Walter Rudin's mathematical analysis: theorem 2.43. Why proof can't work under the perfect set is...
Should I warn a new PhD Student?
Showing mass murder in a kid's book
Trouble reading roman numeral notation with flats
What (if any) is the reason to buy in small local stores?
Why does a 97 / 92 key piano exist by Bosendorfer?
Weird lines in Microsoft Word
Would this string work as string?
Magnifying glass in hyperbolic space
Highest stage count that are used one right after the other?
How to get directions in deep space?
If the Dominion rule using their Jem'Hadar troops, why is their life expectancy so low?
Turning a hard to access nut?
categorizing a variable turns it from insignificant to significant
Did I make a mistake by ccing email to boss to others?
When is the exact date for EOL of Ubuntu 14.04 LTS?
"Marked down as someone wanting to sell shares." What does that mean?
Error in master's thesis, I do not know what to do
How do I lift the insulation blower into the attic?
Asserting that Atheism and Theism are both faith based positions
Why doesn't Gödel's incompleteness theorem apply to false statements?
Mortal danger in mid-grade literature
Reasons for having MCU pin-states default to pull-up/down out of reset
Sort with assumptions
How do you justify more code being written by following clean code practices?
Walter Rudin's mathematical analysis: theorem 2.43. Why proof can't work under the perfect set is uncountable.
Theorem 2.43 in Baby Rudin: How to understand the proof?Theorem 2.13 in Walter Rudin's Principles of Mathematical AnalysisWalter Rudin's Principle's of Mathematical AnalysisTheorem 2.43 in Baby Rudin: How to understand the proof?Trouble with Froda's Theorem Proof QuestionProof of Rudin's Theorem 2.43Understanding proof in Walter Rudin's Mathematical AnalysisProve that two sets A and B with $A cap B=emptyset$, $sup A = sup B$, $sup A notin A$ and $sup B notin B$ cannot exist.Let A be the set of all sequences of 0’s and 1’s (binary sequences). Prove that A is uncountable using Cantor's Diagonal Argument.Theorem 2.14 in Walter Rudin's Principles of Mathematical AnalysisWhy does this proof that the set of all finite subsets of N is a countable set not work for the set of all subsets of N?
$begingroup$
I found several discussions about this theorem, like this one. I understand the proof adopts contradiction by assuming the perfect set $P$ is countable.
My question is if the assumption is $P$ is uncountable, the proof seems remains the same, i.e., the $P$ can't be uncountable either. In other words, I think whatever the assumption is, we can draw the contradiction in any way.
I don't understand in which way the uncountable condition could solve the contradiction in the proof.
real-analysis analysis
asked 4 hours ago
TengeryeTengerye
1547
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I found several discussions about this theorem, like this one. I understand the proof adopts contradiction by assuming the perfect set $P$ is countable.
My question is if the assumption is $P$ is uncountable, the proof seems remains the same, i.e., the $P$ can't be uncountable either. In other words, I think whatever the assumption is, we can draw the contradiction in any way.
I don't understand in which way the uncountable condition could solve the contradiction in the proof.
real-analysis analysis
asked 4 hours ago
TengeryeTengerye
1547
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
With the metric on $P$ inherited from the usual metric on $Bbb R^n$, the space $P$ is a complete metric space with no isolated points. We can show that a non-empty complete metric space $X$ with no isolated points has a subspace $Y$ which is homeomorphic to the Cantor Set. For the purposes of this Q it suffices to show there is a $Ysubset X$ which is a bijective image of the set of all binary sequences.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I found several discussions about this theorem, like this one. I understand the proof adopts contradiction by assuming the perfect set $P$ is countable.
My question is if the assumption is $P$ is uncountable, the proof seems remains the same, i.e., the $P$ can't be uncountable either. In other words, I think whatever the assumption is, we can draw the contradiction in any way.
I don't understand in which way the uncountable condition could solve the contradiction in the proof.
real-analysis analysis
asked 4 hours ago
TengeryeTengerye
1547
$endgroup$
I found several discussions about this theorem, like this one. I understand the proof adopts contradiction by assuming the perfect set $P$ is countable.
My question is if the assumption is $P$ is uncountable, the proof seems remains the same, i.e., the $P$ can't be uncountable either. In other words, I think whatever the assumption is, we can draw the contradiction in any way.
