CS代考 EECS 70 Discrete Mathematics and Probability Theory Fall 2021 – cscodehelp代写

EECS 70 Discrete Mathematics and Probability Theory Fall 2021
To Infinity And Beyond: Countability and Computability
This note ties together two topics that might seem like they have nothing to do with each other. The nature of infinity (and more particularly, the distinction between different levels of infinity) and the fundamental nature of computation and proof. This note can only scratch the surface — if you want to understand this material more deeply, there are wonderful courses in the Math department as well as CS172 and graduate courses like EECS229A that will connect this material to the nature of information and compression as well.
Two finite sets have the same size if and only if their elements can be paired up, so that each element of one set has a unique partner in the other set, and vice versa. We formalize this through the concept of a bijection.
Consider a function (or mapping) f that maps elements of a set A (called the domain of f ) to elements of set B (called the range of f ). Since f is a function, it must specify, for each element x ∈ A (“input”), exactly one element f (x) ∈ B (“output”). Recall that we write this as f : A → B. We say that f is a bijection if every element a ∈ A has a unique image b = f (a) ∈ B, and every element b ∈ B has a unique pre-image a∈A: f(a)=b.
f is a one-to-one function (or an injection) if f maps distinct inputs to distinct outputs. More rigorously, f is one-to-one if the following holds: x ̸= y ⇒ f (x) ̸= f (y).
f is onto (or surjective) if it “hits” every element in the range (i.e., each element in the range has at least one pre-image). More precisely, a function f is onto if the following holds: (∀y ∃x)( f (x) = y).
Here are some simple examples to help visualize one-to-one and onto functions, and bijections:
One-to-one Onto Both (bijection)
a1a1a b22b
3d4c4d ABABAB
Note that, according to the above definitions, f is a bijectiofn(if0an)d=only0if.it5is b2oth1one4-to9-on3e an5d o6nto….
f(1) = 0 . 1 4 1 6 2 9 8 5 …
5×5 + 2×4 + 7×3 + 4x + 6
Exercise. Let f : A → B be a bijection. Show that f has an inverse f−1 : B → A that satisfies f−1(f(a)) = a
for all a ∈ A, and that f −1 is also a bijection. 1012102111221002110
EECS 70, Fall 2021, Note 11
f(2) = 0 . 9 4 7 8 2 7 1 2 …
f(3) = 0 . 5 3 0 9 8 1 7 5 … 1
f(0) = 0 . 1 4 0 0 0 …
012345 …
0100000 …
How can we determine whether two sets have the same cardinality (or “size”)? The answer to this question, reassuringly, lies in early grade school memories: by demonstrating a pairing between elements of the two sets. More formally, we need to demonstrate a bijection f between the two sets. The bijection sets up a one-to-one correspondence, or pairing, between elements of the two sets. We’ve seen above how this works for finite sets. In the rest of this lecture, we will see what it tells us about infinite sets.
Our first question about infinite sets is the following: Are there more natural numbers N than there are positive integers Z+? It is tempting to answer yes, since every positive integer is also a natural number, but the natural numbers have one extra element 0 ∈/ Z+. Upon more careful observation, though, we see that we can define a mapping between the natural numbers and the positive integers as follows:
N 012345… f↓ ↘↘↘↘↘↘
Z+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 …
Why is this mapping a bijection? Clearly, the function f : N → Z+ is onto because every positive integer is hit. And it is also one-to-one because no two natural numbers have the same image. (The image of n is f (n) = n + 1, so if f (n) = f (m) then we must have n = m.) Since we have shown a bijection between N and Z+, this tells us that there are as many natural numbers as there are positive integers! (Very) informally, we
have proved that “∞ + 1 = ∞.”
What about the set of even natural numbers 2N = {0, 2, 4, 6, …}? In the previous example the difference was just one element. But in this example, there seem to be twice as many natural numbers as there are even natural numbers. Surely, the cardinality of N must be larger than that of 2N since N contains all of the odd natural numbers as well? Though it might seem to be a more difficult task, let us attempt to find a bijection between the two sets using the following mapping:
N 012345… f↓ ↓↓↓↓↓↓
2N 0 2 4 6 8 10 …
The mapping in this example is also a bijection. f is clearly one-to-one, since distinct natural numbers get mapped to distinct even natural numbers (because f (n) = 2n). f is also onto, since every n in the range is hit: its pre-image is n2 . Since we have found a bijection between these two sets, this tells us that in fact N and 2N have the same cardinality!
What about the set of all integers, Z? At first glance, it may seem obvious that the set of integers is larger than the set of natural numbers, since it includes infinitely many negative numbers. However, as it turns out, it is possible to find a bijection between the two sets, meaning that the two sets have the same size! Consider the following mapping f :
EECS 70, Fall 2021, Note 11 2
0→0, 1→−1, 2→1, 3→−2, 4→2, …, 124→62, … In other words, our function is defined as follows:
􏰉 2x , if x is even −(x+1), if x is odd
We will prove that this function f : N → Z is a bijection, by first showing that it is one-to-one and then showing that it is onto.
