Curs Fizica

!!"#$

%

! "# $%&&
'"
(') *+,*+-&.,%+%&
/-
0
0 1( ) # $%&&
! 23# $
+%%-*, # 134
56 7.%$-$$&/%+,
3 !"83 !
9 999!"
:; ! <

! < ! ! =3 "

# 2

!!
Dedication
I dedicate this book alike:
To my father, Vasile Gottlieb, from whom I

inherited the way of thinking, very useful both in my
teaching and my research work.
and
To my wife, Cleopatra Mociutchi, with all my

love, for the devotion that helped me in my professional
activity.
Vasile Gottlieb László
Born in Sighetul Marmaţiei on the 20th of May, 1897 and who died as de-
tainee no. 72763 in the concentration camp of Melk, on the 12th of January,
1945, whose influence, which was felt upon me until my age of 16, has guided
me along all my career.
Professor Cleopatra Mociutchi Ph.D. (Theoretical Physics), the best
collaborator and companion of my life.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Anca Tureanu for her help with the English
version of the book.
Few words about this book...
This volume is a translation of the book “Ioan Gottlieb: Overlapped Universes”,
Tehnica Publishing House, Chişinau, Republic of Moldavia, 1995. Certain changes,
as well as some scientific articles on the complete fractal pattern of the Universe
have been added to the present edition. The preface contains a series of defi-
tions regarding the theory we wish to advance.
According to our opinion, the title we have finally chosen, i.e. “A Fractal
Model of the Universe” reflects the subject matter of the present book more
accurately as compared to the previous one, i.e. “Overlapped Universes”. We
have combined two patterns: the one we have used since the middle of the XXth
century (see the paper of Vescan, Weiszman, Gottlieb - Appendix 10.1, Section
III.), and the Lambert-Charlier model of the Universe (the hierarchical model)
initially formulated in the XVIIIth century. They both consider the universe as
having a fractal structure at all levels.
We presumed that the particles of the micro-cosmos are clusters (cluster =
a group of similar things) made of other particles (therefore clusters of inferior
orders). If we combine this model with that of the Charlier-Lambert hierarchical
Universe (in which the macroscopic matter is structured in clusters of different
orders and each cluster, in its turn, is made of clusters of inferior order) we reach
a complete fractal pattern of the Universe.
Within the first parts of some chapters, where this was necessary, we have
approached those mathematical theories (at an accessible level for those who
graduated from high-school) one needs to better understand the statements refer-
ring to our model.
Thus, Chapter 2 starts with some considerations of the theory of sets, as each
cluster is a set of clusters.
The next chapter, the third, introduces the very subtle notion of cardinal
numbers and postulates that the number of clusters of certain order should be,
at the most, that of natural numbers.
Since the space which has been defined by the suggested scheme is made
of points, chapter 4 includes a series of definitions within the set of points. The
geometrical structure of clusters and that of the entire space, as it has been de ned
by the proposed model, has a series of features (the cluster is a rare set, the whole
space is dense, within a continuous space, etc.) which are subject matter for
topology. These are the elements we have approached in the last part of chapter 5.
Considering that the fractal structure is marked out by the set of points that form
the geometry of a cluster and has the characteristics of “Cantor dust”, initially
IX
X Few words about this book...
called “Cantor’s discontinuum”.

Chapter 6 approaches at large this most famous set. It is here that we shall
notice that even if it is made of a finite number of clusters of lower orders, the
set of all components in each cluster, i.e. the clusters of all orders that form the
initial cluster, is as rich as the points within a real number interval, i.e. “bigger”
than the set of integer numbers.
Chapter 7 presents the theory of embedding of one space into another, be-
cause, as we shall see later on, space S that has been obtained in the complete
fractal pattern of the Universe is all over a discontinuous one, but can be embed
in a local Euclidian space, in which it is dense. The fractal dimension of the
space S is so very close to 3, that we cannot size the deviation from this entire
dimension.
The author’s opinion is that one can skip over these mathematical theories, at
least when reading the text at first sight, so that one should not miss the essence
of the image of the complete fractal Universe.
Chapter 9, in its turn, contains knowledge in the field of the theory of rela-
tivity, but the calculations in this part can also be omitted, because merely the
conclusions are important for the understanding of the story. That is why we
offer a general view on the proposed pattern, including some consequences, but
with no demonstrations. Since every cluster is made of clusters having inferior
orders, let us consider an infinite sequence of clusters in which each cluster is the
constituent of the previous one. Such a sequence generates a physical point.
What we want to demonstrate is that no matter how much we try to think the
set of all physical points that have been obtained within an Euclidian space, they
will not be able to cover the whole space. In any vicinity we shall nd some
geometrical points that correspond to physical points (we have called them real),
but, at the same time, geometrical points that do not correspond to such physical
points (called virtual ones). Therefore, within a geometrical space, the physical
space becomes dense (as, for example, the Euclidian one), but the geometrical
space occupied by such points will be hallow where points do not correspond to
the physical ones. At the same time, the set of the physical points that belong to a
cluster has a geometrical correspondence, i.e. a rare set, this meaning that in any
vicinity of a point corresponding to the physical one, we shall find some vicinity
that contains no real point.
Each cluster emits and absorbs inferior clusters (the quantum theory of the
field describes interaction in a similar way), therefore the real and virtual points
permanently interchange. Moreover, since the set of the physical points of a
cluster is a hallow one, sufficiently small clusters can reach the vicinity of any
physical point. Therefore, the change of component clusters can take place in
Few words about this book... XI
any part within the initial cluster. That is why, all the areas of the interacting
cluster contribute to the theory of gravitation.
We hope that this short presentation will be of help for the reader of this book.
At the same time, we would like to point out that the affixed papers are of no less
importance. They show our concern to find most convincing methods to plead for
the our hypothesis, in order to emphasize the way the complete fractal Universe
gets along with other fundamental theories, such as, for example, the theory of
general relativity (see the last paper in the Part II - Original Papers), etc.
Contents
Few words about this book... IX
Contents XIII
PART I Overlapped universes XV
Preface XVII
1 The Model 1
2 Sets 5
3 Cardinal numbers 11
4 Point sets 19
5 Elements of general topology 27
6 An example of Georg Cantor 37
7 Embedding into the Euclidean space 47
8 A bit of motion 53
9 and...a science fiction story 57
A The list of postulates, axioms, definitions and theorems 73

A.1 Postulates 73
A.2 Definitions 75
A.3 Axioms 75
A.4 Theorems 76
B List of Notations 79
C Alphabetical Index 81
XIII
XVI Contents
PART II Original papers 83
10 Original papers 84
10.1 Contribu ii la studiul problemelor geometrice ale teoriei relativit! ii

generalizate. Privire sintetic! – T.T. Vescan, A. Weiszmann, I. Gottlieb 85
10.2 Matter and Point Set Theory – Ali Kyrala 103
10.3 L’hyphotese d’un modele de la structure de la materie – I. Gottlieb 105
10.4 Some hypotheses on space, time and gravitation – I. Gottlieb 121
10.5 Gottlieb space-time. A fractal axiomatic model of the Universe – M. Agop 131
10.6 Games with Cantor’s dust – I. Gottlieb, M. Agop, V. Enache 143
10.7 My picture over the World – I. Gottlieb 149

PART I
Overlapped universes
XVI
Motto “It is. . . quite possible that all these millions of suns, added to some
other billions which are hidden to our eyes, could together make up nothing but
a blood or a lymph cell in the body of an animal or of an imperceptible insect
compared to a world which goes beyond any human conception on size, and
which, however, could be in itself, when compared to one another world, nothing
but a grain of sand. Similarly, it is not preposterous at all to imagine that long
centuries of thinking and cleverness live and pass away under our eyes on an
atom in only one moment. . . What is wonderful, is not the fact that the extent of
the starry sky is so vast, but the fact that man could measure it”
Anatole France, “The Garden of Epicurus”

Preface
In 1953, when my intention was to understand the mysteries of the sub-
atomic universe, a weird idea came to my mind: if indeed, the so-called elemen-
tary particle themselves could be made up of more elementary particles, which,
in their turn, could be made up of even smaller particles, and so on, endlessly.
The idea, once springing to life, got stronger and wouldn’t leave me.
Yet, an idea is justi ed only if it leads to a series of conclusions, of conse-
quences, which, in their turn, do not contradict our solid knowledge. That is why,
from its corner, the idea started to excite some other centres of the brain and so,
after about one year, the first written attempt on this subject was born.
After I had put it on the paper, I decided that it should be known only to a
restricted circle, so that I could have been criticized, encouraged, or discouraged.
– The first encouragements came from one of my colleagues (who later became
my wife), but it was also she who was the first to make this critical remark:
“Your theory is too general if you attempt to get some expressions, relations or
equations which are the results of some principles that lay the foundations of
some special chapters of Physics.” – Indeed, together with this first attempt I
found myself trapped in a series of insignificant details.
Consequently, the paper was reformulated and in this better form it reached
the table of the professor who supervised my doctor’s degree, the much regretted
Professor Teofil T. Vescan. “Your conception is a bit too mechanistic”, he told
me, “but it is interesting and it should be publish in order to assure your priority
on the matter”. In this way I came to display these ideas at the “The National
Congress on Differential Geometry” held in Timişoara and to publish them (T.T.
Vescan, A. Weiszmann, I. Gottlieb, “Contributions to the Study of the Geometri-
cal Problems of the Generalized Relativity Theory”, The Papers of the Congress
on the Differential Geometry June, 9-12, 1955, Timişoara, pp. 341 – 355. – (The
paper was not a collaborations, as each author had its own part)
Not all the specialists I talked to had encouraging attitudes. Some of them
displayed a certain reserve, and some others advised me to abandon this path
in my research. Nevertheless, I was rm in my decision that, at least for one
time, I should publish a detailed article on this matter. And so, my paper reached
the much regretted academician Octav Mayer, an outstanding Professor of the
Faculty of Mathematics and Physics of the University of Iasi, the chief editor
of the Scientific Annals of the “Al. I. Cuza” University of Iasi. He invited me
to his office, he gave me some very valuable suggestions concerning a more
proper wording and he told me: “I think you are right, but you will be accepted
XVII
XVIII Preface
with great difficulties”. His anticipation proved to be true. Professor O. Mayer

also suggested me a more adequate mathematical formulation. I kept all his
suggestions, even those regarding notation, but I have never had the chance to
show him all my gratitude.
The years passed by, and in 1960, on a page of the magazine “Physical
Review” there was published an article signed by Ali Kyrala and entitled “Mat-
ter and Set Point Theory” (volume 117, number 5, p. 1409), an article which
contained the same ideas I had published in 1955. – How right Professor Ves-
can was when he expressed his concerns on the publication of my paper. Ali
Kyrala’s article stimulated me and I wrote an extensive paper with the title of
“L’hypothèse d’un modèle de la structure de la matière” which was published
in Revista Matematica y Fisica Teorica, Serie A, Vol.XV, 1964, Tucuman (Ar-
gentina), pp.23 – 38 . The ideas included in this article are developed in the
following pages, together with a series of results from some chapters of Mathe-
matics (the set theory, topology, etc.) which are so necessary to understand the
problems which will be dealt with.
The decades which passed by did not refute the proposed model, on the
contrary, they brought in some relevant elements regarding the structure of the
so-called elementary particles, researches initiated by the Nobel Prize winner for
the year 1961, Robert Hofstadter. Here, we should underline the fact that the
model was not confirmed either, so that it must be considered as being just one
possibility.
Iasi, January 13,1984
* * *
P.S. I The academic year 1984 / 1985 was extremely difficult as I was in poor
health. Some of the long, sleepless hours in which I had no possibility of reading
or writing, were spent by telling to myself a science fiction story, made up of
the above mentioned ideas. In order not to lose the ideas which I was not able to
write on paper, each time I resumed and recalled the previous stories and, after
my recovery, I put them on the paper and, in a more polished form, they are the
content of Chapter 9.
In this period of time, I asked Prof. D. Sc. Olga Costinescu (the author of
the book “Elements of General Topology,” Tehnica Publishing House, Bucharest,
1969) to read the first five chapters, which were already typed, and to express her
opinions on them. I take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to this
distinguished lady for the expertise by which she helped me in improving my
text, for her sensible remarks and for her suggestions which I always followed
un inchingly.
Preface XIX
* * *
P. S. II In the following years we succeeded in supplementing the static

