MTH 4424 - Proofs For Test #1

Fall 2006
Pat Rossi Name

Instructions: Prove or Disprove the following. In the case where the claim is false, provide
a counter-example.

1. The square of an odd natural number is odd.

Proof. Let n be an odd natural number. Then n can be represented as n = 2k + 1 for

some natural number k.
¡ ¢
Observe: n2 = (2k + 1)2 = 4k2 + 4k + 1 = 2 2k2 + 2k + 1 = 2m + 1
| {z }
m

i.e., n2 has the form 2m + 1. Hence, n2 is odd.

2. The square of an even natural number is even.

Proof. Let n be an even natural number. Then n can be represented as n = 2k for

some natural number k.
¡ ¢
Observe: n2 = (2k)2 = 4k 2 = 2 2k 2 = 2m
| {z }
m

i.e., n2 has the form 2m. Hence, n2 is even.

√
3. 2 is an irrational number.
√
Proof. Suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that 2 is rational. Then there exist
 √ m
integers m and n, with n 6= 0, such that 2= n
.

Without loss of generality, we can assume that m and n are relatively prime.*
√
⇒ 2= m n

m2
⇒2= n2

⇒ 2n2 = m2

⇒ m2 is even

⇒ m is even.

⇒ ∃ k ∈ Z such that m = 2k.

Thus, 2n2 = m2 = (2k)2 = 4k2

i.e., 2n2 = 4k2

⇒ n2 = 2k2

⇒ n2 is even

⇒ n is even

i.e., m and n are both even.

This contradicts the assumption that m and n are relatively prime.

√ √
Since the assumption that 2 is rational lead us to this contradiction, 2 must be
irrational.

*If m and n are not relatively prime, then let d be the greatest common divisor of
m and n. There exist relatively
√ prime integers m1 and√n1 such that m = dm1 and
n = dn1 . Thus we can write 2 = n = dm
m 1
dn1
= m 1
n1
, and 2 is written as the quotient
of relatively prime integers.

4. The sum or difference of rational numbers is rational.

Proof. Let x, y ∈ Q.
m
Then ∃ m, n, r, s ∈ Z with n, s 6= 0 such that x = n
and y = rs .
m r ms±nr
Observe: x ± y = n
± s
= ns
.
ms±nr
Since integers are closed under addition, subtraction, and multiplication, x±y = ns
is the quotient of integers, hence rational.

2
5. The product of rational numbers is rational.

Proof. Let x, y ∈ Q.
m
Then ∃ m, n, r, s ∈ Z with n, s 6= 0 such that x = n
and y = rs .
m r mr
Observe: x · y = n
· s
= ns
.
mr
Since integers are closed under multiplication, x · y = ns
is the quotient of integers,
hence rational.

6. The quotient of rational numbers is rational, provided that the divisor is non-zero.

Proof. Let x, y ∈ Q.
m
Then ∃ m, n, r, s ∈ Z with n, r, s 6= 0 such that x = n
and y = rs .

x ( mn ) m s ms
Observe: = = · =
y ( rs ) n r nr

x ms
Since integers are closed under multiplication, y
= nr
is the quotient of integers, hence
rational.

7. The sum (or difference) of a rational and an irrational is irrational.

Proof. Let x ∈ Q, and y ∈ Qc .

Suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that x + y = z, where z ∈ Q.

z − |{z}
Then y = |{z} x ⇒ y is rational, since it is the difference of rationals.
∈Q ∈Q

This contradicts the fact that y ∈ Qc .

Since the assumption that z ∈ Q leads to a contradiction, it must be the case that
z ∈ Qc .

Hence, the sum of a rational x and an irrational y is irrational z.

Similarly, the difference of a rational and an irrational is irrational.

8. The product or quotient of a rational number and an irrational number is irrational.

This is false. Let y be any irrational number. Then 0·y = 0 is the product of a rational
and an irrational, and yet it is rational.
0
Similarly, y
= 0 is the quotient of a rational and an irrational, and yet it is rational.

3
9. The product or quotient of a non-zero rational number and an irrational number is
irrational.

Proof. Let x ∈ Q, and y ∈ Qc .

Suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that x · y = z, where z ∈ Q.

z
Then y = x
is rational, since it is the quotient of rationals.

This contradicts the fact that y ∈ Qc .

Since the assumption that z ∈ Q leads to a contradiction, it must be the case that
z ∈ Qc .

Hence, the product of a non-zero rational x and an irrational y is irrational z.

x
Regarding a quotient, suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that y
= z, where z ∈ Q.
x
Then y = z
is rational, since it is the quotient of rationals.

