Does there exist a function f : R → R that is continuous on exactly the rational numbers?
Note: The following function f : R → R is discontinuous on exactly the rational numbers:
Index all the rational numbers using the bijection function
a
:
N
→
Q
.
Define
f
:
R
→
R
as
f
(
x
)
=
a
(
n
)
<
x
∑
2
−
n
.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Woah, I didn't know of such a theorem (Baire Category), is it necessary for us to know such a concept in order to (properly) solve this problem?
Log in to reply
The only proof that Q c is not a countable union of closed sets (that I know of) is the one using Baire Category theorem. I don't really think there's a way around that without complicating stuff up.
I'll try asking my probability prof about this (as he was the one who posed this problem) and get back to you on this.
Just an interesting thing : If we let X be a random variable such that probability of X = α is zero if α is irrational and 2 − n if α = r n where r n is an enumeration of the rationals, then the function f ( α ) defined in the problem note is just probability that X < α
I asked my probability prof about a solution that tries to avoid the Baire category theorem, but he said it is essential. You might use it implicitly, but you must use it. So, probably there's no easy way to prove this without Baire.
i could not understand a word of the solution i know i am dumb
A related result is Froda's theorem : Let f be a monotone function defined on an interval I . Then the set of discontinuities is at most countable.
Yes. In fact something more general is true. If f is a real valued function defined on U ⊆ R then the set of points of simple discontinuities of f is at most countable (the example in the problem shows that the set can indeed be infinite). As monotonic functions can have only simple discontinuities, what you say follows.
What I don't get is how this helps in solving the question posed. In fact, I'm not able to see any direct relation with the problem posed at all. It'd be helpful if you could complete the solution as it is not really obvious (at least to me) what you intend to do.
Log in to reply
I only sought to mention a related result :)
Log in to reply
Oh! Right. You could written a comment you know...
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
We first show a necessary condition for a function to be discontinuous on a certain set and then show that Q c = R ∖ Q doesn't satisfy this condition.
Proof of lemma:
Define ω f ( x ) as follows:
ω f ( a ) = \substack a ∈ I I is an open interval in f x , y ∈ I sup ∣ f ( x ) − f ( y ) ∣
Note that ω f ( x ) = 0 ⟺ f is continuous at x
Hence, set of points where f is discontinuous is exactly the following : { x : ω f ( x ) > 0 } = n = 1 ⋃ ∞ { x : ω f ( x ) ≥ n 1 }
So, we'll be done if we show the following are open : { x : ω f ( x ) < r }
If ω f ( a ) < r then there is an open interval I such that a is in I and sup x , y ∈ I ∣ f ( x ) − f ( y ) ∣ < r . But then, ω f ( x ) < r for every x ∈ I . This concludes the proof.
Bonus: On a metric space X with no isolated points, deduce a necessary and sufficient condition for the existance of a function f : X → R such that the function is continuous on A ⊂ X and discontinuous everywhere else.
By the lemma, we'll be done if we show that Q c can't be written as a countable union of closed sets.
We proceed by contradiction.
So, suppose Q c = ∪ n = 1 ∞ F n where F n are closed.
As Q c has empty interior, so do F n .
As Q = ∪ n = 1 ∞ { r n } where r n is an enumeration of rationals, we can write R as a countable union of closed sets, each of which has empty interior. This contradicts Baire Category Theorem .