Proof (one-to-one): Suppose f (x) = f (y). Then they both must have the same sign. Therefore either f (x) = x and f(y)= y,or f(x)= −(x+1) and f(y)= −(y+1). Inthefirstcase, f(x)= f(y)⇒ x = y ⇒x=y. Hence
x=y. Inthesecondcase, f(x)= f(y)⇒ −(x+1) = −(y+1) ⇒x=y. Soinbothcases f(x)= f(y)⇒x=y, 22
so f is injective.
Proof (onto): If y ∈ Z is non-negative, then f (2y) = y. Therefore, y has a pre-image. If y is negative, then
f (−(2y + 1)) = y. Therefore, y has a pre-image. Thus every y ∈ Z has a preimage, so f is onto.
Since f is a bijection, this tells us that N and Z have the same size.
Now for an important definition. We say that a set S is countable if there is a bijection between S and N or some subset of N. Thus any finite set S is countable (since there is a bijection between S and the subset {0, 1, 2, . . . , m − 1}, where m = |S| is the size of S). And we have already seen three examples of countable infinite sets: Z+ and 2N are obviously countable since they are themselves subsets of N; and Z is countable because we have just seen a bijection between it and N.
What about the set of all rational numbers? Recall that Q = { xy | x, y ∈ Z, y ̸= 0}. Surely there are more rational numbers than natural numbers? After all, there are infinitely many rational numbers between any two natural numbers. Surprisingly, the two sets have the same cardinality! To see this, let us introduce a slightly different way of comparing the cardinality of two sets.
If there is a one-to-one function f : A → B, then the cardinality of A is less than or equal to that of B. Now to show that the cardinality of A and B are the same we can show that |A| ≤ |B| and |B| ≤ |A|. This corresponds to showing that there is a one-to-one function f : A → B and a one-to-one function g : B → A. The existence of these two one-to-one functions implies that there is a bijection h : A → B, thus showing that A and B have the same cardinality. The proof of this fact, which is called the Cantor-Bernstein theorem, is actually quite hard, and we will skip it here.
Back to comparing the natural numbers and the integers. First it is obvious that |N| ≤ |Q| because N ⊆ Q. So our goal now is to prove that also |Q| ≤ |N|. To do this, we must exhibit an injection f : Q → N. The following picture of a spiral conveys the idea of this injection:
Each rational number ab (written in its lowest terms, so that gcd(a, b) = 1) is represented by the point (a, b) in the infinite two-dimensional grid shown (which corresponds to Z × Z, the set of all pairs of integers). Note that not all points on the grid are valid representations of rationals: e.g., all points on the x-axis have b = 0 so none are valid (except for (0, 0), which we take to represent the rational number 0); and points such as (2, 8) and (−1, −4) are not valid either as the rational number 14 is represented by (1, 4). But Z × Z certainly contains all rationals under this representation, so if we come up with an injection from Z × Z to N then this will also be an injection from Q to N (why?).
EECS 70, Fall 2021, Note 11 3
The idea is to map each pair (a, b) to its position along the spiral, starting at the origin. (Thus, e.g.,(0, 0) → 0, (1, 0) → 1, (1, 1) → 2, (0, 1) → 3, and so on.) It should be clear that this mapping maps every pair of integers injectively to a natural number, because each pair occupies a unique position along the spiral.
This tells us that |Q| ≤ |N|. Since also |N| ≤ |Q|, as we observed earlier, by the Cantor- N and Q have the same cardinality.
Exercise. Show that the set N × N of all ordered pairs of natural numbers is countable.
Our next example concerns the set of all binary strings (of any finite length), denoted {0,1}∗. Despite the fact that this set contains strings of unbounded length, it turns out to have the same cardinality as N. To see this, we set up a direct bijection f : {0, 1}∗ → N as follows. Note that it suffices to enumerate the elements of {0, 1}∗ in such a way that each string appears exactly once in the list. We then get our bijection by setting f (n) to be the nth string in the list. How do we enumerate the strings in {0, 1}∗ ? Well, it’s natural to list them in increasing order of length, and then (say) in lexicographic order (or, equivalently, numerically increasing order when viewed as binary numbers) within the strings of each length. This means that the list would look like
where ε denotes the empty string (the only string of length 0). It should be clear that this list contains each
binary string once and only once, so we get a bijection with N as desired.