model, presented in the first seven chapters, with a bit of dynamism. The paper,
which is entitled “Some Hypotheses on Space, Time and Gravitation” (Studies In
Gravitation Theory, editors I. Gottlieb and N. J. Ionescu- Pallas, CIP Press 1988,
pp 227 – 234) lies at the bedrock of Chapter 8.
* * *
I want you to pay attention to the part VIII of Chapter 9. I was tempted to
use the name of “cadenza” by the concertos for soloist and orchestra, where the
soloist may interpret, in a certain place pointed out by the composer, his own
composition on the theme of the concerto. For this first edition, it was I who
included a “cadenza,” but if another edition is printed in future, we will publish
some other “cadenzas,” also indicating their authors. In this sense of the word, I
am waiting for some proposals.
Chapter 1
The Model
The hypothesis on the discreet structure of the substance has lasted for
two and a half millennium and it is connected to the name of Leucippus and
his disciple Democritus. They postulate the non-destructibility of the matter,
the existence and the non–divisibility of its ultimate elements. We also owe to
Democritus the name of “atom”, which in Greek means “non-divisible”.
This atomistic theory was abandoned for a long period, a period in which
there triumphed the philosophy of the antiquity “giant”, Aristotle, who main-
tained the continuous structure of any material body.
The last important atomistic expert of that period, Epicurus, was still young
when Aristotle died, and the latter couldn’t have had a decisive influence on the
former. Yet, his ideas remained vivid. Two and a half centuries later, they were
the source of inspiration to Lucretius’ wonderful philosophical poem, “Of the
Nature of Things” (Titus Lucretius Carus, "De Rerum Natura"), a lyrical and
didactic exposé, the most complete rendering of Epicurus’ system that we have.
The atomistic concept was brought to life again in the Renaissance period by
P. Gassendi, R. Boyle, I. Newton, D. Bernoulli, etc. who used the idea of the
granular structure of substance in a series of logical deductions. Yet, all these
studies did not lead to conclusive arguments in favour of atomism.
The scientific grounding of the substance atomic structure belongs to Chem-
istry and it is connected to the name of John Dalton and his 1802–1804 papers.
In 1811 A. Avogadro introduces the notion of molecule. Yet, the anti-atomists
were completely defeated only at the beginning of the last century (1908–1909)
when Jean Perrin, relying on Albert Einstein’s researches in the field of kinetical-
molecular theory, established by way of experiment the molecular size and Avo-
gadro’s number (the number of molecules in a gram-molecule of substance).
Yet, before atomism was unanimously accepted, the idea of the atom structure
came to life owing to the discovery of the electron. Actually, the existence of an
elementary charge resides in Faraday’s electrolysis laws and Loschmidt’s law
which was for the first time sustained by J. Stoney in 1874. Stoney published
his work only in 1881, the year when H. von Helmholtz strongly sustained the
existence of electricity atoms in his famous conference “About the Modern De-
velopment of Faraday’s Concepts on Electricity”. In 1891 Stoney gave the name
of “electron” to the bearer of the negative elementary charge. Nowadays we know
that an atom consists of a nucleus around which there is a cloud of electrons. The
1
2 Chapter 1 The Model
nucleus is also made of protons and neutrons. Besides these relatively stable
formations they discovered a whole series of particles, with varied properties
and which submit to laws that are quite different from the usual ones in the
macroscopic physics.
* * *
Nowadays, our image on macroscopic bodies is that of a building whose
bricks are the so-called “elementary particles”. Yet, these particles might not
be the “ultimate bricks” of nature; and they might also have an inner structure,
made up of some other “even more elementary” particles. We do not know these
“even more elementary” particles, but we can assume that they are not the “last
bricks” either. In this case, they are also composed of other particles, and so on.
Accepting this assumption, we suggest the following model:
The Model
Let us note with 1 the system of all particles that we nowadays name
them as being elementary, and with ! 1 the elementary particles where
the superior index " numbers the particles. We assume that the particles
! 1 are composed of particles !! 2 , and the totality of the !! 2 particles
forms the system 2 . Following the method, we come to the particles
" # $
! 3 # ! 4 # $$$# ! % # $$$ and to the adequate systems 3# 4 # $$$# % # $$$ .
Following the method in the opposite direction we come to the system & ,
whose elements are heavenly bodies, and to the system of galaxies 1 .
The model that is so designed requires a series of explanations which will be
stated as postulates, and proceeding from the model and the postulates, a series of
conclusions will be deduced. For the vocabulary precision’s sake, it is necessary
a series of definitions.
Postulate I. Each ! % particle consists of a finite number (!" #) of
particles $ ! 1 .
Postulate II. For any ! there is a % (!) so that for any # we should have
(!" #) % (!) and there is a finite % so that % (!) % for any !. - (This
postulate assures us that out of the particles of the & ! 1 system there can not be
formed particles of the & ! system, no matter how big they are, not even at the
limit of ! ! ").
Postulate III. There are particles $" ! which do not come into the compo-
nent of the particles $# !+1 .
These postulates allow us to state the first definitions.
Definition I. The particles $" ! that are components of a particle $# !+1
are named bound ones, and the other ones are named free.
3
Definition II. The system ' ! of the free particles $" ! , a subsystem of
& ! , is named a field of order !.
We will see the resulting conclusions from above, first of all, for the structure
of the space. Yet, we will have to make a review of a series of topology and sets
theory knowledge for the purpose.
* * *
Before passing to the subject, we should remind you that there is a similar
idea in the ancient Greek philosophy. Here it is what G. Sarton in “A His-
tory of Science” (vol. 1, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1952) wrote: “Anaxagoras (c.500 -432 B.C.) held that matter may be indefinitely
subdivised into spermata (seeds), each of them as complex as the whole.” We
will quote below a longer excerpt from “The History of Ancient and Mediaeval
Philosophy” (The Didactic and Pedagogic Press, Bucharest, 1976, pages 101 –
102).of our beloved Professor Ernest Stere (1912-1979).
((In Anaxarogas’ opinion, there is an infinite division of material, pri-
mary elements, qualitatively distinct one from another which he calls “germs”
or “seeds” of things. (Since Aristotles’ time they will be known under the
name of “homeomeries”.) In each particular thing there are included a
great deal of such germs, “homeomeries”. If we take bread, for exam-
ple, it is composed of small amounts of bones, flesh, blood, etc, in fact,
of everything that the human body itself is made of. The homogeneity of
things is nothing else but an appearance. No matter how far the division
of a body would go, it can go even farther without causing the extinction
of the nature of the divided thing. Each small piece obtained by division
can be divided in its turn, and actually contains all the possible forms and
qualities. In this case, a material piece, no matter how minute it is, is not
different from any other material piece but by the proportion of the quali-
ties or of the homeomeries that it is made of. Practically, in this case, we
can not even talk about elements. Even the bodies which are called ele-
ments are, in fact, composed of a great deal of homeomeries. “Everything
is everything” says Anaxagoras, “because the things in the universe are not
separated one from another and they are not split by an axe strike, neither
warm from the cold, nor cold from the warm”.))
Chapter 2
Sets
The notions of set, element and belonging (of an element to the set) are con-
sidered as primary notions. These notions cannot be defined, they are described
by other synonyms or by some explicative phrases, and we assume that we all
understand the same things when referring to them.
Sets, which will be generally noted with capital letters *" +" ' etc., are col-
lections of objects, notions, ideas etc., which will be noted, for the time being,
with small letters i.e. ," -" ., and which are all distinct and are called elements.
The set is seen as a whole. It is uniquely determined by its elements which, in
their turn, belong to the set. If, for example, the set * consists of ," -" ., and /
elements, we will write * = {," -" ." /} and the fact that the element , belongs
to the * set is written , # *. We can express the fact that the element 0 does not
belong to the set * by 0 # 1 *.
Let us give a few examples of sets:
1. the set of students in a classroom;
2. the set of the natural numbers 2 = {0" 1" 2" 3" 333}
3. the set of integers 4 = {0" ±1" ±2" 333}
4. the set of rational numbers 5 whose elements are numbers written as 617 ,
where 6 and 7 belong to the set 4 ;
5. the set 8 of the real numbers;
6. the set of the points in a straight line segment,
7. the set of the primary notions of the set theory, that is the set {set, element,
belonging}.
So, sets could be arbitrarily defined without any restrictions. Precisely this
unlimited freedom of defining sets led to the famous paradoxes which have shaken,
for a period of time, our trust in the set theory. Yet, under a refined form, it
still remains the grounding basis of Mathematics as a whole. These problems
exceed the area necessary to our study. They can be found in any modern book
of Mathematics and of the set theory as well. We will con ne ourselves to the so-
called the naïve set theory, whose fundamentals were laid down by only one man
(a unique event in the history of Mathematics) and that man was Georg Cantor
(1845–1918).
In the next lines we will de ne some notions which are necessary to some
subsequent considerations.
5
6 Chapter 2 Sets
• The sets * and + are equal if both of them have the same elements and we
write * = + .
• We say that the set + is a subset of the set * if all the elements in + also
belong to * and we write + $ * or * % + (we could also state that the set
+ is included into the set * or * contains + ). Thus, the set + = {," -}
is a subset of the set *; the set of the even numbers is a subset of the set of
integers.
• If we simultaneously have * $ + and + $ * then it results that * = + . As
we will see, this implication is successfully used when proving the equality
of two sets.
In the set theory there is postulated the existence of a set 9 named the empty
set, that does not contain any element and which is a subset of any other set.
Any set * is its own subset, that is * $ *. The empty set, as well as the
whole set, are named improper subsets, while the rest of the subsets are named
proper subsets.
* * *
Proceeding from a set *, we can build up the set of the parts of *, noted
: (,), whose elements are all the subsets of *. Thus, an element of : (,) is a
subset of *. If, for example, + = {," -}, then : (,) = {9" {,} " {-} " {," -}}.
We do here underline the fact that we should make the difference between , as
an element of + and {,} as a subset of + which contains only one element.
Let us count the elements of : (,) in the speci c case that which means
that the set * has ! elements. First of all, we have the empty set, then the
subset made up of one element ({,1 } " 333" {,! }) ,whose number is '!1 = ! (i.e.
combinations of ! elements taken one by one), next following the subsets, each
made up of two elements ({,1 " ,2 } " {,1 " ,3 } " 333" {,! 1 " ,! }), whose number is
'!2 (i.e. combinations of ! elements taken two by two) and so on. In this way,
the number 2 (:) of : (*) elements will be:
2 (:) = 1 + '!1 + '!2 + 333 + '!! 1
+ '!!
Yet, this number is precisely 2! . Indeed, if in Newton’s binomial
(; + <)! = ;! + '!1 ;! 1 < + '!2 ;! 2 < 2 + 333 + '!! 1 ;< ! 1
+ '!! < !
we put ; = < = 1, then we nd 2 (:) = 2! .
* * *
By the union of the sets * an + , noted * & + , we understand the set made
7
up of both * and + elements, with the specification that the common elements
of * and + are taken just once. So, if
* = {," -" ." /} and + = {," -" 0" = } "
then
* & + = {," -" ." /" 0" =}
We state that * ' + is the intersection of the sets * and + if it contains the
common elements of * and + . So, in the example above
* ' + = {," -}
The sets * and + are disjoint if * ' + = 9

The operations "&" and "'" have the following properties:
• comutativity: * & + = + & * ; * ' + = + ' *;
• associativity: * & (+ & ') = (* & +) & ' ; * ' (+ ' ') = (* ' +) ' '
• absorbtion: * & (* ' +) = * ; * ' (* & +) = * ;
• distributivity: * & (+ ' ') = (* & +) ' (* ' ') ;
* ' (+ & ') = (* ' +) & (* ' ') ;
• idempotency: * & * = * ; * ' * = *.
In order to illustrate with some examples, let’s demonstrate the second rela-
tion of absorbtion. Let us take ; # * ' (* & +). Naturally, we have ; # *, so
* ' (* & +) $ *. Now, let < # *. In this case, < # * & + , no matter what
the set + is. Consequently, < # * ' (* & +), so * ' (* & +) % *. Out of the
two inclusions there results the equality we were to demonstrate.
Another notion is that of the complementary of a set + to the set * % + ,
$
noted +% , that is the set made up of those elements of the set * which are not
$
contained in + . Thus, if * = {," -" ." /} and + = {," -}, then +% {." /}.
If +" ' $ * then we have
+ & +%$ = * ; + ' +%$ = 9 ;
as well as Augustus de Morgan’s relations:
(+ & ')$% = +%$ ' '%$ ; (+ ' ')$% = +%$ & '%$
Let’s prove the validity of de Morgan’s first relation. - Let us take ; #

(+ & ')$% . In this case ; #1 + and ; #1 ' , therefore ; # 1 (+ & '). But
8 Chapter 2 Sets
$
then, ; # +% and ; # '%$ and, consequently ; # +% $
' '%$ . Thus there results
$
(+ & ')% .$ +% ' '% . - Now, let’s take, < # +% ' '%$ , therefore < # +%$
$ $ $
and < # '%$ . In other words, < #1 + and < # 1 ' , therefore < # 1 (+ & ')$% and,
$ $ $ $
consequently, < # (+ & ')% . Thus, we have +% ' '% $ (+ & ')% . The two
obtained inclusions lead to Morgan’s relation.
Morgan’s relations can be generalized to some arbitrary families of sets. Let’s
consider a set * and let be {*" }, with # # > , a family of the subsets of *. Here,
> is a set whose elements are called indexes. The set > may be the set of the
integers between 1 and 2 , may be the set of the natural numbers, etc. It is
quite important to mention the fact that to different
S indexes (# 6= ) correspond
T
different sets (*" 6= *& ). By noting with *" the union and with *" the
"!' "!'
intersection of the sets from the family *" , de Morgan’s generalized relations
can be written as follows:
Ã !$ Ã !$
[ \ \ [
*" = *$"% ; *" = *$"%
"!' % "!' "!' % "!'
The difference of the sets * and + , noted *\+ , is the set of those elements
of * that do not belong to the set + . For example, if * ' + = 9 (i.e. * and +
$
are disjoint), then *\+ = *, and if * % + then *\+ = +% . The symmetrical
difference of the sets * and + is, by definition, the set (*\+) & (+\*), noted
* +.
* * *
We could notice that out of a given set we can build up another set, whose
elements are the subsets of the given set. Now, what we want to do is to build up
out of two or more subsets, a new one which is called their Cartesian product.
By the Cartesian product of the sets * and + , we mean the set * × + of all
the couples (," -), where , # * and - # + . When looking at this de nition,
we can notice that this product is not commutative because the first element of
the couple belongs to the first set and not otherwise! The Cartesian product
can be immediately generalized for even more sets. Thus, if we have the sets
*1 " *2 " 333" *! , their Cartesian product is:
*1 × *2 × 333 × *!
having the elements (,1 " 333" ,! ), with ,1 # *1 " 333" ,! # *! . – If *1 = *2 =
333 = *! their Cartesian product will be noted as *! .
We should anticipate the importance of the Cartesian product when taking
into account the geometrical problems. Indeed, a straight line is equivalent to
9
the set 8 of the real numbers (being a one-to-one correspondence between the
points of a straight line and the set of the real numbers), the plane with the set
82 (therefore the points of the plane can be determined through an ordinate pair
of real numbers, coordinates of the point), and the three-dimensional space is
equivalent to the set 83 .
* * *
We can integrate the model presented in Chapter 1 in a quite large mathemat-

ical scheme. This is the reason which made us resume the description using an
abstract mathematical language. Let us assume that we can ignore the movement
of the particles, as well as their physical properties. Then, each particle $" !
can ©be considered,
ª from a geometrical point of view, as an element 0" ! . The
set 0" ! of all the elements determines the physical space !. Taking into
account the facts stated in the previous paragraph, we impose upon the space !
the following axioms:
Axiom 1. The 0" ! = 0( ) equality takes place if and only if ! = 6 and # = ? .
Axiom 2. For each element 0" ! there exists a finite number of elements
"
0"1! 1 " 333" 0 ! 1 , so that,
n o
"
0"
! = 0"1! 1 " 333333" 0 ! 1
" " "

and we will write 0 !! 1 $ 0" ! or 0 !! 1 # 0" ! (1 7 6), just as 0 !! 1 is,
in its turn, considered to be a set of elements 0 ! 2 , or simply as an element of
0" ! .
"
¡ " We should ¢ notice the fact that any 0 ! is thought of as an element in a system
0 ! # & ! , as well as a finite set of elements in another system, & * , with
@ ) !.
Axiom 3. The 0" ! and 0 ! elements, with # 6= ? , can not have any 0 ! 1
component element in common.
As we can notice, any element of ! is also a subset of ! (as it results from
Axiom 2). Yet, the reverse of this statement is not always true.
From what we have pointed out above, some consequences may be deduced,
which, for a better systematization, we will express them under the form of some
theorems.
Theorem 1. If 0" ! and 0 ! have a common element 0 ! 1 , then 0" ! = 0 !
(therefore # = ? ).
10 Chapter 2 Sets
Proof. Let be
© ª © ª
0" ! = 0"1! 1 " 3333330""! 1 and 0 ! = 0 1! 1 " 3333330"#! 1
According to the hypothesis there is, in these sets, a common element, for exam-
ple 0"1! 1 = 0 1! 1 . Yet, according to Axiom 3 we cannot have 0" ! 6= 0 ! , so
0" ! = 0 ! and Axiom 1 imposes for this case # = ? , therefore the theorem is
demonstrated.
As it follows we formulate:
Definition 1. If 0" ! % 0 ! 1 % 333333 % 0( + , then we state that 0( + belongs
to 0" ! .
Theorem 2. There is no such element 0 ) , with 6 ) !, that could belong
to two different elements 0" ! and 0 ! .
The proof results from Theorem 1, by repeating the sentence for 6 ( ! times,
Theorem 3. If the 0" ! and 0 ) elements contain a common element 0 + ,
then one of the following three relations is true: 0" ! $ 0 ) (if ! ) 6), 0" ! =
0 ) (if ! = 6), or 0" ! % 0 ) (if ! ( 6),.
© ª
Proof. We will point out the validity of the first inclusion. Let be 0&1! " 3333330&"!
the set of all elements 0 ! , contained in 0 ) . If 0 + belongs to 0 ) , then 0 +
belongs to one of the elements in the set above, for example 0&1! . Yet, according
to the hypothesis, 0 + also belongs to 0" ! , therefore, according to Theorem 2
we have 0" ! $ 0&1! , and so 0"! $ 0) , which was to demonstrate.
Chapter 3
Cardinal numbers
One of the main problems of the set theory is the comparing of sets in their
quantitative estimation. In the case of the finite sets the situation is simple: we
count the elements of the sets * and + and we compare the numbers that we
have obtained. Yet this method cannot be applied to the case of the infinite sets.
That is why we will follow a different path.
Let us consider two finite sets: * = {,1 " 333" ,) }and + = {-1 " 333" -, } and
let us form the pairs (,1 " -1 ) " (,2 " -2 ) " 333 until we use all the elements in one
set. If we have used all the elements of * and + simultaneously, it means that
6 = 7 (without necessarily knowing the value of 6), therefore the two sets have
the same number of elements. If we have used up all the elements of the set *
and there are still left elements of + , it means that * has fewer elements than
+ . The method is also practical in every day life. If, in a large dancing hall, we
want to know if there are more men or more women, we invite the participants
to form mixed dance pairs. The more numerous gender will have representatives
who will remain on their chairs along the walls. - It follows then, to formulate
the design procedure so that we should not make use of the finite character of the
sets in question.
Let us take two sets, * and + . If, to each element of * we assign one single
element of + , we say that we have made an application of * in + and we write
= : * ! +.
An example is the characteristic function =" , of a subset *" of * in the set
+ = {0" 1}, a function which is de ned by:
½ ¾
1 if ; # *"
=" (;) =
0 if ; # *$"%
Naturally, the characteristic function ="$ of the complementary set of *" to an-
other set + , that is of the set *$"- , will be joined to =" through the relation
="$ = 1 ( =" 3
A very important part is played by the so-called bijective map (or bijection).
The map = : * ! + is bijective if for any - # + there is only one element
, # *, so that = : , ! - (= (,) = -). In this case the reverse map = 1 : + ! *
exists.
We will state that two sets * and + are equivalent (or equipotent, or of the
11
12 Chapter 3 Cardinal numbers
same power) if there exists a bijection = : * ! + , and we write * ) + . From

the definition of the bijection there follows that the conditions of an equivalency
relation are met, namely those of
• re exivity (* ) +) ,
• symmetry (from * ) + there results + ) *) and
• transitivity (from * ) + and + ) ' there results * ) ' ).
Now, let us take into account a set * and the set % (*) of all the sets equiva-
lent to *. % (*) is named equivalency class. Naturally, * # % (*). If * ) + ,
then + # % (*), as well. On the contrary, if + is not equivalent to * (+ 6) *),
then % (+) is another equivalency class. Thus, all the sets can be divided into
classes of equivalence.
Now, let us consider a set & of symbols, a set which is equivalent to the set
{%} of all the equivalency classes, therefore & ) {%}, that is to say that a sym-
bol from the set & one-to-one assigned to each one of the class % . This symbol
is considered to be a common feature of the sets in % and for the set * # %
we will write it as * # & . If the set + also belongs to % (so + # % ), then
+ = *.
In the set & we can introduce an order relation . By definition, an order
relation is
• reflexive, i.e. , ,,
• anti-symmetrical, i.e. from , - and - , there results , = -, and
• transitive, then from , - and - . there results - ..
Indeed, let it be %1 and %2 , two different classes (%1 6= %2 ). If the set
*2 # %2 has a subset *1 # %1 , then we accept *2 ( *1 , which de nes an
order relation in & . The elements of & are called cardinal numbers, which we
will also write as card * (so, card * = * ).
As a first example, let us take into consideration the finite sets. If is a finite
set, then ! ( ) will have as its elements all the finite sets that have the same
number of elements as does, because, in the case of finite sets, a bijection
can be created only between the sets with the same number of elements, but a
bijective application cannot exist between two finite sets with a different number
of elements. For this reason, we will agree that the symbol attached to ! ( ),
where = {"1 # $$$# " }, should be the number of elements of , i.e. card =
= % & . Consequently, one of the subsets & is the set of natural numbers
' = {0# 1# $$$$%# $$$}.The number zero corresponds to the set which contains the
empty set (, the only set with only one element.
13
* * *
Let us now move on to the study of infinite sets. First of all, we will refer to
the set ' of natural numbers. We will write, as Georg Cantor did, the cardinal of
this set as !0 (alef zero) (so, ' = !0 & ).
We should first notice that the infinite subsets of ' have the same cardinal
number. Indeed, let be an infinite subset of ' , for example the set{"0$$$# " # $$$}.
In this case
"0 " 0, "1 " 1# $$$# " " %# $$$
is a bijection between the given subset and ' .
For example, let us take under consideration the even numbers set {0# 2# 4# $$$},
which is a subset of ' . The one-to-one correspondence is achieved through
0 " 0# 2 " 1# 4 " 2, etc. Actually, one of the features of the infinite sets is
that they have their own subsets with which they are equivalent. In other words,
0 0 0
if the sets and # , where 6= , are equipotent (that is, $ ), then
is an infinite set.
The set ) = {0# %1# 1# %2# 2# $$$} of the integers also has the cardinal !0 ,
because the bijection with ' is achieved through:
0 " 0# %1 " 1# 1 " 2# $$$# %% " 2% % 1# % " 2%# $$$
Now, let us consider the set * of the rational positive numbers, that is of
the numbers such as +,- , where +# - ' with + 6= 0 and - 6= 0. The fact
that ' # * is clearly implied, because in the set *+ the rational numbers with
- = 1 are natural numbers (we exclude the number zero from this sentence). The
question rises whether or not * is of a higher cardinal than ' . We will see that
the sets *+ and the ' have the same cardinal. In order to point out this fact we
will draw the following diagram:
1,1 2,1 3,1 4,1 $ $ $
1,2 2,2 3,2 4,2 $ $ $
1,3 2,3 3,3 4,3 $ $ $
1,4 2,4 3,4 4,4 $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $
The regularity goes without saying: in one line the denominator coincides
with the line number, and in a column the numerator coincides with the column
number. Thus, the +,- element is located at the intersection of column + with
line - . Each rational number may be found endlessly in this table, because we
can also nd +,- written as 2+,2- , 3+,3- , etc.
Now, let us write the natural numbers in the order indicated by the arrows, as
follows:
Figure 1
By superposing the two tables we can notice that we are able to count the
elements of * (even repeatedly). By putting aside each element of *+ only
once, a bijection between *+ and a subset of ' is achieved, which indicates that
*+ & ' . On the other hand, ' # *+ , therefore ' & *+ . In conclusion,
' = *+ , so that the sets ' and *+ have the same power, that is !0 , called
infinite numerables.
The finite and infinite numerable sets are called numerables.
* * *
The reasonable question rises whether there exists a cardinal higher than !0 ?
We will now point out that it exists. An example of such a set is the set of real
numbers in the interval (0# 1). In order to demonstrate this statement we will use
the reductio ad absurdum method, by assuming the opposite: that the set of real
numbers between 0 and 1 is a numerable set, which is to say that it can be placed
in a bijective correspondence with the set ' of the natural numbers. In other
words, the set of the real numbers in the interval (0# 1) can be written as a series
of numbers, i.e. ("1 # "2 # $$$# " # $$$). Now, let us write the "1 # "2 # $$$ numbers as
decimal fractions with an infinity of numbers, i.e.
"1 = 0# "11 # "12 # $$"1 $$$
"2 = 0# "21 # "22 # $$"2 $$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
" = 0# " 1 # " 2 # $$" $$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
15
where " ! are digits (it means that they can be equal to 0# 1# 2# $$$# 8 or 9 ). To
come to a contradiction it suffices to point out that, at least, one real number
exists in the interval and (0# 1) which is not contained in the series above. Such
a number is
. = 0# .1 .2 $$$. $$$# where . 6= " # 0 or 9$
Indeed, . 6= "1 , because .1 6= "11 , but . 6= "2 , because .2 6= "22 and

generally . 6= " , because . 6= " . Therefore, the number . does not belong
to the series"1 # "2 # $$$# " # $$$. (The requirement that . should differ from 0 as
well as from 9 is due to the fact that some numbers can be written under different
forms, such as: 0$1000$$$ = 0$0999$$$) The contradiction which we have reached
points out to the fact that the initial hypothesis is false, hence the set of the real
numbers in the interval (0# 1) cannot be placed in a bijective correspondence
with the set of natural numbers. On the other hand, the subset {1,%} of (0# 1)
is obviously in a bijective correspondence with the set ' of the natural numbers,
hence the cardinal of the set of the real numbers is higher than !0 . We will write
the cardinal of the set / as ! and we will say that the sets with this cardinal
have the power of the continuum. It appears that the term of continuum, used for
!, was suggested by a certain intuitive support linked to the bijection between
the set / of the real numbers and the point set on a straight line.
It is quite easy to point out that the sets
"#$ "#$
(0# 1) = {0| 0 /# 0 1 0 1 1} and (%'# +') = /
have the same power, because the bijective map

µ ¶¸
1
0 ( 23 4 0 %
2
connects the two intervals (to 0 = 0 there would correspond 23 (%4,2) = %',
and to 0 = 1, 23 (4,2) = +').
It is more interesting to show that the point set in the interval (0# 1) and the
point set in a square of side 1 are equipotent sets (having this aim in mind, we will
use the correspondence of numbers or pairs of numbers with points on a segment
of a plane). Indeed, any point from the square (0# 1) × (0# 1) is in bijective
correspondence with the coordinates pair
½
0 = 0# "1 "2 $$$" $$$
. = 0# .1 .2 $$$. $$$
where " and . are row digits. This point is made to correspond to the number
2 == 0# "1 .1 "2 .2 $$$" . $$$ (0# 1)
And inversely, to the number 2 = 0# 51 52 53 54 $$$ there will correspond that

point in the (0# 1) × (0# 1) square which has its coordinates 0 = 0# 51 53 $$$ and
6 = 0# 52 54 $$$ and so, our statement is proven. Actually, the “number” of points
on a curved line, on a plane or in space is the same, these point sets are equipotent.
The cardinal of the points set in the interval (0# 1) and the number of points in
the entire three-dimensional space are the same!
* * *
We are entitled to ask ourselves if a cardinal higher than ! exists? To our

surprise the answer is af rmative. Moreover, there is no cardinal that could be
considered as being the highest. On this account we will point out that for every
set we have
card 1 card7 ( )
Since 8 = 7 ( ) is a new set, we have
card8 1 card7 (8)
and so on, endlessly.
First of all, let us notice that 7 ( ) and the set 9 ( # 2) of all characteristic
functions of the subsets of , are equivalent sets, that is
7 ( ) $ 9 ( # 2)
Indeed, to each element of 7 ( ), i.e., the % subset of , only one charac-

teristic function :% corresponds. Yet, to :% there is also corresponding only one
subset of , namely the subset of the " elements for which :% (") = 1.
Thus, between the two sets there exists a bijection, therefore, they are equivalent.
Consequently,
card7 (") = card9 ("# 2)
We will point out that

card 1 card9 ("# 2)
Let us proceed to the proof. It is quite easy to point out that 9 ("# 2) has a
subset that is equivalent to .
17
Indeed, let us take into consideration the map

½
1 for 0 = "
:& (0) =
0 for 0 6= "
Thus, we have chosen the characteristic functions of the subsets of with

only one element. We can notice the fact that " ( :& (0) is a bijection, and,
naturally, we have {:& (0) # 9 ( # 2)}. The contradiction will occur if we pre-
sume, contrary to all reason, the validity of the card =card9 ( # 2) relation,
that is to say, $ ( # 2). In this case there should be a 3 : ( bijection.
We will point out the fact that there is an :' 9 ( # 2) element which does not
correspond to any of the elements in through the 3 application (consequently,
3 is not reversible, therefore it is not a bijection).
Now, let us move on to the building up of :' . Let be 0 . Then, according
to the hypothesis, that the bijection 3 : = :( # 2) exists, it results that to an
element 0 , as a subset ( , corresponds a characteric function
½
1 for 6 (
:( (6) =
0 for 6 \ (
We emphasize the fact that the element should not necessarily be an element
of ( . Therefore, in particular, :( (0) = 1 if 0 ( and :( (0) = 0 if 0 6
( . Shall we let the element to run through all the 0 elements belonging to ).
Then, :( (0) = :) is the characteristic function of one set ) # . If 8 is the
complementary of ) (8 = \ ) ), then its characteristic function :' is the
sought after element of 9 ( # 2) (the one that does not correspond to any other
element of through the map 3 ). Indeed, for any 6 , we have 3 (6) 6= :' ,
as, if we take the reverse, there would result 3 (6) = :* = :' and :* (6) =
:) (6) = :' (6) the absurdity that 1 = 0 respectively, as :' (6) = 1 % :) (6).
Thus, our assertion has been demonstrated.
* * *
We have seen that in the case of the finite sets, if has % elements, then
7 ( ) has 2 elements. This is the reason for us to note the set 9 ( # 2) with 2+ ,
= = =
and its cardinal number with 2+ . The inequality 2+ ; is true for any set (not
only for a finite one). So, there is a succession of cardinal numbers
0 1 1 1 2 1 $$$ 1 % 1 $$$ 1 !, 1 !1 1 $$$ 1 !! 1 $$$#
a succession which does never end. The cardinal numbers !, # !1 # $$$ are named
transfinite numbers. In the ordinated set of the transfinite cardinals, !, is the

smallest element.
* * *
Concerning the suggested model in Chapter 1, we will state

Postulate IV. The set & , with a given %, is numerable.
This postulate, laid down with a certain caution, makes sure the fact that in a
finite space (for instance, a spherical space) can be included only a finite number
of particles with spacial extension, no matter how small they might be. We tend
to accept the case when the set & has the cardinal !, , an issue upon which we
are going to return. In this case we have to admit that for any & the < eld
is not trivial, so we have
Postulate V. card& = !, implies card< = !, .
Now passing to the physical space we can state
© ª
Axiom 4. The set = = >% , with % determined, is numerable.
The moment has come for us to study the topological structure of the space
determined by this model. We will start with the study of the points sets.
Chapter 4
Point sets
As we have got accustomed to the Euclidean geometry, we begin with the
study of the point sets in the three-dimensional space =3 . We know that between
the points of this space and the triplets ( ! "! #) ! where , " and # are real num-
bers, a bijective correspondence may be realized (the bijection between $3 and
R3 ). We will admit that ( ! "! #) are the coordinates of one point in an orthogonal
Cartesian reference point (see g. 1).
We want to deal with the characterization of the points which belong to an
arbitrary set, yet a well de ned one, of points in $3 . The so-called system of
neighbourhood of a point will be useful to us. Let us take % (&! '! () a point %
with the coordinates &, ' and (. Let us consider the set ) (% ) as being de ned
by all points *( ! "! #) having as its property
[( &)2 + (" ')2 + (# ()2 ]1!2 + ,! (, - 0)
Figure 2
Actually, ) (% ) is the interior of a sphere with its centre in point % and a

radius ,! generally named open ball. The set )(% ) of all the open balls with
19
20 Chapter 4 Point sets
their centre in % builds up a fundamental neighbourhood system of % (we have

used the language of general topology, so that the more rigorous definitions of
these notions will come up in the next chapter) and each element of )(% ) is a
vicinity of % .
And now we are going to point out how the points of a given set . can be
characterized.
• The point % /. is, by definition, an interior point of . if there is a vicinity
) (% ) so that ) (% ) ! ..
• If ." is the complementary of . as regards the whole space $3 , then an
interior point of ." is an exterior point of ..
• If % is neither an interior, nor an exterior point of ., then % is a boundary
point of . (which can or can not belong to .).
Naturally, all the points belonging to a neighbourhood ) (% ) are the interior
points of the set ) (% ) as for each */) (% ) there is a neighbourhood ) 0 (*)
so that ) 0 (*) ! ) (% ). Indeed, the neighbourhood ) (% ) does not include
the surface of the sphere, the distance between * and this surface being different
from zero, so that a ball with its centre in * and with its radius smaller than the
distance mentioned before, will be totally in the interior of ) (% ) (see Fig. 1).
Any point placed on the surface of the sphere that delimits the ball ) (% ) is
a boundary point of ) (% ) which does not belong to it. Except the sets $3 and
0 any set . has boundary points (naturally, we exclusively refer to point sets in
$3 ).
• The point % is an cluster point of the set . if for any neighbourhood ) (% )
we have () (% ) " .)\{% } 6= 0.
To put it differently, % is a cluster point of the set . if any neighbourhood
of % includes, at least, a point of the set . which does not coincide with % .
Naturally, any interior point is a cluster point that belongs to the set. A point
of the surface of the sphere ) (% ) is a cluster point of ) (% ) which does not
belong to it. If . is made up of points %# with the coordinates (112! 0! 0) with
2/N (therefore points on the 3 axis), then the origin 3 with the coordinates
(0! 0! 0) is a cluster point of . which does not belong to it.
• The point % is a lonely point of ., if % /. and if there is a neighbourhood
) (% ) so that ) (% ) " . = {.}, that is ) (% ) does not contain any point
of the set ., except % . In the last example, {4} = {(112! 0! 0)}, all the
points are lonely. Indeed it is quite enough that for ) (% ) we should take
, + #1 #+1 1
.
• The % point is an adherent point of the set . if for any ) (% ) we have
21
) (% ) " . 6= 0.
In this way, any lonely point of . is an adherent point as well, but it is
not a cluster point of .. Instead, any cluster point is an adherent point. It is
quite easy to show that an adherent point is either a lonely or a cluster point.
Indeed, if % is not a lonely point of the set ., then for any ) (% ) we have
() (% )\{% }) " . 6= 0 (as otherwise there would exist a ) 0 (% ) " . = {% }
contrary to the hypothesis), and so % is a cluster point of ..
* * *
Until now we have characterized the points. Let us move on to the charac-
terizing of the point sets. Taking into consideration the number of elements, the
point sets of $3 can be finite, infinite countable or infinite non-countable. They
can not have a higher cardinal than # , as the set of all the points in $3 has the
power of the continuum.
• We state that the set . is bounded if there is a neighbourhood ) (0) of the
origin, so that . ! ) (0).
• . is an open set if it has only interior points.
• . is closed if its complementary is open.
A remarkable quality of the closed sets is that they contain all their cluster
points. Indeed, let us take . as a closed set and % as a cluster point belonging
to .. Let us assume, contrary to all reason, that % does not belong to ., so
that % /." . But ." is an open set (as it has its complementary closed), then
all its points are interior. If % is an interior point to ." , then there exists a
neighbourhood ) (% ) which entirely belongs to ." , so it has no point belonging
to .. Yet, in this case, the point % can not possibly be a cluster point belonging
to .! contrary to the hypothesis. Therefore, . can not have a cluster point which
does not belong to it.
• The set .0 of all the cluster points belonging to . is named a derivative set.
The set . = . $ .0 is the closure of the set .. It is the smallest closed set
that includes the set ..
0
• The set . of all the interior points belonging to . is named the interior of .;
it is the largest open set included in ..
0
Thus, if . is an open set, then . = . , a relation which does characterize
the open sets. As all the points belonging to $3 are interior, $3 is an open set.
0
Naturally, 0 = 0, as the interior of the empty set is empty, so that 0 is an open
set as well. Yet, as the complimentaries of the open sets are closed, it results that
0 = $3" and $3 are closed sets. In this way,
• $3 and 0 are both open and closed at the same time.
We will see, in a different chapter, that in more general spaces there may exist
sets which are simultaneously open and closed.
There are many other definitions and properties, but we prefer that some of
them should be displayed in a more general framework. In this chapter, we
want to offer just several results that will be important for the introduction of
the topological space notion.
• The first assertion is that the reunion of an arbitrary number of open sets is
also open. Indeed, if % is a point belonging to the reunion, it belongs to, at
least, one set .. . being open, % is an interior point, and so there exists
a vicinity ) (% ) completely included in ., and so in the reunion under
consideration. Thus, any point of the reunion is an interior point, and so it is
an open set.
\#
• The second assertion tells us that the intersection .$ of a finite number
$=1
#
\
2 of open sets .$ is also open. Indeed, if % / .$ then % /.$ for any 5 and
$=1
being an interior point (as .$ is open), there is a vicinity ) (% ) ! .$ . For
the smallest vicinity among these ones (which is not empty, as 2 is finite)
\#
let us say ) ! (% ) ! .$ so that % is an interior point of the intersection,
$=1
which, in this way, is an open set.
It is quite easy to prove that the intersection of an infinite number
¡ of1 open sets
¢
1
is not necessarily open. Let us consider on the Ox axis the intervals #
! 1 + #
.
\#
¡ 1 ¢
Their intersection will be #
! 1 + #1 = [0! 1], therefore a closed interval
$=1
(as it contains the = 0 and = 1 extremes, as well).
* * *
Let us pass again to the model suggested in Chapter 1. A succession of

definitions will be given.
$(%) $(%) $(%+1)
Definition 2. The system {6 % } with 4 = 2! 2 + 1! 777! where 6 % %6 % 1
is named point.
23
$(%)
Definition 3. If the sequence {6 % } determines the point % , then we agree
on saying that % belongs to each element of this sequence.
0 $(%)
Definition 4. The points % and 8 determined by the sequences {6 % } and
&(') 0
{6 ' } are then, and only then, equal (% = 8 ) if starting with a 9 index we
$(() &(()
have 6 ( = 6 ( , where : = 9! 9 + 1! 77777.
Definition 5. The totality of the points included in the element 6$ # builds
up the fundamental set * $ # of points of the particle ;$ # .
According to definition I (Chapter 1), we have
Definition 6. The fundamental sets are named bounded or free, as the corre-
sponding particles are bounded or free.
Postulate III (Chapter 1) allows us to state
Axiom 5. For any 2/< there exist free fundamental sets.
Definition 7. The totality of the points obtained through the setting up of all
the possible sequences which fulfil Definition 2 forms the geometrical space•• .
Now we can offer a series of statements which are systemized in the
following theorems.
Theorem 4. If the elements 6$ # and 6& % have a common point % , then one
of the following three relations is true: 6$ # = 6& % for 2 = 4; 6$ # % 6$ % for
2 + 4; 6$ # ! 6$ % for 2 - 4.
Proof. If % belongs to 6$ # , then there is a sequence of elements in which 6$ # is
)(*)
included, and which determines % . Let us take {6 * } as such a sequence, where
=(2) = 5. In an analogous manner, the same point % is given by the sequence
+(,)
{6 , } with >(4) = ? . Yet, in accordance with Definition 4, these sequences
have equal elements, starting with an index. Let be : - max(2! 4), (so higher
)(() +(()
than both 2 and 4) the index for which 6 ( = 6 ( . As this element belongs
to both 6$ # and 6& % , the Theorem 2 ascertains the validity of the theorem under
discussion.
Theorem 5. The element 6$ # includes the element 6& % , that is 6$ # % 6& % ,
iff (iff = if and only if) all the points included in 6& % belong to 6$ # (that is * & % !
* $ # ).
*(-)
Proof. Any point % /6& % is a sequence {6 - } out of which 6& % is part of it.
,(.) ,(#) ,()) *())
Let us consider now the sequence {6 . } where 6 # = 6$ # and 6 ) = 6 )
for = & 4. According to Definition 4, these sequences set up equal points and so
% /6$ # , which points out the suf ciency of the assertion. - The necessity of the
condition is assured by Theorem 4.
Theorem 6. The sets * & # and * & % are equal iff 2 = 4 and 5 = ? .
Proof. The proof of this theorem immediately results from the Axiom 1 and
Definition 5.
Theorem 7. The intersection of the fundamental sets * $ # and * & # is empty
\ &
(that is * $ # * # = 0) if 5 6= ? .
Proof. If * $ # and * & # have a common point % , it means that % /6$ # and
% /6& # , and so, according to Theorem 4,we have 6$ # = 6& # and Axiom 1 then
imposes 5 = ? . Consequently, if 5 6= ? the sets * $ # and * & # can not have any
common points, and this is what was supposed to be proved.
Theorem 8. For any * $ # , there is a natural number > , so that we should
have
[ [
* $ # = * $1 1 !! 1
where for any " 6= # (1 "$ # %)
!!
\ !"
! 1 ! 1= &
Proof. The proof results from Axiom 2, as the decomposition of ! ! corre-

!
sponds to the set of elements ' 1 which identi es itself with ' . The sets
!" !"
M 1 and ! 1 , with " 6= # , can not have any common point, according to
Theorem 7.
!( )
Theorem 9. If {! } (( = #$ # + 1$ ) is a sequence of fundamental sets
!( ) !( +1)
that satisfy the condition ! !! 1 for any (, then their intersection is a
set made up of only one point, ) , that is
!(")
\ \ !( )
\ \
!
!( )
! " ! = ! = {) }
!=1
!( )
Proof. The sequence {' } (( = #$ # + 1$ ) determines a point ) (Defin-
!( )
ition 2), that belongs to the fundamental set ! for any (, and, consequently,
\
!
!( )
to the intersection ! . The point ) is the only element of this intersection.
!=1
\
!
!( )
0
Indeed, let us take ) * ! and ) 0 6= ) . Then, ) 0 is determined by the
="
#( ) #($) !($)
sequence {' }, and, at least for one ( = + we have ' $ 6= ' $ . For the
25
\
!
#( )
0
sequence of the corresponding fundamental sets we have ) * ! , where
=%
#($) !($) #($)
\ !($)
! $ 6= ! $ . Yet, according to Theorem 4, ! $ ! $ = &, so that
Ã! ! Ã! !
\ !($) \ \ #( 0 )
! $ ! 0 =&
=" =%
\
!
!( )
and so, ) 0 * ! , contrary to the hypothesis.
="
Theorem 10. The points ) and ) 0 obtained by the intersection of the sets
!( ) #( )
{!" } and {! } respectively, are different if at least for an index ( = + we
!($) #($)
have ! $ = ! $ .
Proof. The proof is a variant of that given in the previous theorem.
Theorem 11. If the sets ! ! and ! # % have a common point, then one of
the following three relations is true: ! ! = ! # % for ( = "; ! ! ! ! # % for
( , "; ! ! " ! # % for ( - ".
&(')
Proof. The proof is analogous to that of Theorem 4, where the ' ' elements
&(')
are replaced with the corresponding fundamental sets ! ' .
* * *
Now, let us make a nal remark. It relies on the fact that any open set can be
obtained as a union of the sets .( () ). Indeed, if[/ is an open set and ) */, there
is so that .( () ) " /. Naturally, we will have .( () ) " /, as this union will
) *+
contain all the points of /, but it will contain no additional point, because each
˜
element of the union is included in /. If . is the set of all the sets .( () ) (so,
we take into consideration these sets for any ) and for any 0), then all the unions
˜
that may be formed out of the elements belonging to . give us the set 1 of all the
open sets. Indeed, we have seen that, on the one hand, the union of an arbitrary
number of open sets is open, and, on the other hand, the fact that any open set
may be obtained by a union of sets of type .( () ), which proves the validity of
the above mentioned statement.
And now, the above mentioned remark follows. Let us suppose that at the
beginning of this paragraph, after the definition of the sets .( () ), we would
have built up the set 1 (having as its elements unions of sets .( () )) whose
elements we would have named open sets and in all the following definitions
we would have replaced .( () ) with elements of 1 which contain the point ) .
We state that this change does not affect the quality of a point of being internal,
external, boundary, cluster, etc. For example, let us take into consideration the
new definition of the interior point. The point ) */ is an interior point of / if
there is 2*1 so that we should have ) *2 " /
Of course, ) will be an interior point on [the account of the previous defi-
nition, as well. Suffice to write that 2 = .( (3). As ) *2, we will have
,*-
.( () ) " 2 and so .( () ) " /. It goes without saying that if ) is an interior
point according to the first definition, it will be an interior point according to the
second definition, as well, because .( () )*1 . The reader may verify our remark
for all the other definitions, as well.
Chapter 5
Elements of general topology
In the previous paragraph we have studied the problem of characterizing
the points and the set of points which belong to the Euclidean space 43 . These
characterizations were due to the possibility of de ning a fundamental system of
vicinities, or a set 1 of the open sets. Yet, in this way, 43 is not only a set, but also
a set endowed with a so-called structure (for instance, the set 1 ). This paragraph
has as its aim the generalization of those presented in Chapter 4 for a certain set,
and that is what we will try to do in the following pages.
Let 5 be a set whose elements we will name as being points, and 6(5) the
set of the parts of 5 . The set 1 " 6(5) de nes on 5 a topological structure (or
a topology), if
1. any intersection of a finite number of sets from 1 belongs to 1 ;
2. any union of sets from 1 belongs to 1 ;
3. 5*1 and &*1
Let us notice that 1) and 2) are properties of the open sets in 43 , as stated (or
short 5$ if 1 is understood) in Chapter 4, being raised to the rank of axioms for
the arbitrary sets 5 The elements of 1 are named open sets. The set 5 endowed
with the topology 1 is named topological space and it is noted with (5$ 1 ) (or
short with 5$ if 1 is understood).
Now we can proceed to the characterization of the points belonging to a set
/ " 5 and of the sets in 5 , as we have done in the previous paragraph, using
open sets (out of which there arises the importance of the remark issued at the
beginning of Chapter 4). In order to make the writing easier, we will note with
2() ) an open set that contains the point ) , for which, then, we have ) *2() )
• The point ) is an interior point of the set / " 5 , if there is an open set
2() ), therefore 2() )*1 , so that we should have 2() ) " /.
• If /. = 5\/ then an interior point of /. is an exterior point of /.
• If ) is neither an interior, nor an exterior point of /, then ) is a boundary
point of /.
• The point ) is a cluster point of /, if for any 2() ) we have (2() ) #
/)\{) } 6= &.
• The point ) is a lonely point if there exists 2() ) so that 2() ) # / = {) },
or, in other words ) */ and (2() ) # /)\{) } = &.
• The point ) is an adherent point of the set /, if for any 2() ) we have
27
28 Chapter 5 Elements of general topology
2() ) # / 6= &.
Out of it there results the idea that an adherent point is either a lonely point,
or a cluster point of /. Indeed, if the adherent point ) is not a lonely point, then
for any 2() ) we have (2() ) # /)\) 6= & and therefore ) is a cluster point.
• We have already mentioned the fact that the elements of 1 are named open
sets.
• The set / is, by definition, a closed set if its complementary is open, i.e.
/. *1 .
Out of this statement there results that a closed set / contains all its cluster
points. Indeed, if ) is a cluster point of / and ) $ 7 /, then ) */. and ) is not
an interior point of /. (because any 2() ) contains points from /), so that /. is
not an open set and therefore / is not closed, contrary to the hypothesis.
• The set /0 of all the cluster points of the set / is named a derivative set of /.
0
• The set / = / % / is the closure of the set /, and the set / of all the interior
points of / is named the interior of /.
From the definition of the interior point there results that a set 2 is open if
0
2 = 2 . These names and definitions appeared in the previous paragraph, as
well. Let us give now some other definitions, as they will be useful to us.
• The set of the boundary points of is the boundary of /. It may be easily
pointed out that for the boundary 8 of the set / we have 8 = / # /. .
• A closed set that has no lonely point is named a perfect one.
• The set / is compact in the topological space (5$ 1 ) if any infinite subset of
/ has, at least, a cluster point in 5 (not necessarily in /), and
• is compact in itself if any infinite subset of / has, at least, a cluster point that
belongs to /.
• The topological space (5$ 1 ) is compact if any infinite subset of 5 has, at
least, one cluster point. The space 43 is not compact, because its subset
{(($ 0$ 0)}, (*N, does not have a cluster point.
Now we can also illustrate the fact that while any set compact in itself is
closed, it is not true that any closed set is compact in itself . Indeed, the semispace
9 & 0 is a closed set, but it is not compact in itself, because it contains the subset
{(($ 0$ 0)}, (*N, that has no cluster point.
• The set : is dense in the set /, if / # : = /.
0
• A set : is named rare if : = &, that is the interior of the closure of : is the
29
empty set.
Let us give here a result, that will be useful to us, expressed in one of Cantor’s
theorems which states that: being {/ }, !N a sequence of non-empty closed
sets with the property " #1 #2 $$$, where the set " is compact in
\
itself then # = # 6= %. - In order to demonstrate this theorem we will
=1
presume # 6= # 0 for any and 0 with 6= 0 . This supposition does not
individualize the theorem, because as long as we keep out of the equal ones only
one set, the intersection # does not change. We will also presume that we have
an infinity of different sets # , because, otherwise, there is one last element in
{# }, after the elimination prescribed above, which is equal to #. Now, let us
take &! !#! \#!+1 6= %. The set {&! } is infinite and it has & as a cluster point,
as " is compact in itself At the same time & !#" for any ', as & !#" if ( ! ' ,
and #" being closed contains all its cluster points. In this way, for any we have
# {& ) & }, so that
!
\ !
\
# {& ) & } = {& } 6= %
=1 =1
And this is what we were supposed to demonstrate.

After having given the characterization of the points and of the sets, let us
remember the fact that any set can be endowed with a topology. "So, * # =
{+) %} (i. e. * # contains only two elements) de nes the so called coarse topol-
ogy. In this kind of topology a proper subset # 6= + has no interior point (as
& !,(& ) = + # # can not be satis ed), yet it hasn’t an exterior either (as
#$ 6= + does not have interior points), so that all its points are boundary ones.
- Another trivial topology is * % = -(+) (so, * % contains all the subsets of + ),
which is named discreet topology. In this case all the sets are simultaneously
open and closed (because together with # = -(+), #$ = -(+) as well, and,
in this way, # and #$ are open, and their complementaries #$ and # (!) are
closed). In the discreet topology (+) * % ) there is no cluster point, because for
any point & we can choose the open set {& }!-(+) and for each # # + set
we have the relation ({& } $ #)\{& } = %. - These examples are to be looked
upon as extreme topologies, in the meaning that for any * topology, we have
* # # * # * %.
Let (+) * ) be a topological space and # a subset of + . Let us take into
account the set * & = {, $ #} , where , runs through all the elements of * . The
set * & de nes a topology on #, to be more precisely, the topology induced by * ,
and (#) * & ) becomes a topological subspace of (+) * ). It is quite easy to verify
that * & satis es the axioms of a topology, only the fact that {,} = * satis es
these axioms should be used.
- If (.) * ' ) is a topological space, + a subset of . and is just the topol-
ogy induced in + by * , then we can state that the topological space (+) * ) is
embedded in the topological space (.) * ' ).
* * *
Let us deal a little with the problem of the closure of sets in + . First of all, let
us notice that the closure # of the set # is the smallest closed set that contains #.
Indeed, if # is closed, then #0 # # and we have # = #, so that the statement is
trivial. Otherwise (A0 # A). Let us suppose, contrary to all reason, that " 6= #
is closed and # # " # #. In this way, # should contain a cluster point from
#0 which does not belong to " . As # # " , it results that " does not contain
all of its cluster points, and so it is not a closed set, contrary to the hypothesis.
Secondly, let us point out that the closure # of # is the set of all the adherent
points to #. In fact, as we have already seen, an adherent point is either a lonely
point (and then it belongs to #), or a cluster point (and then it belongs to #0 ), so
that the set of all the adherent points is # % #0 = #, which was to be proved.
Thirdly, we will underline some properties of the closure, such as:
10 . # % " = # % " . - Indeed, let us take & !# % " . Consequently, & is
an adherent point of the set # % " . We can distinguish two possibilities: & is
either an adherent to # or not. If & is not adherent to #, then ,1 (& ) exists, so
that we should have ,1 (& ) $ # = %. Yet, ,1 (& ) $ (# % ") 6= %, so that
,1 (& ) $ " 6= %. Naturally, for any ,2 (& ) # ,1 (& ) we have ,2 (& ) $ # = %,
then ,2 (& ) $ " 6= % . Thus, for any ,(& ) we have ,(& ) $ ,1 (& ) = ,2 (& )
and ,(& ) ,2 (& ), so that ,(& ) $ " 6= %. Consequently, if & is not adherent
to # then it is adherent to " , and so we have either & !#, or & !" , (or both
belongings) and so & !# % " . -The reverse inclusion is much easier to point
out. If & !# % " we have & !# or & !" . If & !#, then & is adherent to #,
and consequently to # % " as well, so that & !# % " . The case of & !" should
be thought over in a similar way, and then # % " # % " . Out of the two
inclusions the above relation results.
20 . # # #, which results from # = # % #0 ;
30 . # = #. The set # being a closed one, we have # = # % #0 = #. (in
this chapter, # is the closure of # and not /012# !).
40 . % = %. Because +!* is open, the complementary will be closed, so that
% = %. Actually, %!* as well, and so + will be also closed. + and % are two
31
sets which in any topology are simultaneously both open and closed.
* * *
These properties of the closure allowed C. Kuratowski to give an alternative