I don't understand in which way the uncountable condition could solve the contradiction in the proof.
real-analysis analysis
real-analysis analysis
asked 4 hours ago
TengeryeTengerye
1547
asked 4 hours ago
TengeryeTengerye
1547
edited 4 hours ago
Tengerye
asked 4 hours ago
TengeryeTengerye
1547
asked 4 hours ago
TengeryeTengerye
1547
asked 4 hours ago
TengeryeTengerye
1547
1547
$begingroup$
With the metric on $P$ inherited from the usual metric on $Bbb R^n$, the space $P$ is a complete metric space with no isolated points. We can show that a non-empty complete metric space $X$ with no isolated points has a subspace $Y$ which is homeomorphic to the Cantor Set. For the purposes of this Q it suffices to show there is a $Ysubset X$ which is a bijective image of the set of all binary sequences.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
With the metric on $P$ inherited from the usual metric on $Bbb R^n$, the space $P$ is a complete metric space with no isolated points. We can show that a non-empty complete metric space $X$ with no isolated points has a subspace $Y$ which is homeomorphic to the Cantor Set. For the purposes of this Q it suffices to show there is a $Ysubset X$ which is a bijective image of the set of all binary sequences.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
With the metric on $P$ inherited from the usual metric on $Bbb R^n$, the space $P$ is a complete metric space with no isolated points. We can show that a non-empty complete metric space $X$ with no isolated points has a subspace $Y$ which is homeomorphic to the Cantor Set. For the purposes of this Q it suffices to show there is a $Ysubset X$ which is a bijective image of the set of all binary sequences.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
With the metric on $P$ inherited from the usual metric on $Bbb R^n$, the space $P$ is a complete metric space with no isolated points. We can show that a non-empty complete metric space $X$ with no isolated points has a subspace $Y$ which is homeomorphic to the Cantor Set. For the purposes of this Q it suffices to show there is a $Ysubset X$ which is a bijective image of the set of all binary sequences.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
1 hour ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
First, there's a typo in your question: the proof proceeds by assuming for contradiction that $P$ is countable (not uncountable, as you've written).
More substantively, countability is used right away: we write $P$ as ${x_n: ninmathbb{N}}$ and recursively define a sequence of sets $V_n$ ($ninmathbb{N}$).
If $P$ were uncountable, we couldn't index the elements of $P$ by natural numbers. We'd have to index them by something else - say, some uncountable ordinal. So now $P$ has the form ${y_eta:eta<lambda}$ for some $lambda>omega$.
We can now proceed to build our $V$-sets as before, but at the "first infinite step" we run into trouble: we need $V_etacap P$ to be nonempty for each $eta$, but how do we keep that up forever? In fact, our $V$-sets might disappear entirely: while at each finite stage we've stayed nonempty, but we could easily "become empty in the limit" (consider the sequence of sets $(0,1)supset(0,{1over 2})supset (0,{1over 3})supset ...$). The recursive construction of the $V_n$s - which is the heart of the whole proof - relies on always having a "most recent" $V$-set at each stage, that is, only considering at most $mathbb{N}$-many $V$-sets in total. That this is sufficient follows from the countability of $P$. As soon as we drop this, our contradiction vanishes.
answered 4 hours ago
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
127k10151290
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you so much. I have revised my question.
$endgroup$
– Tengerye
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Baire Category Theorem: If $P$ is a complete metric space and $F$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of $P$ then $cap F$ is dense in $P.$
Suppose $P$ is a non-empty closed subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Let $P$ inherit the usual metric from $Bbb R^n.$ Then $P$ is a complete metric space. Now suppose $P$ is countable and is a perfect subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Then $F={P setminus {x}: xin P}$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of the space $P,$ so $cap F=emptyset$ is dense in $P,$ which is absurd.
(If $P$ were not assumed to be perfect then not all members of $F$ could be assumed to be dense in $P.$)
Aside: The proof of the Baire Category Theorem is direct and simple. Some students seem to be uncomfortable about this theorem, perhaps because it is unlike anything they've ever seen.
answered 1 hour ago
DanielWainfleetDanielWainfleet
35.5k31648
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This A is unrelated to my comment to the Q regarding a subset of $P$ that's homeomorphic to the Cantor Set
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3154887%2fwalter-rudins-mathematical-analysis-theorem-2-43-why-proof-cant-work-under-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
First, there's a typo in your question: the proof proceeds by assuming for contradiction that $P$ is countable (not uncountable, as you've written).
More substantively, countability is used right away: we write $P$ as ${x_n: ninmathbb{N}}$ and recursively define a sequence of sets $V_n$ ($ninmathbb{N}$).
If $P$ were uncountable, we couldn't index the elements of $P$ by natural numbers. We'd have to index them by something else - say, some uncountable ordinal. So now $P$ has the form ${y_eta:eta<lambda}$ for some $lambda>omega$.
We can now proceed to build our $V$-sets as before, but at the "first infinite step" we run into trouble: we need $V_etacap P$ to be nonempty for each $eta$, but how do we keep that up forever? In fact, our $V$-sets might disappear entirely: while at each finite stage we've stayed nonempty, but we could easily "become empty in the limit" (consider the sequence of sets $(0,1)supset(0,{1over 2})supset (0,{1over 3})supset ...$). The recursive construction of the $V_n$s - which is the heart of the whole proof - relies on always having a "most recent" $V$-set at each stage, that is, only considering at most $mathbb{N}$-many $V$-sets in total. That this is sufficient follows from the countability of $P$. As soon as we drop this, our contradiction vanishes.
answered 4 hours ago
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
127k10151290
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you so much. I have revised my question.
$endgroup$
– Tengerye
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First, there's a typo in your question: the proof proceeds by assuming for contradiction that $P$ is countable (not uncountable, as you've written).
More substantively, countability is used right away: we write $P$ as ${x_n: ninmathbb{N}}$ and recursively define a sequence of sets $V_n$ ($ninmathbb{N}$).
If $P$ were uncountable, we couldn't index the elements of $P$ by natural numbers. We'd have to index them by something else - say, some uncountable ordinal. So now $P$ has the form ${y_eta:eta<lambda}$ for some $lambda>omega$.
We can now proceed to build our $V$-sets as before, but at the "first infinite step" we run into trouble: we need $V_etacap P$ to be nonempty for each $eta$, but how do we keep that up forever? In fact, our $V$-sets might disappear entirely: while at each finite stage we've stayed nonempty, but we could easily "become empty in the limit" (consider the sequence of sets $(0,1)supset(0,{1over 2})supset (0,{1over 3})supset ...$). The recursive construction of the $V_n$s - which is the heart of the whole proof - relies on always having a "most recent" $V$-set at each stage, that is, only considering at most $mathbb{N}$-many $V$-sets in total. That this is sufficient follows from the countability of $P$. As soon as we drop this, our contradiction vanishes.
answered 4 hours ago
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
127k10151290
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you so much. I have revised my question.
$endgroup$
– Tengerye
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First, there's a typo in your question: the proof proceeds by assuming for contradiction that $P$ is countable (not uncountable, as you've written).
More substantively, countability is used right away: we write $P$ as ${x_n: ninmathbb{N}}$ and recursively define a sequence of sets $V_n$ ($ninmathbb{N}$).
If $P$ were uncountable, we couldn't index the elements of $P$ by natural numbers. We'd have to index them by something else - say, some uncountable ordinal. So now $P$ has the form ${y_eta:eta<lambda}$ for some $lambda>omega$.
We can now proceed to build our $V$-sets as before, but at the "first infinite step" we run into trouble: we need $V_etacap P$ to be nonempty for each $eta$, but how do we keep that up forever? In fact, our $V$-sets might disappear entirely: while at each finite stage we've stayed nonempty, but we could easily "become empty in the limit" (consider the sequence of sets $(0,1)supset(0,{1over 2})supset (0,{1over 3})supset ...$). The recursive construction of the $V_n$s - which is the heart of the whole proof - relies on always having a "most recent" $V$-set at each stage, that is, only considering at most $mathbb{N}$-many $V$-sets in total. That this is sufficient follows from the countability of $P$. As soon as we drop this, our contradiction vanishes.
answered 4 hours ago
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
127k10151290
$endgroup$
First, there's a typo in your question: the proof proceeds by assuming for contradiction that $P$ is countable (not uncountable, as you've written).
More substantively, countability is used right away: we write $P$ as ${x_n: ninmathbb{N}}$ and recursively define a sequence of sets $V_n$ ($ninmathbb{N}$).
If $P$ were uncountable, we couldn't index the elements of $P$ by natural numbers. We'd have to index them by something else - say, some uncountable ordinal. So now $P$ has the form ${y_eta:eta<lambda}$ for some $lambda>omega$.
We can now proceed to build our $V$-sets as before, but at the "first infinite step" we run into trouble: we need $V_etacap P$ to be nonempty for each $eta$, but how do we keep that up forever? In fact, our $V$-sets might disappear entirely: while at each finite stage we've stayed nonempty, but we could easily "become empty in the limit" (consider the sequence of sets $(0,1)supset(0,{1over 2})supset (0,{1over 3})supset ...$). The recursive construction of the $V_n$s - which is the heart of the whole proof - relies on always having a "most recent" $V$-set at each stage, that is, only considering at most $mathbb{N}$-many $V$-sets in total. That this is sufficient follows from the countability of $P$. As soon as we drop this, our contradiction vanishes.
answered 4 hours ago
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
127k10151290
answered 4 hours ago
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
127k10151290
answered 4 hours ago
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
127k10151290
answered 4 hours ago
Noah SchweberNoah Schweber
127k10151290
127k10151290
$begingroup$
Thank you so much. I have revised my question.
$endgroup$
– Tengerye
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you so much. I have revised my question.
$endgroup$
– Tengerye
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you so much. I have revised my question.
$endgroup$
– Tengerye
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you so much. I have revised my question.