This contradicts the fact that y ∈ Qc .

Since the assumption that z ∈ Q leads to a contradiction, it must be the case that
z ∈ Qc .

Similarly, since the quotient xy is irrational, its reciprocal xy also has to be irrational -
otherwise, it would be the quotient of integers, and hence xy would be the quotient of
rationals, which we know to be false.

4
10. The sum or difference of two irrational numbers may or may not be irrational.

Proof. This true.

First, we will show that the sum or difference of two irrational numbers can be rational.
√ ¡ √ ¢
Observe: 2 + − 2 = 0 is the sum of irrationals, and the sum is rational.
√ √
Similarly, 2 − 2 = 0 is the difference of irrationals, and the difference is rational.

Next, we will show that the sum or difference of two irrational numbers can be irra-
tional.
√ √ √
Observe: 2 + 2 = 2 2 is the sum or irrationals. To see that this sum is irrational,
we will assume the contrary and derive a contradiction.
√ √
If 2 2 were rational, then 2 2 2 would be the quotient of two rational numbers, hence,
rational.
√ √
However, 2 2 2 = 2 which we know to be irrational.

Hence, the sum of two irrationals may be irrational.

√ √ √
Similarly, 2 2 − 2 = 2 is the difference of irrationals, and this difference is
irrational.

(a) Alternate Proof.

To show that the sum of two irrationals may be rational, consider x = 0.101001000100001 . . .
and y = 0.010110111011110 . . .

Observe: x, y ∈ Qc and yet, x + y = 0.11111111111111 . . . ∈ Q

To show that the sum of two irrationals may be irrational, consider x = y =
0.101001000100001 . . .

Observe: x, y ∈ Qc and yet, x + y = 0.202002000200002 . . . ∈ Qc

5
11. The product or quotient of two irrational numbers may or may not be irrational.

Proof. To show that√the√product or quotient of two irrational numbers may be

rational, observe that 2 · 2 = 2 is the product of irrationals, and this product is
rational.
√
Similarly, √2 = 1 is the quotient of irrationals, and this quotient is rational.
2

To show that
√ the product or quotient of two irrational numbers may be rational, observe
that 1 + 2 is the irrational, as it is the sum of a rational and an irrational.
¡ √ ¢¡ √ ¢ √
Thus, 1 + 2 1 + 2 = 3 + 2 2 is the product of irrationals, and this product is
irrational.
√ √
Also, 1+√2 2 = √1
2
+ √2
2
= √1
2
+ 1 is the quotient of irrationals and this quotient is
irrational.

Alternate Proof: If we accept the fact that the square root of any integer that is
not a perfect square is irrational, then we have easier proofs that the product or
quotient of irrationals can be irrational:
√ √ √
Observe: 3 2 = 6 is the product of irrationals, and this product is irrational.
√ √
Observe: √63 = 2 is the quotient of irrationals, and this quotient is irrational.

12. Between any two distinct rational numbers there is another rational number.
Proof. Let x, y ∈ Q, with x 6= y.

Without loss of generality, x < y.

x+y
Define z by z = 2

Observe: x + y is rational, as it is the sum of rationals.

x+y
Thus, z = 2
is rational, as it is the quotient of rationals.
x+x x+y y+y
Furthermore, x = 2
< 2
< 2
= y.
x+y
i.e., x =< 2
< y.
x+y
Thus, z = 2
is a rational number that lies between x and y.

6
13. Between any two real numbers there is a rational number.

Proof. Let x, y ∈ R, with x 6= y.

Without loss of generality, x < y.

Thus, ∃ ε > 0 such that y − x = ε.

Select a natural number N such that Nε > 1.

⇒ Ny − Nx = Nε > 1.

Since Ny − Nx > 1, there exists an integer M such that Nx < M < Ny.
M
⇒x< N
< y.
M
Since N
is the quotient of integers, it is rational.
M
i.e., N
is a rational number between x and y.

14. Between any two real numbers there is an irrational number.

Proof: (Slightly incorrect) Let x, y ∈ R, with x 6= y.

Without loss of generality, x < y.

Thus, ∃ ε > 0 such that y − x = ε.

Choose an irrational number k such that kε > 1. (Such an irrational √

exists. For
example, let M be the least integer greater than 1ε . Then k = M + 2 fits the
requirements.)

Thus, ky − kx = kε > 1.

⇒ there exists an integer N such that kx < N < ky

⇒ x < Nk < y, where N

k
is irrational, since it is the quotient of a rational and an
irrational.

N
Remark 1 The problem with this proof, is that N may be zero. In that case, k
is not
irrational.

7
 Proof: (Correct) Let x, y ∈ R, with x 6= y.

Without loss of generality, x < y.

Thus, ∃ ε > 0 such that y − x = ε.

Choose an irrational number k such that kε > 2. (Such an irrational √

exists. For
2
example, let M be the least integer greater than ε . Then k = M + 2 fits the
requirements.)

Thus, ky − kx = kε > 2.

⇒ there exists a non-zero integer N such that kx < N < ky

⇒ x < Nk < y, where N

k
is irrational, since it is the quotient of a non-zero rational
and an irrational.

15. A rational number has either a terminating or a repeating decimal representation.

(i.e., if x ∈ Q, then x has a terminating decimal representation, or x has a repeating
decimal representation.)
Proof. Suppose that x ∈ Q.
Without loss of generality, we will assume that x > 0. (If x = 0, clearly it’s decimal
representation terminates. If x < 0, then −x > 0, and our proof will show that −x
has a terminating or repeating decimal representation, from which it will follow that
x will also have a terminating or repeating decimal representation.)
Since x is a positive rational, it can be represented as the quotient of natural numbers:
x= m n
.
To obtain the decimal representation of x, we perform long division of m by n. Note
that at any given step in the long division process, there are n possible remainders.
If a remainder of 0 is obtained, the division process is complete, and the decimal
representation of x terminates.
If a remainder of 0 is never obtained, then within n − 1 steps, a remainder must repeat
Call it r1 . When k appears as a remainder for the second time and is divided by n, it
generates the same digit as part of the quotient and it leaves the same remainder as it
did the first time that it was divided by n. In fact, when r1 appears as a remainder for
the second time and is divided by n, it will generate the same finite sequence of digits
as part of the quotient and the same finite sequence of remainders. This will produce
r1 as a remainder for a third time, and when divided by n will generate the same finite
sequence of digits as part of the quotient and the same finite sequence of remainders
as it did the first wo times, etc.

16. A real number x (with 0 ≤ x ≤ 1) is rational if and only if it can be written as a

terminating, or repeating decimal.

8
17. Prove or disprove:

(a) f : R → R given by f (x) = 5x + 3 is onto

Proof. We must show that ∀y ∈ R, ∃x ∈ R such that f (x) = y.

Let y ∈ R be given.

Let x ∈ R be given by x = y−3

5
¡ y−3 ¢
Observe: f (x) = 5x + 3 = 5 5 + 3 = (y − 3) + 3 = y.

Thus, given y ∈ R, ∃x ∈ R (namely x = y−3

5
) such that f (x) = y.

Hence, f (x) is onto.

Scratchwork:
We want: x such that f (x) = y.
⇒ 5x + 3 = y
⇒ 5x = y − 3
⇒ x = y−3
5

(b) f : R → R given by f (x) = 5x + 3 is one to one

Proof. Suppose that f (x1 ) = f (x2 )

⇒ 5x1 + 3 = 5x2 + 3
⇒ 5x1 = 5x2
⇒ x1 = x2

i.e., f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) ⇒ x1 = x2 .

Hence, f is one to one.

(c) f : R → R given by f (x) = 5x2 + 3 is onto

Note that since x2 ≥ 0, it follows that 5x2 + 3 ≥ 3.

Therefore our claim is false. For example, given y = 0, There does not exist an x
such that f (x) = 0

(d) f : R → R given by f (x) = 5x2 + 3 is one to one.

This is false. Given y = 8, x1 = −1 and x2 = 1 are distinct values of x such that

f (x1 ) = 8 = f (x2 ) .

Hence, f is not one to one.

9
 (e) f : R → R given by f (x) = 5x3 + 3 is onto

Proof. We must show that ∀y ∈ R, ∃x ∈ R such that f (x) = y.

Let y ∈ R be given.
¡ y−3 ¢ 13
Let x ∈ R be given by x = 5

³¡ ¢ 1 ´3 ¡ y−3 ¢
3 y−3 3
Observe: f (x) = 5x + 3 = 5 5
+ 3= 5 5
+ 3 = (y − 3) + 3 = y.

¡ y−3 ¢ 13
Thus, given y ∈ R, ∃x ∈ R (namely x = 5
) such that f (x) = y.

Hence, f (x) is onto.

Scratchwork:
We want: x such that f (x) = y.
⇒ 5x3 + 3 = y
⇒ 5x3 = y − 3
⇒ x3 = y−3
¡ 5 ¢ 13
⇒ x = y−35

(f) f : R → R given by f (x) = 5x3 + 3 is one to one

Proof. Suppose that f (x1 ) = f (x2 )

⇒ 5x31 + 3 = 5x32 + 3
⇒ 5x31 = 5x32
⇒ x31 = x32
⇒ x1 = x2
i.e., f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) ⇒ x1 = x2 .

Hence, f is one to one.

18. The composition of one to one functions is one to one.

(i.e., If f : X → Y is one to one, and g : Y → Z is one to one, then g ◦ f : X → Z is

one to one.)

Proof. Let the hypothesis be given. (i.e., Suppose that f : X → Y is one to one, and

10
 g : Y → Z is one to one.)

Suppose also that g (f (x1 )) = g (f (x2 )) .

⇒ f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) , since g is one to one.

⇒ x1 = x2 , since f is one to one.

i.e., g (f (x1 )) = g (f (x2 )) ⇒ x1 = x2 .

Hence, g ◦ f is one to one.

19. The composition of onto functions is onto.

(i.e., If f : X → Y is onto, and g : Y → Z is onto, then g ◦ f : X → Z is onto.)

Proof. Let the hypothesis be given. (i.e., Suppose that f : X → Y is onto, and
g : Y → Z is onto.)

Let z ∈ Z.

Since g is onto, ∃y ∈ Y such that g (y) = z.

Since f is onto, ∃x ∈ X such that f (x) = y.

Observe: g (f (x)) = g (y) = z.

Thus, given z ∈ Z, ∃x ∈ X such that (g ◦ f ) (x) = z.

Hence, g ◦ f is onto.

11
20. Given f : X → Y and g : Y → Z, Suppose that g ◦ f : X → Z is one to one. Is either
f or g necessarily one to one?

Claim: g is not necessarily one to one.

Proof. Consider f : X → Y and g: Y → Z as shown below. Note that g ◦ f : X → Z

is one to one, as x1 6= x2 ⇒ f (x1 ) 6= f (x2 ) , but g : Y → Z is not one to one.

f g

X Y Z

a
1 x

b
2 y

Claim: f must be one to one.

Proof. Let the hypothesis be given. (i.e., suppose that g ◦ f : X → Z is one to one.)

Suppose also, for the sake of deriving a contradiction, that f : X → Y is not one to
one. Then ∃x1, x2 ∈ X, with x1 6= x2 , such that f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) .
⇒ g (f (x1 )) = g (f (x2 )) .

Thus, ∃x1, x2 ∈ X, with x1 6= x2 , such that g (f (x1 )) = g (f (x2 )) .

⇒ g ◦ f : X → Z is not one to one, contrary to our hypothesis.

Since the assumption that f is not one to one yields a contradiction, it must be false.

Hence, f : X → Y is one to one.

Thus, if g ◦ f : X → Z is one to one, then f : X → Y must be onto to one , but

g : Y → Z is not necessarily one to one.

12
21. Given f : X → Y and g : Y → Z, Suppose that g ◦ f : X → Z is onto. Is either f or
g necessarily onto?

Claim: f is not necessarily onto.

Proof. Consider f : X → Y and g: Y → Z as shown below. Note that g ◦ f : X → Z

is onto, as ∀z ∈ Z,∃x ∈ X such that g (f (x)) = z, and yet f : X → Y is not onto.

f g

X Y Z

a
1 x

b
2 y

Claim: g : Y → Z must be onto.

Proof. Let the hypothesis be given. (i.e., suppose that g ◦ f : X → Z is onto.)Let

z ∈ Z be given.

Then ∃x ∈ X such that g (f (x)) = z.

⇒ ∃y ∈ Y (namely y = f (x)), such that g (y) = z.

i.e., Given z ∈ Z, ∃y ∈ Y such that g (y) = z.

Hence, g : Y → Z must be onto.

Thus, if g ◦ f : X → Z is onto, then g : Y → Z must be onto, but f : X → Yis not

necessarily onto.

13
 22. A function f : X → Y has an inverse if and only if it is one to one and onto.

Proof. If f : X → Y has an inverse then it is one to one and onto.

Let the hypothesis be given. (i.e., suppose that f : X → Y has an inverse, f −1 )

Then: f −1 ◦ f = 1X , and hence, f −1 ◦ f is one to one and onto.

Also: f ◦ f −1 = 1Y , and hence, f ◦ f −1 is one to one and onto.

Since f −1 ◦ f is one to one and onto, then by previous exercises (20 and21), f must be
one to one, and f −1 must be onto.

Since f ◦ f −1 is one to one and onto, then by previous exercises (20 and21), f −1 must
be one to one, and f must be onto.

Hence, both f and f −1 are one to one and onto.

If f : X → Y is one to one and onto, then it has an inverse.

Let the hypothesis be given. (i.e., Suppose that f : X → Y is one to one and onto.)
Note that since f is onto, for any value of y ∈ Y, there exists an x ∈ X such that
f (x) = y.

Since f is one to one, there is only one x ∈ X such that f (x) = y. We’ll call it xy

Thus, we can define f −1 : Y → X by f −1 (y) = xy

We must now check and make sure that f −1 ◦ f = 1X and that f ◦ f −1 = 1Y .

Observe: f −1 ◦ f (xy ) = f −1 (f (xy )) = f −1 (y) = xy .

Thus, f −1 ◦ f = 1X

Also: f ◦ f −1 (y) = f (f −1 (y)) = f (xy ) = y

Hence, f has an inverse.

Remark 2 Note that if ∃f : X → Y that is one to one and onto, then ∃g : Y → X that is
one to one and onto (e.g., f −1 )

Remark 3 If ∃f : S → N that is one to one and onto, then ∃g : N → S that is one to one
and onto also.
Thus, to show that a set is denumerable, we can show that ∃g : N → S that is one to one
and onto, or we can show that ∃f : S → N that is one to one and onto. Either is sufficient.

14
Remark 4 Since the composition of one to one and onto functions is also one to one
and onto, if a set A is known to be denumerable, then any set B that can be put into a
one to one correspondence with A is also one to one and onto. (Since A is denumerable,
one to one one to one
−−→ −−→
∃f : N onto A. Similarly,∃g : A onto B. Thus, (g ◦ f ) : N → B is one to one and onto.)
The point is this: As an alternate way of showing that a set B is denumerable, we
can exhibit a one to one correspondence between B and a set A, where A is known to be
denumerable.

23. The set of even natural numbers E = {2, 4, 6, 8, . . .} is denumerable.

Proof. Observe: N = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, . . . }
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
E = { 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, . . . }

Define f : N → E by f (n) = 2n

Clearly from the diagram above, f is one to one and onto. Hence, E is denumerable.

24. The set of odd natural numbers O = {1, 3, 5, 7, . . .} is denumerable.

Proof. Observe: N = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, . . . }
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
O = { 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, . . . }

Define f : N → O by f (n) = 2n − 1.

Clearly from the diagram above, f is one to one and onto. Hence, O is denumerable.

25. The set of integers Z = {0, ±1, ±2 ± 3, ±4, . . .} is denumerable.

Proof. Observe:
N = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... }
f↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Z = { 0, 1, −1, 2, −2, 3, −3, . . . }
⎧ n
⎨ 2 if n is even
Define f : N → Z by f (n) =
⎩ n−1
− 2 if n is odd

Clearly from the diagram above, f is one to one and onto. Hence, Z is denumerable.

15
26. Z ∼ nZ (and consequently, nZ is denumerable)

Proof. Observe: Z = { 0, 1, −1, 2, −2, 3, −3, . . . }

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
nZ = { 0, n, −n, 2n, −2n, 3n, −3n, . . . }

Define f : Z → nZ by f (k) = kn

Clearly from the diagram above, f is one to one and onto. Hence, Z ∼nZ, and therefore,
nZ is denumerable by Remark 4 on page 15.

27. The set of positive rational numbers Q+ is denumerable.

Consider the table of ordered pairs below:

(1, 1) → (1, 2) (1, 3) → (1, 4) (1, 5) → . . .

. % . %
(2, 1) (2, 2) (2, 3) (2, 4) (2, 5) . . .
↓ % . %
(3, 1) (3, 2) (3, 3) (3, 4) (3, 5) . . .
. %
(4, 1) (4, 2) (4, 3) (4, 4) (4, 5) . . .
↓ %
(5, 1) (5, 2) (5, 3) (5, 4) (5, 5) . . .
.. .. .. .. ..
. . . . .

If we consider the ordered pair (i, j) in the ith row and jth column to represent the
quotient of integers ji , then every positive rational number appears in the table at least
once. (e.g., the rational number m n
appears in the mth row and nth column.)

Furthermore, the arrows in the table induce an exhaustive ordering of the positive
rational numbers as follows:

1, 12 , 2, 3, 13 , 14 , 23 , 32 , 4, 5, 15 , . . .

(Note that we have discarded repititions of rationals if they occur. e.g., we have
discarded (2, 2) because it is equaivalent to (1, 1) which is already on our list.)

Note also that since the positive rationals are ordered, they are in a one to one
correspondence with the natural numbers.

Hence, the positive rational numbers are denumerable.

16
28. The set of negative rational numbers Q− is denumerable.
¡ ¢
Proof. The function f : Q+ → Q− given by f m n
= −m n
is clearly one to one and
onto.

For if f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) ,

Then −x1 = −x2

⇒ x1 = x2, thus f is one to one.

Also, given y ∈ Q− , we can choose x ∈ Q+ , given by x = −y.

This yields f (x) = −x = − (−y) = y.

Thus, f is onto.

29. The union of a denumerable set and a finite set is denumerable (you can assume that
the two sets are disjoint).

Proof. Let A = {a1 , a2 , . . . , ak } and B = {b1 , b2 , b3, . . .} .

Then A is finite and B is denumerable.

Observe: N = { 1, 2, 3, . . . , k, k + 1, k + 2, k + 3, . . . }
f↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
(A ∪ B) = { a1 , a2 , a3 , . . . , ak b1 , b2 , b3 , ... }
⎧
⎨ an if n ≤ k
Define f : N → (A ∪ B) by f (n) =
⎩
bn−k if n > k

Clearly from the diagram above, f is one to one and onto. Hence, (A ∪ B) is denumerable.

30. The union of two (disjoint) denumerable sets is denumerable.

Proof. Let A = {a1 , a2 , a3 , . . .} and B = {b1 , b2 , b3 , . . .}

Observe:
N = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, . . . }
f↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
(A ∪ B) = { a1 , b1 , a2 , b2 , a3 , b3 , . . . }
⎧
⎨ a n+1 if n is odd
2
Define f : N → (A ∪ B) by f (n) =
⎩
b n2 if n is even

Clearly from the diagram above, f is one to one and onto. Hence, (A ∪ B) is denumerable.

17
 31. The union of finitely many (disjoint) denumerable sets is denumerable (i.e., if A1 , A2 , . . . , An are
denumerable, then ∪ni=1 Ai is denumerable.)

Proof. Suppose that A1 , A2 , . . . , An are denumerable. Then we can name their ele-
ments as follows:

A1 = {a11 , a12 , a13 , . . .}

A2 = {a21 , a22 , a23 , . . .}

..
.

An = {an1 , an2 , an3 , . . .}

Consider:
N = { 1, 2, n, n + 1, n + 2, 2n, 2n + 1, 2n + 2, 3n, . . .
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
n
∪i=1 Ai = { a11 , a21 , . . . , an1 , a12 , a22 . . . , an2 , a13 , a23 , . . . , an3 , . . .

The function f : ∪ni=1 Ai → N given by f (aij ) = (j − 1) n + i as shown above, is clearly

one to one and onto. Hence, ∪ni=1 Ai is denumerable.

Alternate Proof

(By induction on n.)

(Step 1) Show that our proposition is true for n = 1

∪1i=1 Ai = A1 , which is denumerable, by hypothesis.

(Step 2) Assume that ∪ki=1 Ai is denumerable, and show that ∪k+1

i=1 Ai is denumerable.
¡ k ¢
Observe: ∪k+1
i=1 Ai = ∪i=1 Ai ∪ Ak+1 , which is denumerable, since it is the union of two
denumerable sets.

Hence, ∪ni=1 Ai is denumerable for all n ∈ N.

18
32. The union of denumerably many denumerable sets is denumerable (i.e., if A1 , A2 , . . . , An , . . . are
denumerable, then ∪∞
i=1 Ai is countable.) (Again, you can assume that the sets are dis-
joint.)
Proof. Let sets A1 , A2 , . . . , An , . . . be denumerable and given by:
A1 = {a11 , a12 , a13 , . . .}
A2 = {a21 , a22 , a23 , . . .}
A3 = {a31 , a32 , a33 , . . .}
..
.
An = {an1 , an2 , an3 , . . .}
..
.
(Note that aij is the j th element of the ith set.)
Consider the table of elements from ∪∞
i=1 Ai listed below:

a11 → a12 a13 → a14 a15 → ...

. % . %
a21 a22 a23 a24 a25 ...
↓ % . %
a31 a32 a33 a34 a35 ...
. %
a41 a42 a43 a44 a45 ...
↓ %
a51 a52 a53 a54 a55 . . .
.. .. .. .. ..
. . . . .

The table contains every element of ∪∞ i=1 Ai . For example, the j

th
element of set Ai is
th th
given by aij . This element is found in the i row and j column of the table.

Furthermore, the arrows in the table induce an exhaustive ordering of the elements
of ∪∞
i=1 Ai as follows:

a11 , a12 , a21 , a31 , a22 , a13 , a14 , a23 , a32 , a41 , a51 , a42 , a33 , a24 , a15 , . . .

Note also that since the entire set of elements of ∪∞

i=1 Ai is ordered, they are in a one
to one correspondence with the natural numbers.
Hence, the union of denumerably many denumerable sets is denumerable.

33. The set of rational numbers is denumerable (countable).

Proof. Q+ ∪ {0} is the union of a denumerable set and a finite set, hence it is
denumerable.
The entire set of rationals can be expressed as Q = (Q+ ∪ {0}) ∪ Q− , which is the
union of two denumerable sets, hence denumerable.

19
 34. The real numbers 0.5 and 0.499999 . . . are equal. (i.e., 0.5 = 0.4999 . . .)

Suppose that x = 0.4999 . . .

Observe: 10x = 4.999 . . .

Hence: 9x = 10x − x = (4.999 . . .) − (0.4999 . . .) = 4.5

i.e., 9x = 4.5

Hence, x = 0.5

But x = 0.4999 . . . also.

Hence 0.5 = 0.4999 . . .

Remark: The pervious proof hinges upon the supposition that we know how to add and
subtract non-terminating decimals and that when we do, “things work out" just as we
think they should.

35. Alternate Proof

Suppose, for the sake of deriving a contradiction, that 0.5 6= 0.4999 . . .

Then 0.5 > 0.4999 . . . and consequently, ∃ε > 0 such that 0.5 − 0.4999 . . . = ε

By the Axiom of Archimedes, ∃n ∈ N such that n > − log (ε)

Observe: Since 0.4999 . . . > | {z } ,

0.4999
n decimal places

It follows that ε = 0.5 − 0.4999 . . . < 0.5 − 0.4999

| {z } = 10−n < 10log(ε) = ε
n decimal places

Thus, ε < ε, a contradiction.

Since the assumption that 0.5 6= 0.4999 . . . leads to a contradiction, the assumption
must be false. Hence, 0.5 6= 0.4999 . . .

36. The set of real numbers in the interval [0, 1] is uncountable (non-denumerable).

Proof. (By contradiction)

Suppose, for the sake of deriving a contradiction, that the set of real numbers in the
interval [0, 1] is denumerable.

Then there exists an exhaustive ordering of the set of real numers in the interval [0, 1] .

{x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . , xn , . . .}

20
Note that this ordering contains ALL of the real numbers in the interval [0, 1] .

Consider the decimal expansions of these numbers:

x1 = 0.x11 x12 x13 . . .

x2 = 0.x21 x22 x23 . . .
x3 = 0.x31 x32 x33 . . .
..
.
xn = 0.xn1 xn2 xn3 . . . xnn . . .
..
.

Observe: Here, xij is the jth digit past the decimal point in the decimal expansion of
the ith real number xi .

Also: If xi can be written in terminating and non-terminating form (e.g., 0.5 can be
written as 0.499999 . . .), then we choose the non-terminating form.

(The number 0 will be represented as 0.000 . . .)

Define y ∈ [0, 1] as follows:

y = 0.y1 y2 y3 . . . yn... where yi is the ith digit past the decimal point in the decimal
expansion of y.

For n = 1, 2, 3, . . . define the digit yn as follows:

⎧
⎨ 5 if xnn 6= 5
yn =
⎩
1 if xnn = 5

Observe: y ∈ [0, 1] and yet y 6= xn for any n ∈ N.

The reason for this is that, by construction of y, the nth digit of y is different from the
nth digit of xn (i.e., yn 6= xnn ) for all n ∈ N.

Hence, y 6= xn ∀n ∈ N.

This contradicts our assumption that our list contains ALL of the real numbers in the
interval [0, 1] .

Since the assumption that the set of real numbers in the interval [0, 1] is denumerable
led to this contradiction, the assumption must be false. Hence, the numbers in the
interval [0, 1] is non-denumerable (uncountable).

21
 37. The set of real numbers in the interval (0, 1) has the same cardinality as the set of real
numbers in the interval [0, 1] . (i.e., ∃f : [0, 1] → (0.1) that is one to one and onto.)

Proof. Let {q1 , q2 , q3 , . . . , qn , . . .} be an ordering of the rational numbers in the in-

terval (0, 1) . (Such an ordering exists, since the rationals in the interval (0, 1) are
denumerable.)

Define f : [0, 1] → (0.1) by

⎧
⎪
⎪ x if x ∈ Qc
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ q1 if x = 0
f (x) =
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ q2 if x = 1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩
qn+2 if x = qn for n ∈ N

The function is shown graphically, below.

R[0,1] = Irrationals in (0, 1) 1, 0, q1, q2, q3, ÿ, qn, ÿ

f iirrat (0,1)

R(0,1) = Irrationals in (0, 1) q1, q2, q3, q4, q5, ÿ, qn+2, ÿ

Clearly, f : [0, 1] → (0.1) is one to one and onto.

Corollary The set of real numbers in the interval (0, 1) is non-denumerable (incountable).

Remark: By assuming that Q[(0,1) (the set of rational numbers in the interval (0, 1)) is
denumerable, we have assumed the (intuitively) obvious fact that the subset of a de-
numerable set is denumerable (or finite). Time permitting, we may or may not prove
this fact.

22
38. The entire set of real numbers R is uncountable (non-denumerable).

Proof. Since the set of real numbers in the interval (0, 1) is non-denumerable, it
suffices to exhibt a function f : (0, 1) → R that is one to one and onto.

Define f : (0, 1) → R by f (x) = cot (πx) .

10
y
5

0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
x
-5

-10

f (x) = cot (πx)

Clearl, from the graph of f (x) , we see that f (x) is one to one and onto.

39. The entire set of real numbers R is uncountable (non-denumerable).

Proof.

(Alternate Proof) Since the set of real numbers in the interval (0, 1) is non-denumerable,
it suffices to exhibt a function f : (0, 1) → R that is one to one and onto.
⎧ 1
⎨ 1 − 2x for 0 < x < 12
Define f : (0, 1) → R by f (x) =
⎩ 1
2−2x
−1 for 12 ≤ x < 1
1
Observe: f (x) ≥ 0 ⇐⇒ 2
≤ x < 1.

Similarly, f (x) < 0 ⇐⇒ 0 < x < 12 .

23
 f is one to one
Suppose that f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) ≥ 0.
1 1
⇒ 2−2x1
−1= 2−2x2
−1
1 1
⇒ 2−2x1
= 2−2x2

⇒ 2 − 2x2 = 2 − 2x1
⇒ 2x2 = 2x1
⇒ x2 = x1
i.e., (x2 ) = f (x2 ) ≥ 0 ⇒ x1 = x2
Similarly, if f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) < 0, then
1 1
1− 2x1
=1− 2x2

⇒ − 2x11 = − 2x12
⇒ 2x2 = 2x1
⇒ x2 = x1
i.e., f (x2 ) = f (x2 ) < 0 ⇒ x1 = x2
Hence, f is one to one.
f is onto
Suppose that y ≥ 0
£ ¢
Let x ∈ 12 , 1 be given by x = 1 − 1
2(y+1)

1 1 1 1
Observe: f (x) = −1 = 2−2(1− 2(y+1)
−1 = −1 = 1 −1 =
2−2x 1
) 2−(2− (y+1)
1
) (y+1)

(y + 1) − 1 = y
i.e., f (x) = y
Suppose that y < 0
¡ ¢
Let x ∈ 0, 12 be given by x = 1
2(1−y)

1  1 1
Observe: f (x) = 1 − 2x
=1− 1
 =1− 
1
 = 1 − (1 − y) = y
2 2(1−y) (1−y)

i.e., f (x) = y
Thus, given y ∈ R, ∃x ∈ R such that y = f (x) .
Hence, f is onto.

24
 Scratch Work

If y ≥ 0, then we want x such that y = f (x)

1
⇒y= 2−2x
−1
1
⇒y+1= 2−2x

1
⇒ 2 − 2x = y+1

1
⇒1−x= 2(y+1)

1
⇒1−x= 2(y+1)

1
⇒ x − 1 = − 2(y+1)
1
⇒x=1− 2(y+1)

If y ≥ 0, then we want x such that y = f (x)

1
⇒y =1− 2x
1
⇒ y − 1 = − 2x
1
⇒ 2x = − y−1
1
⇒ 2x = 1−y

1
⇒x= 2(1−y)

40. The set of irrational numbers Qc is uncountable.

Proof. (By contradiction)

Suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that Qc is countable (denumerable).

Then R = Q ∪ Qc is the union of two denumerable sets, hence, denumerable.

This contradicts the fact that R is uncountable (non-denumerable).

Since the assumption that Qc is countable (denumerable) leads to a contradiction, Qc

must be uncountable (non-denumerable).

25