3

Recall that $B\subset\Bbb R$ is a Bernstein set if $B\cap P\neq\emptyset \neq P\setminus B$ for every perfect set $P\subset\Bbb R.$ It can be constructed by an easy transfinite induction. Moreover, there is some construction for Bernstein set to satisfy specific conditions like there is a Bernstein set $B\subset\Bbb R$ such that $B+B$ is a Bernstein set, see the this answer https://math.stackexchange.com/a/1534151/707884. I think we can also show that there is a Bernstein set $B$ such that $B+B+\cdots+B$ (n-times) is a Bernstein set. Also, $r\cdot B$ is a Bernstein set for every $r\in\Bbb R\setminus\{0\}.$ Here is my question

Question 1. Can we construct a Bernstein set $B\subset\Bbb R$ such that if $$a_1 B+a_2B+\cdots+a_nB\neq 0,$$ then $a_1 B+a_2B+\cdots+a_nB$ is a Bernstein set for every $a_1,a_2,\cdots,a_n\in\Bbb R$?

if Question 1 is impoissble. I will make a weak assumption

Question 2 Can we construct a set $D\subset\Bbb R$ such that $D$ intersect each perfect set and if $$a_1 D+a_2D+\cdots+a_nD\neq 0,$$ then $a_1 D+a_2D+\cdots+a_nD\neq\Bbb R$ for every $a_1,a_2,\cdots,a_n\in\Bbb R$?

It seems that the question wants to ensure that any linear combination of $B$ is still Bernstein set. I know there is an example of a Bernstein set $B\subset\Bbb R$ such that $B$ is linearly independent. But I do not think this would be sufficient.

Any help would be appreciated greatly.

Gob
  • 3,184

1 Answers1

2

Yes, we can build a Bernstein set such that any non-trivial linear combination is a Bernstein set. Let A be the set of all the pairs $(t,C)$ where $ t = (t_i) $ is a $n$-tuple of non-zero reals and $C$ is a perfect subset. Then, we want a subset $B$ such that for any pair $ (t,C) \in A$, $B \cap C \neq \emptyset$ and $ C - (t_1 B + t_2 B + \ldots + t_n B) \neq \emptyset$. Because $ \mathrm{Card}(A) = \mathfrak{c} $, we can simply do this by transfinite induction, similarly to the usual construction of a Bernstein set.

Edit: Let's do a more complete proof. We put on $A = (p_\alpha)_{\alpha < \mathfrak{c}}$ an order isomorphic to $ \mathfrak{c} $. We will define two subsets $B$ and $ D $ by transfinite induction. Let $ p_0 = (t_0, C_0) $ be the first pair in $ A $, we choose $ b_0 \in C_0$, and $ d_0 \in C_0 $ different from $t_{0,1} b_0 + \ldots + t_{0,n_0} b_0$. Now, suppose that we have defined the sequences $ (b_\beta)_{\beta < \alpha} $ and $ (d_\beta)_{\beta < \alpha} $ for some ordinal $ \alpha < \mathfrak{c} $, such that for any $ \gamma < \alpha $, with the pair $p_\gamma = (t_\gamma,C_\gamma)$ and the set $B_\alpha = \{ b_\beta \mid \beta < \alpha \}$, we have $ d_\gamma \notin t_{\gamma,1} B_\alpha + \ldots + t_{\gamma,n_\gamma} B_\alpha$. Then, we want to find $ b_\alpha \in C_\alpha$ such that for any $\gamma < \alpha$, we have $d_\gamma \notin t_{\gamma,1} (B_\alpha \cup \{b_\alpha\}) + \ldots + t_{\gamma,n_\gamma} (B_\alpha \cup \{b_\alpha\})$. Another way of saying this is that for any subset $S \subseteq \{1,\ldots,n_\gamma\}$ and its complementary $T = \{1,\ldots,n_\gamma\} - S$, $$ d\gamma \notin \sum_{i \in S} t_{\gamma,i} B_\alpha + (\sum_{i \in T} t_{\gamma,i}) b_\alpha$$ For any reals $r,s$ the equation $ rx + s = d_\gamma$ has only one solution if $r \neq 0$, but if $r = 0$ and $s = d_\gamma$, any $x$ is a solution. So here, if we fix a subset $S$, we have two cases:

  1. if $(\sum_{i \in T} t_{\gamma,i}) \neq 0$, there are only $\mathrm{Card}(B_\alpha) < \mathfrak{c}$ elements that we cannot choose, so no problem.
  2. if $(\sum_{i \in T} t_{\gamma,i}) = 0$, we can choose any $b_\alpha$ that we want, because for any $ b \in B_\alpha $ we have by hypothesis that $$ d_\gamma \notin \sum_{i \in S} t_{\gamma,i} B_\alpha + (\sum_{i \in T} t_{\gamma,i}) b = \sum_{i \in S} t_{\gamma,i} B_\alpha $$

Because the set $\{1,\ldots,n_\gamma\}$ has only finitely many subsets, and because there are less than $\mathfrak{c}$ ordinals smaller than $\alpha$, there are only $\mathrm{Card}(B_\alpha)$ elements that we cannot choose in $C_\alpha$, therefore we can find a $b_\alpha$ which verifies the condition, and we define $B_{\alpha + 1} = B_\alpha \cup \{b_\alpha\}$. Then, we choose $d_\alpha \in C_\alpha - (t_{\alpha,1} B_{\alpha + 1} + \ldots + t_{\alpha,n_\alpha} B_{\alpha + 1})$. You define $B = \bigcup B_\beta$. Then, for any pair $p_\beta = (t_\beta,C_\beta)$, you have that $d_\beta \in C_\beta - (t_{\beta,1} B + \ldots t_{\beta,n_\beta} B)$, and therefore for any non-trivial tuple $t$, $t_1 B + \ldots + t_n B$ is a Bernstein set.

Tourbon Kitsch
  • 2,063
  • 8
  • 21
  • QuinnLesquimau, in $(t_1 B+t_2 B+\cdots+t_n B)\cap C\neq\emptyset$ Not $B\cap C\neq\emptyset$ Right? – Gob Jun 15 '21 at 09:25
  • 1
    @00GB No, because if $B$ is a Bernstein subset, $t_1 B + \ldots + t_n B$ intersects any perfect subset, so we automatically have that. – Tourbon Kitsch Jun 15 '21 at 10:01
  • QuinnLesquimau, I see, I thought it would not be true since we might add two Bernstein set and we got a non-Bernsetin set. – Gob Jun 15 '21 at 10:09
  • QuinnLesquimau , I am starting to check the details for this problem but I have some questions. Can we discuss that if you have a little time? – Gob Jun 15 '21 at 14:51
  • 1
    @00GB I added a complete proof, because I realized it wasn't quite as clear as what I thought. – Tourbon Kitsch Jun 15 '21 at 15:51
  • QuinnLesquimau, What a marvelous answer! I have some questions. in (2) the second term in the equation was supposed to be $b_\alpha$. right? How you split the sum after you said "another way to saying". Also, these terms must be written like $t_{\gamma,1} (B_\alpha \cup {b_\alpha})$ Not like $ t_{\gamma,1} B_\alpha \cup {b_\alpha}.$ – Gob Jun 15 '21 at 17:16
  • @00GB I corrected that. – Tourbon Kitsch Jun 15 '21 at 17:37
  • QuinnLesquimau, I do not think this result has been known before or no one has been thinking about it. I would recommend you to add more results about and published by somehow. Or at least write a separate note and put it on your webpage so people can use it as a reference. Just an idea – Gob Jun 15 '21 at 18:01
  • QuinnLesquimau , I think, we can even assume $0\in B$ and the construction still the same since $0$ is important sometimes. – Gob Jun 15 '21 at 18:23
  • @00GB This result is not very important, I don't think that it is necessary to put it somewhere. Also, we don't need to assume $0 \in B$, and it wouldn't give a smaller proof I think. – Tourbon Kitsch Jun 16 '21 at 05:52
  • QuinnLesquimau, I meant, if we add $0\in B$ after we constructed the result would not be changed $B$ still closed under any non trivial linear combination – Gob Jun 16 '21 at 08:31
  • @00GB I don't see why that would be true. $B + B$ doesn't contain $B$ in general, and if we define $B' = B \cup {0}$, $B' + B' = (B + B) \cup B'$. I don't see how to conclude that this last set is Bernstein. – Tourbon Kitsch Jun 16 '21 at 09:07
  • QuinnLesquimau, but we choose the element of $B$ without putting any condition. How about it already contains $0$ – Gob Jun 16 '21 at 09:46