Show that the sets $S(x)=\{(m,n):m\in\mathbb{Z},n\in\mathbb{N}^+,|x-\frac{m}{n}|\leq\frac{1}{n^3}\}$ where $x\in\mathbb{R}$ are finite for almost all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ in the sense of Lebesgue measure.
Finite Sets in the sense of Lebesgue Measure
148 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail AtThere are 2 best solutions below
On
The relevant result is Khinchin's theorem. (I haven't looked at the proof, but suspect it can be proved by an application of the Borel Cantelli lemma.)
Here $\psi(q) = {1 \over q^2}$, and $\sum_q \psi(q) $ is convergent, hence $A(x)=\{ {p \over q} \,|\, |x - { p \over q} | \le {\psi(q) \over q} \}$ is finite for ae. $x$.
The only detail is to translate this into showing that $S(x)$ is finite for ae. $x$.
Let $F$ be the set of $x$ for which $A(x)$ is finite, then $mF^c = 0$.
Then for $x \in F \setminus \mathbb{Q}$, the set $S(x)$ is finite.
To see this, note that if $(m,n) \in S(x)$ then ${m \over n} \in A(x)$. Suppose $S(x)$ is infinite, then there is some $(p,q) \in S(x)$ such that $(n_k p,n_k q) \in S(x)$ for some infinite sequence $n_k$. In particular, this means that $|x-{p\over q}| \le {\psi(n_kq) \over n_kq}$ for all $n_k$, and so $x={p\over q}$, which is a contradiction. Hence $S(x)$ is finite.
It seem to me I have found a possible proof. Let's take first the case $x>0$ and is not rational. Than we have the following alternatives , either $$\frac{m}{n} \leq x \leq \frac{m}{n}+\frac{1}{n^{3}}$$ or $$\frac{m}{n}-\frac{1}{n^{3}} \leq x \leq \frac{m}{n}$$. For the first case,by Archimedean axiom there are finitely many $\frac{m}{n}$, sutisfying the left part of the inequility with $(m,n) =1$. However there can be infinitely many pairs $(m,n)$ sutisfying the left part taking for example $(km, kn)$ which gives the same value. However let's show that it can't be done for infinitely many $k$-s. Here we can use the right part of the inequility. Let's suppose it can be done for infinitely many $k$-s, than it will mean that $\sup(x) = \frac{m}{n}$(taking x satisfying the inequality.). But on the other hand $x \geq \frac{m}{n}$. So we would have $x=\frac{m}{n}$, which can't be so as we have taken only irrational ones. So there are finitely many pair $(m,n)$, (though there can be some of the form $(km,kn)$ with $(k \neq 1)$).
For the second inequality, the situation is exactly the same. So while $x$ is irrational, we have only finitely many pairs $(m,n)$. However for all rationals there are infinitely many such pairs. Taking $x=\frac{p}{q}$, take $m=kp$, $n=kq$. Than for all $k$-s, the satisfies the conditions. For rationals there are infinitely many pairs, but exactly only for rationals. Their Lebesgue measure is 0, so the condition is satisfied almost everywhere in $R$.
Maybe I'm missing something. If this has little sense, I'm sorry.