definition of the topological space, namely:
A map 3 : -(+) & -(+), where # = 3(#), with # # + , is named the
closure of #, de nes on the set a topological structure, if:
I. # % " = # % "
II. # # #
III. # # #
IV. % = %
• Out of II, there results that # # #, which, together with III gives # = #.
• A set # is named closed if # #, which together with II, gives us # = #.
• It becomes obvious that + = + , because by the closing operation to + there
corresponds a set +!-(+), as well. And so, + is closed.
• As # = #, there results that # is closed, therefore the codomain of 3 is
the set of the closed subsets of + . - The complementary of a closed set is
named open set.
• Out of # # " there results # # " , because from # # " we have
" = # % " and, according to Axiom I, " = # % " = # % " #.
And so, we have displayed several definitions and results, starting from Ku-
ratowski’s definition of the topological space.
* * *
The connection with the first definition of the topological space gives us the
following two properties of the closed sets. - The union of a finite number
of closed sets is closed. Indeed, if # = # ( = 1) $$$) (), we will have
[! !
[ [!
# = # = # (here, the Axiom I is repeated by a finite number
=1 =1 =1
of times), which was to be proved. - The intersection of an arbitrary number
of closed sets is closed. Indeed,\let us take # = # , with !4 (where 4 is an
arbitrary set of indices) and # = # . Naturally, # # # so that # # # = #
\ ()
and so #! # = #, therefore # is closed. – Taking into account Morgan’s
()
generalized relations (Chapter 2), it follows that the intersection of an arbitrary
number of open sets, as well as the union of a finite number

Ã of! open sets, are open.
$
[ \
Indeed, let us consider the open sets " ( !4). Then, " = " $ = #.
() ()
$
[ # is closed, because " are closed, as well as their union. Consequently,
But
" is open, having its complementary closed. In a similar way there follows
()
the second statement. Consequently, the axioms in the first definition of the
topological space are met.
We will give some other definitions directly with the help of the closure.
• The point & is an adherent point to the set # if & !# and it is a cluster point
of # if & !#\{& }.
• A boundary point of # may be de ned as an element of the set # $ #$ .
Now, let us try to connect all these with the way of treating them which was
used in the previous chapter. With that end in view, we are supposed to give
some more definitions. – We name neighbourhood (or vicinity)•V (& ) of point
& a set which meets the condition that it includes one ,(& )!* , accordingly for
which we have & !,(& ) # 5 (& ). The set 5e (& ) of all the vicinities of & is
named the system of neighbourhood of the point & . A fundamental system of
e ) which meet the condition
vicinities of the point & is a family of vicinities 6(&
that for any neighbourhood 5 (& ) there should be an element 6 (& ) of 6 e (& ) to
be contained in 5 (& ), for which, then, we have & !6 (& ) # 5 (& )!6(& e ). In a
given topology the system of vicinities is unique, but the fundamental system of
vicinities is not. So, in Chapter 4 we could choose, instead of the balls of radius
7, the interior of the cubes with the side 27 together with their areas, given by
|8 ' 0| ( 7 ; |9 ' :| ( 7 ; |; ' /| ( 7
• Finally, " # * is the base of the topology * (in short, base) if any ,!*[
can
be obtained through the union of elements belonging to " , that is , = "
()
with " !" .
Any base meets the condition that the set "(& ) which contains the point
[ of & . Indeed, for any 5 (& ) we have
" is a fundamental system of vicinities
& !,(& ) # 5 (& ) and ,(& ) = " . At least one " contains & , and so
()
& !" (& ) # 5 (& ), and " (& ) being open is, for sure, a vicinity( & !" (& ) #
" (& ) !). The reciprocal assertion is not true, as not any fundamental system
33
of vicinities of all points is a base. Indeed, the example given above (that of the
closed cubes) is not base, because its elements are not open sets.
* * *
Let us now endow the geometrical space given by Definition 6 with a topol-
ogy.
Definition 8. We name topology on the geometrical space + the subset of
-(+) of + , made up of all the possible unions of the fundamental sets <+* ,
including the empty set.
The definition is correct, as it meets the axioms of
[a topology given at the
beginning of this chapter. Indeed, if , !* ( !4), then , !* , because each ,
()
!
\
is a union of the sets <+* . But ,, !* is too, because, if <+* # ,, for any =
,=1
it will belong to the intersection as well, otherwise it will not. The whole space
+ belongs to * , because it is the union of all the fundamental sets <+* , and %!*
precisely thanks to the speci cation made in Definition 8. Now we can state.
Theorem 12. The fundamental sets <! are simultaneously both open and
closed, being deprived of any boundary.
Proof. As <! !* it is by definition an open set. As a matter of fact, any point
\ (+)
& !<! may be written under the form of (see Theorem 9) & = <+ and
+=!
(-)
choosing an open , = <- (> ? () it follows that & !, # <! , so that & is
f! be the set of all the sets <+* # <! . Then (<! )$
an interior point. - Now, let <
is the union of all the sets which are the elements of * \< f! , so that (<! )$ !* , in
this way being an open set and, consequently, <! is closed. The boundary of
<! will, accordingly, be the set
$ ¡ ¢$
<!! $(<!! ) = < !! $ <!! = %
In the following lines we will give

Theorem 13. The set {& } made up of only one point & is a closed one.
Proof. By using one of Morgan’s generalized relations, we have:
Ã !$
\ [¡ ¢$
{& }$ = <+(+) = <+(+) !*
+=! +=!
³ ´$
(+)
as <+ is open, as we pointed out within the framework of the demonstra-
tion of Theorem 12. Consequently, {& } is a closed set.
It is the right moment to remember that the topology as it was de ned before,
is not a discreet one, so that * 6= -(+), because {& }!-(+) does not belong to
* , as it is not a union of fundamental sets.
Out of the Definition 8 itself, it follows
Theorem 14. The set < f of all the fundamental sets <! is base of the
topology * .
Theorem 15. The totality of the sets <! (& ) which contain the point & is a
fundamental system of vicinities of the point & .
Some other properties will be put down under the forms of theorems, too.
Theorem 16. The topological space (+) * ) is not compact.
Proof. Let us take under consideration the sequence of free fundamental sets
(!) (!) (!+1)
{<!! }, hence including the condition M ! + M ! 1 . The sequence of
"(!)
points { ! }, with ! !" ! , does not have a cluster point. Indeed, if were a
\
!
0 %(#)
cluster point of the set { ! } and { } = " # (see Theorem 9), then in the
#=$
0 %(&)
vicinity " & (# $ %) of we could nd an element ' = of the sequence
0 %(&) 0 %($)
{ ! }. But, in this way, ' !" & " $ belongs to a bounded fundamental
set, which is contrary to the hypothesis.
Theorem 17. The fundamental sets "!" are perfect and compact in them-
selves.
\
!
"(#)
"
Proof. Let us take !" ! , so that { } = " # . For any neighbourhood
#=$
\
!
0%(&)
" 0 $ ( ) of we have { } = " & . But in this way, starting with an index
&=$
"(#) 0%(&))
&, the sequences {" # } and {" & coincide, because otherwise, according to
Theorem 10, the intersection of the sets within the two sequences would give dif-
ferent points. Consequently, " " ! does not have lonely points and being closed
(Theorem 12), hence it is perfect. - Now, let us consider { & } " " ! an infinite
point set. According to Theorem 8, we have
"
" " != " " ! 1 !''' !" ! 1
35
"(!+1)
At least one of these sets, for example " "!! 1 = " ! 1 , will contain an
infinity of points of the set { & }. Going on by using the same procedure, we
"(!) "(!+1) "(!+2)
will find the sets " "! = " ! " " ! 1 " " ! 2 " ''', each of them
\
!
"(()
containing an infinity of points included in { & }. In this way, { } = " (
"=!
and !" " ! is a cluster point of the set { "
& } which belongs to the set " ! ,
which, in its turn, is compact in itself.
Chapter 6
An example of Georg Cantor
In this paragraph we will more extensively deal with the problem of the
dense sets and, especially, with the rare ones. We have seen that, in the topologi-
)
cal space (() * ), the set + is dense in , if , # + = ,, and it is rare if + = -.
Let us give here an equivalent definition of the rare sets. - That is ti say + is a
rare set if any open .0 . contains an open with the property .0 # + = -.
It is not dif cult to point out the equivalence of the two definitions. Indeed,
)
starting from the first definition, let us suppose that + = -. Let . be a certain
*
open. Then .0 = .\+ = . # + is open (just like the intersection of two open
sets) and it does not contain any point from + , and accordingly, .0 # + = -.
Let us now start from the second definition, supposing that the set + is rare. We
)
have to point out that it follows + = -. Let us suppose, contrary to all reason,
) ) )
that + = - and !+ . Then, there exists . + , because is an interior
point of + .Consequently, for any open .0 .( ) we have .0 + , so that
.0 # + 6= -, contrary to the hypothesis. In this way, the equivalence of the two
definitions is demonstrated.
Let us pass on to some examples of dense and rare sets in /1 (the unidimen-
sional Euclidean space, that is a straight line that can be placed in a bijective
correspondence with the set R of the real numbers). The space /1 is endowed
with a topology that has as its basis the neighbourhoods 0 of the point 1!/1 (i.e.
the open intervals (1 $ 0, 1 + 0)). Let us also underline, for some reasons that
will come out from what it follows, that the cardinal number of the set /1 is %,
and it means that /1 is of the power of the continuum, just like R, naturally. The
set Q of the rational numbers having as its 23#4Q = % (and so, is a numerable
set), is dense in /1 . Indeed, any real number can be approximated well enough
by rational numbers, so that any 1!R is the limit of a sequence {%! }, with %! !Q.
Consequently, Q = R, which was to be proved. – The set R\Q of the irrational
numbers, of the power of the continuum, is also dense in /1 , as it can be easily
noticed. – Any ite set is rare in , as all its points are isolated, so that , = ,
)
and, = -. – There are infinite numerable sets which are rare in /, 1 such as
the set Z of the integers, or, if we are to give a less trivial example, the sequence
{3! }, with 3! = ($1)! 56, where 6!N. This last example has all its points
isolated, but {3! } (that is the closure of the set under consideration) also contains
37
38 Chapter 6 An example of Georg Cantor
the origin 7 as a cluster point. Yet, any vicinity ($0) +0) of 7 contains an open
set in which the set {0) 31 ) 32 ) '''} has no element. Indeed, there exists 8!N so
that we have 28 $ 150 and the interval (152(8 + 1)) 1528) satis es the given
condition.
We can notice then, that in /1 there are both dense and rare infinite numerable
sets. A superficial intuition could suggest that there are no sets of the power of
the continuum that would be rare in /1 . However, such sets do exist. Such an
example, which we will display in what it follows, was given by Georg Cantor
and sometimes the set under consideration is known under the name of Cantor’s
discontinuum. We shall pass on to the building up of this set, which we will note
with "+ .
Let us take 90 = [0) 1] (that is the set of the points in the closed interval
[0) 1]). The points 153 and 253 divide 90 into three parts. By eliminating the
open interval in the middle, that is (153) 253), we get the set:
91 = 90 \(153) 253) = [0) 153] ! [253) 1]

With the closed intervals which were left aside we act in the same way,
namely we exclude from the first interval [1/9 2!9] and from the second one
[7!9 8!9]. In this way, we get
"2 = "0 \{(1!3 2!3) (1!9 2!9) (7!9 8!9)} =

= "1 {(1!9 2!9) (7!9 8!9)} =
= [0 1!9] [2!9 1!3] [2!3 7!9] [8!9 1]
By using on this method we nd "3 "4 ###" ###, where, for instance
"3 = "2 \{(1!27 2!27) (7!27 8!27) (19!27 20!27) (25!27 26!27)}=
= [0 1!27] [2!27 1!9] [2!9 7!27] [8!27 1!3] [2!3 19!27]
[20!27 7!9] [8!9 25!27] [26!27 1]
The set we were looking for is $! = lim " , and it means that the above
!
mentioned method, in order to eliminate the open intervals from the inside of the
closed ones, goes on endlessly. – Let us now study the properties of $! .
a) The complementary of the set $! is
($! )" = (!" 0) (1 ") (1!3 2!3) (1!9 2!9) (7!9 8!9) ###
39
and so, it is a union of open sets. Consequently, ($! )" is open, and the set $!
is closed.
b) $! contains the subset
% = (0 1 1!3 2!3 1!9 2!9 7!9 8!9 ###)

that is, of the points which are the extremes of the closed intervals obtained in
the building up of $! . Yet, $! , being closed, also contains the cluster points of
%, so that $! = %.
c) In fact, all the elements of % are cluster points of %, because at each of
its extremities a certain interval was divided by an infinity of times, keeping the
concerned extreme point. For instance, 0 is the cluster point of the sequence
1 1!9 1!27 ###1!3 ###.
The same thing is happening to the extremes of each new interval obtained
by division. Consequently, $! has no lonely point and so, being closed as well,
it is a perfect set.
d) Let us notice that "0 # "1 # "2 # "3 # ### and so the set $! may be
\
!
conceived as the intersection of all the sets " , that is $! = " . In other
=0
words, we can obtain the points of $! as an intersection of the closed intervals
obtained in the building of $! , intervals which have the form [& !3 (& +
1)!3 ] and which satisfy the condition ' #$ # ' +1#$ +1 for any ()N. -With the
help of this observation there is opening the perspective of a connection between
the set $! and the fundamental set $ % , whose points can be obtained by an
analogous procedure.
e) The fact that $! is a rare set results precisely from the manner of building
it. Indeed, let us take *)[0 1] and its neighbourhood (* ! + * + +). If * belongs
to the eliminated open intervals, that is *)($! )" , the * is the interior point of
($! )" , so that there does exist an open ,(*) $ (* ! + * + +) with *),(*) $
($! )" for which ,(*) % $! = -. – If *)$! , then (* ! + * + +) contains
a closed interval which is kept for the building up of $! , as the length of these
intervals tends to zero, and * is a point of accumulation. Let [. /])(* ! + * + +)
be this interval. But, from this interval there is eliminated the open (. + (/ !
.)!3 / ! (/ ! .)!3) which has no common point with $! , which was to be
proved.
f) The last issue to be pointed out is that the set $! has the grade of the
continuum. First, we lay down a justi cation, as it is represented on the gure
below
Figure 3
We have thinned the open intervals which are to get eliminated. In this way
we have a map of $! in the interval [0 1]. Yet, the image interval [0 1] is com-
pletely covered, because the points we get through standing halves of the form
1!2 come from the points of the set %, the remainder points being the image
of the cluster points of %. - As to two elements of $! there is corresponding
only one point of the image interval, it follows that card $! & '. On the other
hand, $! $ [0 1], so that card $! ( '. And so, card $! = ', which was to
be proved. – In order to give a more rigorous demonstration it is quite necessary
that we should learn to count in some other bases, not only in the 10 one, a base
we have got used with. Having this aim in view, let us make a digression.
* * *
Starting with the first elementary class we have got used to write the numbers,
first the integers, then the decimals, with the help of ten digits, that is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and to perform operations with these numbers. By having 10 signs
that make a distinction between the 10 digits, we state that we write the numbers
in base 10. Of course, 10 is not the only base in which numbers can be written.
Times ago, base 12 was usual enough, and we can nd relics of it in our day by
day life: the dozen, the 12 months of the year, the 12 day hours and the 12 night
ones, a.s.o. In order to write the numbers in base 12 we need two more signs, for
instance 0 for 10 and 1 for 11, as it will result from what it follows.
It fact, when we write the number 2598 in base 10, we mean 2000+500+90+8
that is
41
2598 = 2 · 103 + 5 · 102 + 9 · 101 + 8 · 100

Generally, if .0 .1 ### . are ( + 1 digits and .0 6= 0, then
"1
.0 .1 ###. = .0 #10 + .1 #10 + ### + . "1 #10 +.
is a number with digits, written in base 10.
If we insert a symbol, namely the decimal point, then we can write any real
number with the help of the inserted symbols (ten digits and the decimal point),
naturally accepting the infinite decimal fractions, as well. For example, a subunit
positive number is supposed to be written under the following form
X
!
"1 "2 "$
0 /1 /2 ###/$ = /1 #10 + /2 #10 + ### + /$ #10 + ### = /$ #10"$
$=1
where /1 /2 ###/$ ### are digits. It is for sure that the above series has a meaning,
because, as we have, we get
X X
02 /$ #10"$ ( 9 · 10"$ = 9 · 10"1 !(1 ! 10"1 ) = 1#
$ $
Now, it is quite easy to generalize the problem of writing the numbers in some
other bases, not only in that of 10. With that end in view, let us take 3)N\{0 1},
namely a natural number, except 0 and 1, which we choose as a new base. In
order to write the numbers in base 3 we need 3 symbols for digits. Let us note
their set with
% = {%0 = 0 %1 = 1 %2 ### %&"1 }

In this case, the number .0 .1 .2 ###. , where .$ )%, naturally in base 3,is
"1
.0 .1 ###. |& = .0 3 + .1 3 + ### + . "1 3 +.
Here, 3, written after the slash at the end of the number, explains the base and
we will specify it under this form whenever it is necessary to do it.
Now, let us see which are the possibilities of passing from one base to another.
In order to make the things easier, we will take into account only the cases when
we pass from the base 3 to base 10 and the reverse.

The first case is extremely simple. We are to put down, in the developed
expression of the number, the base 3 and the digits (the elements of %) in base
10, after which we perform the indicated calculations. Let us consider, as an
example, the number 021 |12 . We will have
021 |12 = (10 · 122 + 2 · 121 + 11) |10 = (1440 + 24 + 11) |10 = 1475 |10
As a second example, we will consider the number 2598 |12 . In turn, we have
2598 | 12 = (2 · 123 + 5 · 122 + 9 · 12 + 8) |10 =

= (2 · 1728 + 5 · 144 + 108 + 8) |10 = 4298 |10
We have chosen the second example, deliberately, as we have considered

above, a number consisting of the same digits but written in base 10, in other
words, the number 2598 |10 . In this way, we can notice the importance of
specifying the base in which we express a number.
The reverse process, from the base 10 to base 3, is performed as it follows:
the number .0 .1 .2 ###. |10 is divided to 3, and so we get
.0 .1 ###. |10 = (43 + /$ )10

where /$ 2 3
Now, we divide the number 4 |10 to 3 and so
4 |10 = (5 3 + /$"1 ) |10

and so we get
.0 .1 ###. |10 = (5 32 + /$"1 3 + /$ ) |10

As all the coef cients /0 /1 ###/$ are smaller than 3, in base 3 to the above
mentioned coef cients there will correspond digits: /% |10 = 6% |& and so we will
get
.0 .1 ###. |10 = 61 62 ###6$ |&

43
(Naturally, we do not have any possibility of guessing the number & starting
with the first operation, it is the highest exponent of 3). As an example, let us
consider the number 1450 |10 and let us express it in base 12. In turn, we will
have
1475 | 10 = (122 · 12 + 11) |10 = [(10 · 12 + 2) · 12 + 11] |10 =

= (10 · 122 + 2 · 12 + 11) |10 = 021 |12
In order to become more familiar with the base 12, we will write the first
numbers in base 12, pointing out in a parenthesis this certain number in base 10
1(1) 7(7) 11(13) 17(19) 21(25) 27(31)

2(2) 8(8) 12(14) 18(20) 22(26) 28(32)
3(3) 9(9) 13(15) 19(21) 23(27) 29(33)
4(4) 0(10) 14(16) 10(22) 24(28) 20(34)
5(5) 1(11) 15(17) 11(23) 25(29) 21(35)
6(6) 10(12) 16(18) 20(24) 26(30) 30(36)
Just as a curiosity, we will also give the multiplication table in base 12:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 10
2 4 6 8 0 10 12 14 16 18 10 20
3 6 9 10 13 16 19 20 23 26 29 30
4 8 10 14 18 20 24 28 30 34 38 40
5 0 13 18 21 26 21 34 39 42 47 50
6 10 16 20 26 30 36 40 46 50 56 60
7 12 19 24 21 36 41 48 53 50 65 70
8 14 20 28 34 40 48 54 60 68 74 80
9 16 23 30 39 46 53 60 69 76 83 90
0 18 26 34 42 50 50 68 76 84 92 00
1 10 29 38 47 56 65 74 83 92 01 10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 00 10 100
We will refer, in a few words, to one of the most important bases, namely
base 2. On this base there are only two digits, namely 0 and 1.
The importance of this base consists especially in the fact that the electronic
calculating machines perform the majority of the operations in base 2 (as, one
portion of the circuit is crossed by electric current and digit 1 corresponds to it,
or is not, and digit 0 corresponds to it). Naturally, in the beginning, the machine
changes the number from base 10, which had been imprinted by us, into base 2,
and at the end, after performing the programmed operations, it changes the result
from base 2 into base 10, after which it displays it.
The multiplication table in base 2 is reduced to 1 × 1 = 1. In spite of all
these, base 2 is not practical in our every day life, because the usual numbers
should be written with too many digits. Let us write in base 2 the first numbers,
mentioning in parentheses, as we have done before, that certain number in base
10 :
1(1) 1001(9) 10001(17) 11001(25)
10(2) 1010(10) 10010(18) 11010(26)
11(3) 1011(11) 10011(19) 11011(27)
100(4) 1100(12) 10100(20) 11100(28)
101(5) 1101(13) 10101(21) 11101(29)
110(6) 1110(14) 10110(22) 11110(30)
111(7) 1111(15) 10111(23) 11111(31)
1000(8) 10000(16) 11000(24) 100000(32)
Naturally, we have 1000000 |2 = 64 |10 , so that in base 2 all of us would be

millionaires!
* * *
Now, we can proceed to the proof of the relation card$! = '.

With that end in view, let us write the elements of $! the in base 3.
We will have: 0; 1; 0#1; 0#2; 0#01; 0#02; 0#21; 0#22; 0#001; 0#002; 0#021; 0#022;
0#201; 0#202; 0#221; 0#222; etc., corresponding to the gure:
Figure 4
First of all we have to convince ourselves that the digit 1 can appear only on
the last place when writing the elements of $! . Indeed, due to the manner of
building up $! , the numbers which end in the digit 1 are at the extreme right
of a closed interval which follows to be divided into three parts during the next
45
step. But, in the course of this operation the digit 1 is replaced with the digit 0
followed either by 1 or by 2. As the first digit 1 is at the extreme right of the
starting interval [0 1], our statement is justi ed.
Since instead of the digit 1 on the last place we can write a zero followed
by an infinity of digits 2 (as 1 = 0#22 # # # # ##; 0#1 = 0#022# # # # # ; 0#01 =
0#0022 # # # #,a.s.o.), all the elements of $! may be exclusively expressed with
the help of the digits 0 and 2.
Now, we have to get convinced that in this writing of the elements of $!
there appear all the combinations, including those with repetition, of the digits 0
and 2. Indeed, let us have in view the obtainment of such a number written under
the form 0 .1 .2 ###, where .1 .2 ### are the digits 0 or 2. The number 0#.1 is either
0 or 0#2, so, to the left of a preserved closed interval. The next approximation,
which is 0#.1 .2 with .2 equal to 0 or to 2, can be found again to the left of a
closed interval preserved for the building up of $! , so that the next digit does
not take us out from the set $! either. The procedure is going on, yet having
in stock the conclusion according to which the number 0#.1 .2 ###. )$! , and so
including 0#.1 .2 ###. ###)$! , because $! contains all its cluster points, as well.
Now, let us map the set $! on a set " , a map de ned by the replacement
of all the digits 2 with the digit 1. In this way, to the number 0 .1 .2 ### there
will correspond the number 0 /1 /2 ###, where all the possible combinations of the
digits 0 and 1, including those with repetition, appear. Let us read the elements
of " in base 2. Thus, we will nd all the elements of the interval [0 1]. (The
map is not bijective because, for instance, to the number 0#1 = 0#011###)" there
would correspond two different numbers in $! , namely 0#2 6= 0#022### = 0#1).
Thus, it follows
card $! & card " = '

