I wrote these notes in February 2016 for an Analysis 2 tutorial when I was a teaching assistant at McGill, and always intended to put them here eventually; before August 2018 though, I hadn’t translated them to something web-friendly and only had posted a PDFThe web version has slightly improved wording in some parts.
.
Cantor’s Set
Cantor’s set is an interesting subset of , with properties that help illuminate concepts in analysis. It can often serve as a counter-example or edge-case on which to test ideas, and to construct further unusual objects; one such object is the Cantor function, which we’ll define here as well. To me, one of the most immediate clarifications provided by the Cantor set is the idea that looking at on object in different ways yields different notions of size, and these do not have to play nicely with each other. As we will see, the Cantor set is nowhere dense, yet uncountable.
Construction
We will define a sequence of sets , and define the Cantor set (or “Cantor ternary set”) as .
.
To start, take
.
Divide the interval in three equal pieces and throw away the middle one to define
.
Repeat this process by throwing away the middle third of each interval in to obtain
From top to bottom, to .
In general, we recursively define in terms by discarding the middle third of the intervals which constitute . We may write this definition as
where we are using the notation of multipling and adding to sets by multiplying and adding to their elements: for a set and ,
In this way, we create a decreasing sequences of sets
Note: By construction, is the disjoint union of intervals, each of length . This is a key property we will use in our proofs of the properties of the Cantor set.
Properties
Let is called the Cantor set, and satisfies the following properties.
Theorem 1
is closed.
.
has no isolated points: that is, such that and , where is the open ball (interval) of radius around .
where is a sequence with each .
is uncountable.
Note: a set is called nowhere dense if it’s closure has empty
interior. Thus (1) and (2) imply is nowhere dense. In contrast, has empty interior, but is dense in .
is closed for each so is closed as well.
(By contradiction). Assume . Then . Thus, for some , Choose large enough such that . We have But is a disjoint union of intervals of length . This is a contradiction.
Key observation: endpoints of intervals in are not removed in subsequent (for ). All endpoints, .
Let and be given. We choose large enough so that . Then for an interval which is one of the intervals making up . Since the length of each interval is , we have . Then we have both Hence, even if or , we have found so that .
We want to show for .
First, let us notice and deal with a point of confusionfor Eric
. Consider . Then . We could obtain such ternary expansion by and for , which doesn’t fit our criteria. But we can choose other coefficients: Note we have used the geometric series which converges absolutely for ; we will use this several times.
In other words, ternary expansions are not unique. However, ternary expansions which only contain ’s and ’s are unique. That is the content of the following lemmaLemma 1 If where each , then for all .Suppose not; then there is a minimal such that . Then one of or is zero and the other two; wlog take , . Expanding our sums, Using for , But So, returning to (1), we have which of course is a contradiction, since .
Now, let . Note that is the set of numbers which have a ternay expansion without any 1’s, not the set of numbers for which every ternary expansion contains no 1’s.
If , then for some . Let be the partial sum.
Lemma 2 For each , the partial sum is a left-endpoint of an interval of .By induction on . Either , either of which is a left endpoint of .
Assume that is a left endpoint of . Then Then by construction of , we can take out the middle thirds to obtain intervals of : So is a left endpoint of an interval in , whether or .
Now, since each is a left-endpoint of and we don’t remove endpoints, we have for all . But is closed so it contains all its limit points, and we have . Thus, .
To show that , we will prove the contrapositive in order to access properties of . First notice the following property.
Lemma 3 The intervals removed to obtain are all of the form In fact,The proof, by induction on , is left as an exercise.
Let us proceed to the proof of the contrapositive. Suppose . Suppose contains a ‘1’ in its digit of its ternary expansion, i.e. We will take to be the first digit which is ‘1’, if there are more than one.
Lemma 4 We have that .If for all , then our number written in ternary is of the form , where represents the arbitrary first digits (each in ). Then we could choose the expansion instead, and avoid having a 1. In other words, . Similarly, if for all , then we are writing , so admits the expansion (using our geometric series again), and hence, . Thus, since , this tail condition holds.
Now, we may rewrite where . With this definition, Lemma 4 yields
So and thus by Lemma 3, as we wanted.
is uncountable. i.e. . We already know , so we know . Hence, we need to find a surjection from to complete the proof.
We define a function , such that takes and changes all of the 2’s in its ternary expansion to 1s and then outputs the number with corresponding binary expansion. We have that For , we write where . Then we define Since by Lemma 1 we have a unique ternary expansion of that contains no 2’s, we have a well-defined function (there is no ambiguity in how to compute given ). Note: the lower bound of on is (all ) and the upper bound is , achieved when all the are 1s, using .
Let . Then admits a binary expansion: for . Then let , so that .
So we are done.
Let’s notice that the binary expansion of does have ambiguity, and thus is not injective. For example, in binary, and in binary. Thus in ternary and in ternary each have . But and . This is not a problem; we only needed to find a surjection from to .
Cantor’s function
We defined , and we wish to extend it to the whole
interval . Let and be the left and right endpoints
respectively of the same removed interval which was removed in
step . Then, by Lemma 3Recall our ternary expansion excludes 1s, so we expand .
,
Then,
But , so
So takes on the same values on the endpoints of the removed intervals. But together with the removed intervals is .
Cantor’s function; image taken from wikimedia.
This leads to a natural extension simply by taking constant on the removed intervals. That is, we may define a function as for , and if a removed interval, . This is Cantor’s function. See Figure 5 for a plot of .
We will prove three properties of , as follows.
Theorem 2
is increasing,
is continuous,
has zero derivative on .
First we will show that is increasing on , and then extend to .
Let with and set and their canonical ternary expansionsMeaning expansions with for all .
. If then they lie in the same interval until some , and at that point is in a later interval. That is, for some , , and for all , . But if , since both are contained in , then and . So we have Now, let , with and assume . We know then there is some with and , choosing to be the left endpoint of the removed interval to which belongs, and similarly with . Then, since , and must not correspond to the endpoints of the same interval.We know and are endpoints of different removed intervals, and each removed interval is of length . We set and to denote the other endpoints of those removed intervals, as pictured, for clarity. We see that necessarily if .
So then since , we must have as shown in Figure 6. But then since we must have , since we showed was increasing on . This is a contradiction. Hence, for with , we have ; that is, is increasing.
Next, is continuous on . Clearly, is continuous at , because there on a neighborhood of , is constant.
So, let . We will first show that if is close to , then is close to . WLOG, take and , then, choosing and as the respective coefficients of and ’s canonical ternary expansions, we have
Then we must have for all , . To see this, suppose not; let be the minimal index such that . We have two cases. First, let , . Then which is a contradiction. On the other hand, if and , a contradiction.
Using this, Clearly then, for any , we can choose large enough such that .
Now, if , then we know there exists such that and , by choosing to be the endpoint of the removed interval that resides within; there are two such endpoints, so we choose the one closer to so that ; see Figure 7. But then for we know there is a such that if , then . But , so just take .
We choose to be the endpoint closer to than .
For the third property, if we take , we notice that is constant on an open interval around , so has derivative zero: