0

In Stillwell's Mathematics and Its History we read

The need for clarification arose from the discovery of Harnack (1885) that any countable subset {x0, x1, x2, . . .} of R could be covered by a collection of intervals of arbitrarily small total length. Namely, cover x0 by an interval of length ε/2, x1 by an interval of length ε/4, x2 by an interval of length ε/8, . . . , so that the total length of intervals used is ≤ ε. (This is another proof, by the way, that R is not a countable set.)

I could not find a reference expounding such a proof, can anybody point to one?

Asaf Karagila
  • 405,794
jadn
  • 459
  • 2
  • 10
  • Does this method actually prove that $\mathbb R$ is uncountable ? And if yes, how can we conclude that with this argument ? – Peter Jan 24 '18 at 14:36
  • If $\mathbb{R}$ were countable, it could be covered by a set of arbitrarily small total length, which is absurd. – Hans Engler Jan 24 '18 at 15:01
  • 1
    Why is it absurd? The Cantor set is uncountable, and can be covered by sets of arbitrarily small total length. – Asaf Karagila Jan 24 '18 at 15:05
  • 1
    I don't see why you need a reference; you've given more or less the entire proof. The only missing detail is showing that $\Bbb R$ cannot be covered by intervals of small total length; that follows easily from compactness of $[0,1]$. – David C. Ullrich Jan 24 '18 at 15:09
  • 1
    Oxtoby's little book has the missing argument (if $[0,1] $ is covered by open intervals, the sums of their lengths is at least 1). The argument does not requore uncountability of $\mathbb R $. – Andrés E. Caicedo Jan 24 '18 at 15:15
  • David, my question is specifically a search for a reference, which treats this in the context of a proof. – jadn Jan 24 '18 at 15:18
  • This seems related: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1780580/what-is-wrong-in-this-proof-that-mathbbr-has-measure-zero?rq=1 – jadn Jan 24 '18 at 15:27

0 Answers0