Our final countable example is the set of all polynomials with natural number coefficients, which we denote N(x). To see that this set is countable, we will make use of (a variant of) the previous example. Note first that, by essentially the same argument as for {0,1}∗, we can see that the set of all ternary strings {0,1,2}∗ (that is, strings over the alphabet {0, 1, 2}) is countable. To see that N(x) is countable, it therefore suffices to exhibit an injection f : N(x) → {0,1,2}∗, which in turn will give an injection from N(x) to N. (It is obvious that there exists an injection from N to N(x), since each natural number n is itself trivially a polynomial, namely the constant polynomial n itself.)
How do we define f ? Let’s first consider an example, namely the polynomial p(x) = 5×5 + 2×4 + 7×3 + 4x + 6. We can list the coefficients of p(x) as follows: (5, 2, 7, 0, 4, 6). We can then write these coefficients as binary strings: (101, 10, 111, 0, 100, 110). Now, we can construct a ternary string where a “2″ is inserted as a separator between each binary coefficient (ignoring coefficients that are 0). Thus we map p(x) to a ternary string as illustrated below:
It is easy to check that this is an injection, since the original polynomial can be uniquely recovered from this ternary string by simply reading off the coefficients between each successive pair of 2’s. (Notice that this mapping f : N(x) → {0, 1, 2}∗ is not onto (and hence not a bijection) since many ternary strings will not be
EECS 70, Fall 2021, Note 11 4
f(0) = 0 . 5 2 1 4 9 3 5 6 … f(1) = 0 . 1 4 1 6 2 9 8 5 … f(2) = 0 . 9 4 7 8 2 7 1 2 … f(3) = 0 . 5 3 0 9 8 1 7 5 …
the image of any polynomials; this will be the case, for example, for any ternary strings that contain binary
0 12 345…
01 00 000…
10 00 000…
21 01 000…
subsequences with leading zeros.)
Hence we have an injection from N(x) to N, so N(x) is countable.
Cantor’s Diagonalization
f(0) = 0 . 1 4 0 0 0 … f(1) = 0 . 5 9 2 4 5 … f(2) = 0 . 2 1 4 2 1 …
5×5 + 2×4 + 7×3 + 4x + 6 1012102111221002110
We have established that N, Z, Q all have the same cardinality. What about R, the set of real numbers?
Surely they are countable too? After all, the rational numbers, like the real numbers, are dense (i.e., between
any two rational numbers a,b there is a rational number, namely a+b). In fact, between any two real 2
numbers there is always a rational number. It is really surprising, then, that there are more real numbers than rationals. That is, there is no bijection between the rationals (or the natural numbers) and the reals. We shall now prove this, using a beautiful argument due to Cantor that is known as diagonalization. In fact, we will show something even stronger: the real numbers in the interval [0, 1] are uncountable!
Exercise. Show how to find a rational number between any two (distinct) real numbers.
In preparation for the proof, recall that any real number can be written out uniquely as an infinite decimal with no trailing zeros. In particular, a real number in the interval [0,1] can be written as 0.d1d2d3 …. In this representation, we write for example 1 as 0.999…1, and 0.5 as 0.4999…. (Thus rational numbers will always be represented as recurring decimals, while irrational ones will be represented as non-recurring ones.
Importantly for us, all of these expressions will be infinitely long and unique.)
One-to-one Onto Both (bijection)
Theorem: The real interval R[0, 1] (and hence also the set of real numbers R) is uncountable.
Proof: Suppose towards a contradiction that there is a bijection f : N → R[0, 1]. Then, we can enumerate
the real numbers in an infinite list f (0), f (1), f (2), . . . as follows:
5×5 + 2×4 + 7×3 + 4x + 6 1012102111221002110
f(0) = 0 . 1 4 0 0 0 …
The number circled in the diagonal can be viewed as some real number r = 0.5479 . . ., since it is an infinite
f(0) = 0 . 5 2 1 4 9 3 5 6 … f(1) = 0 . 1 4 1 6 2 9 8 5 … f(2) = 0 . 9 4 7 8 2 7 1 2 … f(3) = 0 . 5 3 0 9 8 1 7 5 …
0 1 2 3 4 5…
0 1 0 0 0 0 0…
f(1) = 0 . 5 9 2 4 5 …
decimal expansion. Now consider the real number s obtained by modifying every digit of r, say by replacing
1 0 0 0 0 0 0…
f(2) = 0 . 2 1 4 2 1 …
each digit d with d + 2 mod 10; thus in our example above, s = 0.7691 . . .. We claim that s does not occur
2 1 0 1 0 0 0…
in our infinite list of real numbers. Suppose for contradiction that it did, and that it was the nth number in 3
the list, f (n). But by construction s differs from f (n) in the (n + 1)th digit, so these two numbers cannot be equal! So we have constructed a real number s that is not in the range of f . But this contradicts the assertion that f is a bijection. Thus the real numbers are not countable.
1To see this, write x = .999…. Then 10x = 9.999…, so 9x = 9, and thus x = 1.