$endgroup$
– Tengerye
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Baire Category Theorem: If $P$ is a complete metric space and $F$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of $P$ then $cap F$ is dense in $P.$
Suppose $P$ is a non-empty closed subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Let $P$ inherit the usual metric from $Bbb R^n.$ Then $P$ is a complete metric space. Now suppose $P$ is countable and is a perfect subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Then $F={P setminus {x}: xin P}$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of the space $P,$ so $cap F=emptyset$ is dense in $P,$ which is absurd.
(If $P$ were not assumed to be perfect then not all members of $F$ could be assumed to be dense in $P.$)
Aside: The proof of the Baire Category Theorem is direct and simple. Some students seem to be uncomfortable about this theorem, perhaps because it is unlike anything they've ever seen.
answered 1 hour ago
DanielWainfleetDanielWainfleet
35.5k31648
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This A is unrelated to my comment to the Q regarding a subset of $P$ that's homeomorphic to the Cantor Set
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Baire Category Theorem: If $P$ is a complete metric space and $F$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of $P$ then $cap F$ is dense in $P.$
Suppose $P$ is a non-empty closed subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Let $P$ inherit the usual metric from $Bbb R^n.$ Then $P$ is a complete metric space. Now suppose $P$ is countable and is a perfect subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Then $F={P setminus {x}: xin P}$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of the space $P,$ so $cap F=emptyset$ is dense in $P,$ which is absurd.
(If $P$ were not assumed to be perfect then not all members of $F$ could be assumed to be dense in $P.$)
Aside: The proof of the Baire Category Theorem is direct and simple. Some students seem to be uncomfortable about this theorem, perhaps because it is unlike anything they've ever seen.
answered 1 hour ago
DanielWainfleetDanielWainfleet
35.5k31648
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This A is unrelated to my comment to the Q regarding a subset of $P$ that's homeomorphic to the Cantor Set
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Baire Category Theorem: If $P$ is a complete metric space and $F$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of $P$ then $cap F$ is dense in $P.$
Suppose $P$ is a non-empty closed subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Let $P$ inherit the usual metric from $Bbb R^n.$ Then $P$ is a complete metric space. Now suppose $P$ is countable and is a perfect subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Then $F={P setminus {x}: xin P}$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of the space $P,$ so $cap F=emptyset$ is dense in $P,$ which is absurd.
(If $P$ were not assumed to be perfect then not all members of $F$ could be assumed to be dense in $P.$)
Aside: The proof of the Baire Category Theorem is direct and simple. Some students seem to be uncomfortable about this theorem, perhaps because it is unlike anything they've ever seen.
answered 1 hour ago
DanielWainfleetDanielWainfleet
35.5k31648
$endgroup$
The Baire Category Theorem: If $P$ is a complete metric space and $F$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of $P$ then $cap F$ is dense in $P.$
Suppose $P$ is a non-empty closed subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Let $P$ inherit the usual metric from $Bbb R^n.$ Then $P$ is a complete metric space. Now suppose $P$ is countable and is a perfect subset of $Bbb R^n.$ Then $F={P setminus {x}: xin P}$ is a non-empty countable family of dense open subsets of the space $P,$ so $cap F=emptyset$ is dense in $P,$ which is absurd.
(If $P$ were not assumed to be perfect then not all members of $F$ could be assumed to be dense in $P.$)
Aside: The proof of the Baire Category Theorem is direct and simple. Some students seem to be uncomfortable about this theorem, perhaps because it is unlike anything they've ever seen.
answered 1 hour ago
DanielWainfleetDanielWainfleet
35.5k31648
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
DanielWainfleetDanielWainfleet
35.5k31648
answered 1 hour ago
DanielWainfleetDanielWainfleet
35.5k31648
answered 1 hour ago
DanielWainfleetDanielWainfleet
35.5k31648
35.5k31648
$begingroup$
This A is unrelated to my comment to the Q regarding a subset of $P$ that's homeomorphic to the Cantor Set
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This A is unrelated to my comment to the Q regarding a subset of $P$ that's homeomorphic to the Cantor Set
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
This A is unrelated to my comment to the Q regarding a subset of $P$ that's homeomorphic to the Cantor Set
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
This A is unrelated to my comment to the Q regarding a subset of $P$ that's homeomorphic to the Cantor Set
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3154887%2fwalter-rudins-mathematical-analysis-theorem-2-43-why-proof-cant-work-under-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
With the metric on $P$ inherited from the usual metric on $Bbb R^n$, the space $P$ is a complete metric space with no isolated points. We can show that a non-empty complete metric space $X$ with no isolated points has a subspace $Y$ which is homeomorphic to the Cantor Set. For the purposes of this Q it suffices to show there is a $Ysubset X$ which is a bijective image of the set of all binary sequences.
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
1 hour ago