wu :: forums
« wu :: forums - Almost disjoint family »

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Apr 25th, 2024, 12:59am

RIDDLES SITE WRITE MATH! Home Home Help Help Search Search Members Members Login Login Register Register
   wu :: forums
   riddles
   putnam exam (pure math)
(Moderators: Eigenray, SMQ, william wu, Grimbal, towr, Icarus)
   Almost disjoint family
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: Almost disjoint family  (Read 1181 times)
Aryabhatta
Uberpuzzler
*****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 1321
Almost disjoint family  
« on: Jul 26th, 2004, 12:43am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

This is a problem from the book: "A problem Seminar" by Donald J Newman.
 
Two sets are called almost disjoint if there intersection is finite.
 
Let F be a family of subsets of natural numbers. What is the largest cardinality that F can have so that any two distinct members of F are almost disjoint?
 
IP Logged
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****



Some people are average, some are just mean.

   


Gender: male
Posts: 13730
Re: Almost disjoint family  
« Reply #1 on: Jul 26th, 2004, 2:26am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

::Can't you just take the family { { i | i < n} | n [in] [bbn] }, which has the same cardinality as [bbn] since they are equivalent.
Since any set in the family is finite any intersection between them is finite..
 
And even the power set of [bbn] has the same cardinality, doesn't it? So you can't get any more..
::
IP Logged

Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
Eigenray
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 1948
Re: Almost disjoint family  
« Reply #2 on: Jul 26th, 2004, 7:22am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 26th, 2004, 2:26am, towr wrote:
And even the power set of [bbn] has the same cardinality, doesn't it?

Nooo!!!!!  No set has the same cardinality as its power set:
Suppose f : S [to] P(S) is a bijection.  Consider f-1({ x | x [notin] f(x) }).
 
Back to the problem:
Hint1: The obvious solution has cardinality equal to N.  What is a popular set that is larger?
Hint2: How is it defined?
Hint3: Cauchy sequences of rationals
Solution:
Let f : N -> Q be a bijection.
For each real x, let {ri} be a Cauchy sequence of rationals converging to x.  Let Sx = { f-1(ri) }.
« Last Edit: Jul 26th, 2004, 7:25am by Eigenray » IP Logged
beibeibee
Newbie
*





341872040 341872040    


Gender: male
Posts: 5
Re: Almost disjoint family  
« Reply #3 on: Oct 6th, 2004, 10:51am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I think the answer is 2^aleph_0.  
Just think about  comlete binary tree of omega!!! You will find the family of sets of infinite many natural numbers, each of which is in some a branch of that tree.
IP Logged
Aryabhatta
Uberpuzzler
*****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 1321
Re: Almost disjoint family  
« Reply #4 on: Oct 6th, 2004, 11:45am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Oct 6th, 2004, 10:51am, beibeibee wrote:
I think the answer is 2^aleph_0.  
Just think about  comlete binary tree of omega!!! You will find the family of sets of infinite many natural numbers, each of which is in some a branch of that tree.

 
Yes. your answer is right! and your solution interesting.
It seems that any two paths from root must have a finite intersection, but when it comes to infinity a proof would be more convincing than just intuition. I am sure that your solution is correct (and very elegant i think), it would be more convincing if there was a proof.  
 
 
IP Logged
beibeibee
Newbie
*





341872040 341872040    


Gender: male
Posts: 5
Re: Almost disjoint family  
« Reply #5 on: Oct 12th, 2004, 4:07am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Oct 6th, 2004, 11:45am, Aryabhatta wrote:

 
Yes. your answer is right! and your solution interesting.
It seems that any two paths from root must have a finite intersection, but when it comes to infinity a proof would be more convincing than just intuition. I am sure that your solution is correct (and very elegant i think), it would be more convincing if there was a proof.  
 
 

 
Ok, let us make the intuition into proof.  
 
First, put 0 or 1 on every node in the complete binary tree, just like this:
     
0

0   1

0    1     0    1

… … …

 then clearly each sequence of 0’s and 1’s laying in some a branch encodes exactly a subset of N. We now can conclude that there is 2^aleph_0 branches.  
 
Next, we show that any two different branches are ‘almost disjoint’. Now put the natural numbers on the nodes, like this:
 
 
0

   
1   2

3    4     5    6

… … …
 
You can see any two different branches, say B_1 and B_2, will meet on some natural number, say n, where each of these branches goes its own way. We then obtain B_1 cap B_2 is of cardinality less than n.
 
IP Logged
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board