EECS 70, Fall 2021, Note 11 5
One-to-one Onto Both (bijection)
a1a1a b22b
Let us remark that the reason that we modified each digit by adding 2 mod 10 as opposed to adding 1 is
that the same real number can have two decimal expansions; for example 0.999… = 1.000…. But if two
real numbers differ by more than 1 in any digit they cannot be equal. Thus we are completely safe in our
assertion. (An alternative way of avoiding this potential pitfall is to replace each digit by some different
digit chosen from the range {1,2,…,8}.)5×5 + 2×4 + 7×3 + 4x + 6
1012102111221002110 f(3) = 0 . 5 3 0 9 8 1 7 5 …
f(2) = 0 . 9 4 7 8 2 7 1 2 …
With Cantor’s diagonalization method, we proved that R is uncountable. What happens if we apply the same
method to Q, in a (futile) attempt to show the rationals are uncountable? Well, suppose for contradiction that our bijective function f : N → Q[0, 1] produces the following mapping:
0 1 23 4 5 … 0 1 0 00 0 0 … 1 0 0 00 0 0 … 2 1 0 10 0 0 … 3
This time, let us consider the number q obtained by modifying every digit of the diagonal, say by replacing each digit d with d + 2 mod 10. Then in the above example q = 0.316…, and we want to try to show that it does not occur in our infinite list of rational numbers. However, we do not know that q is rational (in fact, it is extremely unlikely for the decimal expansion of q to be periodic). This is why the method fails when applied to the rationals. When dealing with the reals, the modified diagonal number was guaranteed to be a real number.
The Cantor Set
The Cantor set is a remarkable set construction involving the real numbers in the interval [0,1]. The set is defined by repeatedly removing the middle thirds of line segments infinitely many times, starting with the original interval. For example, the first iteration would involve the removal of the (open) interval ( 13 , 23 ), leaving [0, 13 ] ∪ [ 23 , 1]. We then proceed to remove the middle third of each of these two remaining intervals, and so on. The first three iterations are illustrated below:
The Cantor set contains all points that have not been removed: C = {x : x not removed}. How much of the original unit interval is left after this process is repeated infinitely? Well, we start with an interval of length 1, and after the first iteration we remove 31 of it, leaving us with 23 . For the second iteration, we keep
23 × 23 of the original interval. As we repeat these iterations infinitely often, we are left with: 1−→ 23 −→ 32 ×23 −→ 23 ×32 ×23 −→···−→ lim(32)n =0
According to the calculations, we have removed everything from the original interval! Does this mean that the Cantor set is empty? No, it doesn’t. What it means is that the measure of the Cantor set is zero; the Cantor set consists of isolated points and does not contain any non-trivial intervals. In fact, not only is the Cantor set non-empty, it is uncountable!2
2It’s actually easy to see that C contains at least countably many points, namely the endpoints of the intervals in the
f(0) = 0 . 5 2 1 4 9 3 5 6 …
f(1) = 0 . 1 4 1 6 2 9 8 5 …
construction—i.e., numbers such as 1 , 2 , 1 , 1 etc. It’s less obvious that C also contains various other points, such as 1 and
3 . (Why?) 10
3 3 9 27 4
EECS 70, Fall 2021, Note 11
f(0) = 0 . 1 4 0 0 0 … f(1) = 0 . 5 9 2 4 5 … f(2) = 0 . 2 1 4 2 1 …
To see why, let us first make a few observations about ternary strings. In ternary notation, all strings consist of digits (called “trits”) from the set {0, 1, 2}. All real numbers in the interval [0, 1] can be written in ternary notation. (E.g., 13 can be written as 0.1, or equivalently as 0.0222…, and 23 can be written as 0.2 or as 0.1222….) Thus, in the first iteration, the middle third removed contains all ternary numbers of the form 0.1xxxxx. The ternary numbers left after the first removal can all be expressed either in the form 0.0xxxxx… or 0.2xxxxx… (We have to be a little careful here with the endpoints of the intervals; but we can handle them by writing 13 as 0.02222… and 23 as 0.2.) The second iteration removes ternary numbers of the form 0.01xxxxx and 0.21xxxxx (i.e., any number with 1 in the second position). The third iteration removes 1’s in the third position, and so on. Therefore, what remains is all ternary numbers with only 0’s and 2’s. Thus we have shown that
C = {x ∈ [0, 1] : x has a ternary representation consisting only of 0’s and 2’s}.
Finally, using this characterization, we can set up an onto map f from C to [0, 1]. Since we already know that [0, 1] is uncountable, this implies that C is uncountable also. The map f is defined as follows: for x ∈ C, f (x) is defined as the binary decimal obtained by dividing each digit of the ternary representation of x by 2. Thus, for example, if x = 0.0220 (in ternary), then f (x) is the binary decimal 0.0110. But the set of

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *