega^omega$ and $mathbb{R}setminusmathbb{Q}$. It seems you're most interested in the continued fraction map, so let me say a bit about that one.



Given an infinite sequence $A=(a_i)_{iinomega}$ of natural numbers - which in logic include $0$, so you'll see some "$1+$"s here which you won't in other contexts - the corresponding continued fraction is $$F_A=(1+a_0)+{1over (1+a_1)+{1over (1+a_2)+{1over ...}}}.$$ The following is a basic fact about continued fractions (and not a result from logic):




$F_A$ is always defined and irrational and every irrational $alpha$ is equal to $F_A$ for exactly one $A$.




See here for a proof. This implies immediately that the map $Amapsto F_A$ is a bijection from $omega^omega$ to $mathbb{R}setminus mathbb{Q}$, and with a bit of thought we can also see that it's continuous in both directions.




Note that the proof of the basic fact above is nontrivial. This is the main virtue of the bijection mentioned in my answer to your previous question: it's less natural but much easier to see that it is indeed a homeomorphism.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



As noted above, you're conflating two different homeomorphisms between $omega^omega$ and $mathbb{R}setminusmathbb{Q}$. It seems you're most interested in the continued fraction map, so let me say a bit about that one.



Given an infinite sequence $A=(a_i)_{iinomega}$ of natural numbers - which in logic include $0$, so you'll see some "$1+$"s here which you won't in other contexts - the corresponding continued fraction is $$F_A=(1+a_0)+{1over (1+a_1)+{1over (1+a_2)+{1over ...}}}.$$ The following is a basic fact about continued fractions (and not a result from logic):




$F_A$ is always defined and irrational and every irrational $alpha$ is equal to $F_A$ for exactly one $A$.




See here for a proof. This implies immediately that the map $Amapsto F_A$ is a bijection from $omega^omega$ to $mathbb{R}setminus mathbb{Q}$, and with a bit of thought we can also see that it's continuous in both directions.




Note that the proof of the basic fact above is nontrivial. This is the main virtue of the bijection mentioned in my answer to your previous question: it's less natural but much easier to see that it is indeed a homeomorphism.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 3 at 17:57

























answered Jan 3 at 17:49









Noah SchweberNoah Schweber

126k10150289




126k10150289








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @zwim I don't think you read my answer carefully - I used $1+a_i$ instead of $a_i$ to deal with precisely this issue. E.g. taking $a_0=a_1=a_2=...=0$, we get $F_A=varphi$. I believe my answer is correct as written.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Jan 3 at 20:29












  • $begingroup$
    Is there a continuous bijection between $omega^omega$ and entire $mathbb R$?
    $endgroup$
    – user122424
    Jan 19 at 19:06












  • $begingroup$
    @user122424 Yes - indeed, if $mathcal{X}$ is any "interesting" (= nonempty and perfect) Polish space, then there is a continuous bijection from $omega^omega$ to $mathcal{X}$. I believe this was first proved by Sierpinski; it should be in Kechris' descriptive set theory book. Of course, order matters here - as I noted above, there is not even any nonconstant continuous map from $mathbb{R}$ to $omega^omega$.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Jan 19 at 19:23
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @zwim I don't think you read my answer carefully - I used $1+a_i$ instead of $a_i$ to deal with precisely this issue. E.g. taking $a_0=a_1=a_2=...=0$, we get $F_A=varphi$. I believe my answer is correct as written.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Jan 3 at 20:29












  • $begingroup$
    Is there a continuous bijection between $omega^omega$ and entire $mathbb R$?
    $endgroup$
    – user122424
    Jan 19 at 19:06












  • $begingroup$
    @user122424 Yes - indeed, if $mathcal{X}$ is any "interesting" (= nonempty and perfect) Polish space, then there is a continuous bijection from $omega^omega$ to $mathcal{X}$. I believe this was first proved by Sierpinski; it should be in Kechris' descriptive set theory book. Of course, order matters here - as I noted above, there is not even any nonconstant continuous map from $mathbb{R}$ to $omega^omega$.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Jan 19 at 19:23










1




1




$begingroup$
@zwim I don't think you read my answer carefully - I used $1+a_i$ instead of $a_i$ to deal with precisely this issue. E.g. taking $a_0=a_1=a_2=...=0$, we get $F_A=varphi$. I believe my answer is correct as written.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Jan 3 at 20:29






$begingroup$
@zwim I don't think you read my answer carefully - I used $1+a_i$ instead of $a_i$ to deal with precisely this issue. E.g. taking $a_0=a_1=a_2=...=0$, we get $F_A=varphi$. I believe my answer is correct as written.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Jan 3 at 20:29














$begingroup$
Is there a continuous bijection between $omega^omega$ and entire $mathbb R$?
$endgroup$
– user122424
Jan 19 at 19:06






$begingroup$
Is there a continuous bijection between $omega^omega$ and entire $mathbb R$?
$endgroup$
– user122424
Jan 19 at 19:06














$begingroup$
@user122424 Yes - indeed, if $mathcal{X}$ is any "interesting" (= nonempty and perfect) Polish space, then there is a continuous bijection from $omega^omega$ to $mathcal{X}$. I believe this was first proved by Sierpinski; it should be in Kechris' descriptive set theory book. Of course, order matters here - as I noted above, there is not even any nonconstant continuous map from $mathbb{R}$ to $omega^omega$.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Jan 19 at 19:23






$begingroup$
@user122424 Yes - indeed, if $mathcal{X}$ is any "interesting" (= nonempty and perfect) Polish space, then there is a continuous bijection from $omega^omega$ to $mathcal{X}$. I believe this was first proved by Sierpinski; it should be in Kechris' descriptive set theory book. Of course, order matters here - as I noted above, there is not even any nonconstant continuous map from $mathbb{R}$ to $omega^omega$.
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Jan 19 at 19:23




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3060748%2fomega-omega-correspondence-with-mathbb-r-irrationality%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Ellipse (mathématiques)

Image
Pour les articles homonymes, voir Ellipse. L'ellipse est le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante. Section du cône ou projection du cercle. En géométrie, une ellipse est une courbe plane fermée obtenue par l’intersection d’un cône de révolution avec un plan, à condition que celui-ci coupe l'axe de rotation du cône ou du cylindre : c'est une conique d'excentricité strictement comprise entre 0 et 1. On peut également la définir comme le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante (sa construction par la méthode du jardinier est très simple). Dans la vie courante, l’ellipse est la forme qu'on perçoit en regardant un cercle en perspective, ou la figure formée par l’ombre d'un disque sur une surface plane. On retrouve aussi, en première approximation [ 1 ] , des ellipses dans les trajectoires des corps célestes (planètes, comètes ou satellites arti
Read more

Quarter-circle Tiles

Image
up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2
Read more

Mont Emei

Image
Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog
Read more