We should keep in mind the fact that, on the other hand, card $! ( ', and
so card$! = ', that is $! is of the power of the continuum.
* * *
From the point of view of the conclusions drawn on the set $! , namely its
perfect character and its cardinal number '0 , it is not essential either the fact that
we have divided an interval in three (as we could have divided it into an arbitrary
finite number of times) or the fact that the obtained parts are equal, or the fact
that we divide the new intervals into the same number of parts (on the condition
that the number of divisions should not tend to infinite), or even the fact that we
started from a unidimensional set. Of course, all these generalizations make more
dif cult the reasoning by which their two attributes (their perfection and their
cardinal number ') are to be demonstrated, but they do not alter the conclusion.
In this way, there becomes quite obvious the connection between Cantor’s set
$! and a fundamental set $"% . In order to draw a rigorous conclusion we first
state:
Axiom 6. Any of the fundamental sets $"% may submerge into a closed ball
%
7" (a sphere with its interior) of the three-dimensional Euclidean space 83 .
We will illustrate this axiom, it is true that we will do it in only two dimen-
sions, by supposing that each particle is made up of 7 parts.
Figure 5
In gure 4 we could represent only four successive divisions into 7 parts, but
the unlimited division leads us to points, placed in a bijective relation with the
elements of the set $"% (here, supposed to be bidimensional and made up of 7
sets $" "1 ). On all these types of sets in the Euclidean space we have drawn
the conclusion that they are perfect and they have the cardinal '. Thus, we can
state:
Theorem 18. The fundamental sets are rare and have the power of the con-
tinuum, that is card $"% = '.
Chapter 7
Embedding into the Euclidean space
We have assured, by Axiom 6, that the fundamental set $"% may be embed-
ded into the Euclidean space 83 . In this paragraph we want to study the problem
of the embedding into 83 of, at least, one part of the space (4 9 ) determined in
the model proposed in Chapter 1. First, we will give an embedding construction,
and then, we will analyse the problems aroused by this construction.
Let $ 83 be a connected domain © (anyªtwo points in can be joined by
a continuous curve entirely in ) and $"%0 , with :0 = 1 ### & , a finite set
of fundamental sets. There is an ;" ) <+ so that in there should go in
%0 %0
&" closed balls 7" with their radius of ;" , which have to be disjoint (7" %
0
' 0
7"0 = - with :0 6= =0 ) and we perform the correspondence $"%0 * 7" %0
.
%0
Then, we choose a suf ciently small ;" "1 ) <+ , so that in each 7" there
should go in as many disjoint balls 7" "1 as many component sets $"%1 "1
$"%0 has (see Theorem 8), and this operation is supposed to be performed for
any :0 . Next, we introduce
µ$ the¶disjoint balls 7" "1 in the space left empty in
S %0
, that is in the \ 7" domain. Let & +1 be the total number of balls
%0 =1
%1 %1
7" "1 in , that is :% = 1 ### & +1 . Part of the balls 7" "1 , namely those
%0
which are in the interior of the balls 7" , place themselves in correspondence
with the fundamental sets $" "1 which are included in the structure of the sets
$"%0 . The rest of the balls are placed in a bijective correspondence with the free
sets $" "1 (see Definition 6). Consequently, is filled up with balls 1! 1 in
bijective correspondence with fundamental sets ! 1! 1 1
! 1 . We repeat
the procedure and we nd a radius " ! 2 of the balls 2
! 2 ,Ãsome of which! are
"S +1
going in the balls 1! 1 , yet some others in the domain \ ! 1 and
1 =1
are placed in bijective correspondence with the fundamental sets ! 1! 2 which

are bound and free. – By going on with this procedure endlessly, we achieve a
bijection between the set
©© ª © ª © ª ª
!= ! 0
! # ! 1
! 1 # ! 2
! 2 # $$$
47
48 Chapter 7 Embedding into the Euclidean space
of the above mentioned fundamental sets and the set

˜ ©© 0 ª © 1 ª © 2 ª ª
= ! # ! 1 # ! 2 # $$$ $
of the closed balls of the domain .

T
!
By taking into account all the points of the form % = ! 0
! # with & ! '
#=$
and ! 0! # " ! 0+1 % ! 1 , we have a subset ( = {% } ! ()# * ) of the space
determined by the proposed model. In fact, ( = lim ! 0! # , because
!"!
[ [
! !
! # # ! !+1
! # 1
# #+1
it itself being a result of the manner of building up the set ! . To point % we

make to correspond the point
\ !
+= 0
! #.
#+1
We have so de ned a bijection , between ( and a subset = {+} of , so

that we have , : ( $ ! . -In this way, we can state that we have embedded
a part ( of the space ()# * ) into ! -3 .
And now, let us go on to the analysis of some problems connected to this
construction.
1. First, we will point out that 6= , that is there are points in which
can not be obtained by using the application , : ( $ . In order to
do it we start from the ball 0! with a fixed .0 . This ball is filled up
with bound balls ! 1 and with bound and free balls ! 2 (a ball is
bound or free, if the corresponding fundamental set is bound or free). We
choose a free ball 2! 2 . In this ball we nd bound balls ! 3 , as well
4
as bound and free balls ! 4 . We choose again a free ball
n ! 4 .oBy
2!
going on with this procedure we nd the sequence of balls ! 2# , with
2!
! 2# " 2!+2! 2# 2 , and their intersection determines a point +, as the
radius of the balls tends to zero. To this sequence
n of balls
o there corresponds
2!
uniquely the sequence of fundamental sets ! ! 2# , whose intersection
is empty, because, starting with / = 1 these ones are free sets. Consequently,
there is no % ! ( to which the above de ned point + might correspond.
In order to better imagine the above accomplished design, as well as the
49
above sentence, let us imagine that is a cubical vat with its side of 100,
and to the balls !0 there are corresponding some materialized spherical
areas with a radius of 10 and provided with a circular ori ce of a radius
10 2 0 = 110. In the tank 53 = 125 balls can nd their room. Now, we
introduce the spheres with a radius of 10 2 0 corresponding to the balls
4
! 1 , provided with circular ori ces of radius 10 0 = 0$100. They
1
will occupy the space among the former spheres, as well as their interior
(that is why they have been provided with ori ces). And we go on in the
same way, with smaller and smaller spheres.
2. The conclusion which was drawn in Point 1, as well as the vat filled up
with smaller and smaller spheres, suggest us the question whether or not
we have = , that is, the set could be dense in . No doubt, it
is not compulsory to have this requisite satis ed, because in the initial
correspondence ! !! # !
! # the condition that the balls
!
! #
should occupy all the places left vacant in from the previous step was not
imposed. Accordingly, = is not compulsory, but it may be achieved, on
the condition that, in case of a finite number of particles 2!+# there should
however exist many enough, a requisite we suppose as having been satis ed.
3. The third problem aroused by the given construction is connected to the
choice of the free fundamental sets. In the sentences we have offered
up to now, this choice is totally unconditioned. So, if we start from the
fundamental set !0 corresponding to the particle 30 which we choose as
being the Earth, and the vat is a cube with the side of 15,000 km. (let us
remember that the Earth diameter is of approximately 12,800 km), we can
choose the free particles 31 , whose corresponding fundamental sets should
ll up the tank, from the galactic interstellar space out of the exterior of the
Solar system, and the free particles 32 (the corresponding fundamental sets
!2 entering the vat, again) from another galaxy, and so on. We realize that
these perfectly possible choices are not the natural ones that could lead us
much closer to the real correspondence between a point set of the space
()# * ) and those of a domain of the Euclidean space in which we describe
some physical phenomena.
If, so far, we have not succeeded in offering a correspondence suitable to the
necessities of Physics, this is due to the fact that in our static model there are
links only between particles and their component particles. Some other connec-
tions are established by interaction, accordingly, by the particles movement. The
interaction allows us to make order in the relationship between us, as observers,
and a series of material formations, an order that has as its basis, as a first ele-
ment, the distance. The problems connected to the determination of the distances
belong to different branches of Physics and they exceed the framework of our
preoccupations which we display in this paper, but we suppose that this concern
is, however, looked into, at least for a certain domain. In order to be able to deal
with the problem of space ()# * ) provided with the distance, we will display, in
general, the introduction of metrics in a given set.
* * *
Let ) be a set. We state that 4 (%# +) is a metric de ned on the set ) , if

0
for any points %# % and + of ) we have the following conditions satis ed:
1. 4 (%# +) ! 5+ , that is 4 (%# +) % 0;
2. 4 (%# +) iff % = + ;
3. 4 ¡(%# +)¢= 4 (+# % ), that is,
¡ the 0metric
¢ is symmetrical;
0
4. 4 %# % & 4 (%# +) + 4 +# % , the inequality of the triangle.
The set ) endowed with a metric 4 is named metric space. The denomination
is justi ed by the fact that the metric 4 induces on the metric space ) a topology.
– In order to reach a topology induced by a metric 4, the notion of an open ball
should first be de ned. An open ball & (% ) with its centre in % and its radius
6 7 0 is de ned as the set of all the points + for which 4 (%# +) 8 6. If
we de ne the set of all the open balls & (% ) with the centre in % as being the
fundamental system of vicinities of the point % , then we have de ned a topology
* in the space ) induced by the metric 4.
If in the topological space ()# * ) we have a metric 4 which induces the
topology * , then we speak about * compatible with 4. We have already seen
that in any metric space a topology may be introduced. The reverse statement is
not true. It is not in any topological space ()# * ) that we can introduce a metric
4 compatible with * , that is not any topological space is metrizable. – Indeed, the
discreet topology * = {)# 9} is not metrizable.If for any 6 and for whatever %
we should have ) # & (% ), hence 4 (%# +) = 0, for any % ! ) and + ! )#
that is 4 is not a metric because 4 (%# +) = 0 for % 6= +.
If we admit that not any topological space is metrizable, instead, when it is,
it admits more equivalent metrics that lead to the same topology. In this way,
we will point out, on the ground of an example given by Hausdorff, that, if is a
metric compatible with the topology, then the metric
0 1
4 (%# +) :;< = 4 (%# +) [1 + 4 (%# +)]
0
has the same property. -First, we have to point out that 4 is a metric. The first
axioms of the metric are easily checked for, as we know that 4 satis es them.
51
The inequality of the triangle is more dif cult to point out. Let us note:
¡ 0¢ ¡ 0¢
: = 4 %# % ; = 4 (%# +) < = 4 +# %
0 0 ¡ 0¢ 0 0 0 0 ¡ 0¢
: = 4 %# % ; = 4 (%# +) < = 4 +# %
.. .. .. .. ..
. . . . .
We have to point out that from
0 0 0
: & ; + < it results : & ; + <
as we know that,
0 : 0 ;: 0 <
: = ; ; = ; < = #
1+: ;+1 <+1
so that we point out the validity of the inequality.
As :# ; and < are positive, we will multiply the inequality by the product
(1 + :)(1 + ;)(‘ + <)$And so, the result is
: + :; + :< + :;< & ; + :; + ;< + :;< + < + :< + ;< + :;<#
respectively, after the reduction of some terms
: & ; + < + 2;< + :;<#

what is true, because .: & ; + < . - The two metrics will induce the same
topology, because the open ball ' (% ) de ned by the metric 4 contains the
0
same points + as the ball " 0 (% ), de ned by the metric and having the radius
0
6 = 6= (1 + 6).
By having a given metric 4, we can de ne the distance of two sets ( and
, by 4 ((# ) = inf 4 (%# +), where % cross the set ( and + the set ,
respectively, (in mum being the largest inferior bound), as well as the diameter
of a set ( as being sup 4 (%# +), where % and + independently cross the whole
set (supremum being the smallest superior bound). If ( is reduced to a point we
will write 4 (%# +) instead of 4 ({% } # +). The point % is adherent to the set
(, if 4 (%# () = 0. In this way, the closure of ( can be de ned as the point set
for which 4 (%# () = 0. And, by following this way, when de ning the closure
we induce the same topology with the help of Kuratowski’s axioms.
* * *
Having exposed all these ideas above, we realize that what follows is neces-
sary and it is not trivial
Axiom 7. The space ()# * ) has, at least, a metrizable non-empty subset
( 6= 9
As regards the way in which this metric is achieved, this represents a concrete
and dif cult problem of Physics. As long as we can use rigid bars to measure
distances, the Euclidean geometry seems to be perfect. Yet, when getting out of
the Earth’s neighbourhood, we have to resort to some other methods and only in
the 20th century it has been emphasized the necessity of using the non-Euclidean
geometries with the help of A. Einstein’s works.
Axiom 7 arouses another problem, which will be solved immediately. If
metrization can be performed only on a subset ( of ()# * ), what does metric
compatible with the space topology mean? With this end in view, we use the
topology * ( induced by the topology * in the subset ( # ) throughg
* ( = {> ' (} , where {>} = * We know that ((# * ( ) is a topological
space subspace of ()# * ), and the metric should be compatible with the topology
* (.
Now we can formulate one more axiom which gives an answer to the problem
2) aroused by the construction of ((# * ( ) #subspace of ()# * )compatible with
* ( , given at the beginning of this chapter.
Axiom 8. For any metrizable subspace ((# * ( ) of ()# * ) there exists a
domain # -3 and its subset # , so that the following conditions should
be satis ed:
1. there is a bijection , : ( $ and
2. = $.
By identifying, through the bijection , , the points of ( and , Axiom 8
provides the possibility of embedding ((# * ) into # - .
We nish this paragraph with
Definition 9. The points of the subsspace ((# * ( ) embedded into #
-3 are named real points, and the elements of \( are named virtual points.
Chapter 8
A bit of motion
So far, we have exclusively dealt with the statics of the proposed model.
Even more, we have supposed that such a state exists, at least for a certain subset
! of ! . By giving up, for the moment, too strict a rigour, we can state that
“the set ! can be photographed” and that we can study its static properties on a
“three-dimensional photographic film.” Yet, without any intention, we have used,
tacitly, the notion of “time.” However, this notion can not be left aside. As we
will see, not even the physical space can be properly organized without the notion
of time.
We know that all our existence is in a continuous motion and change. The
simple change of place, that is exclusively only the change in the relative po-
sitions of the particles, is an abstracting, as it never takes place without being
accompanied by some other changes. Let us, however, look into the simple
motion. Let us suppose that in the set ! we have changed the position of the
particle 3! in its relation with some other 3! particles in ! . Concerning this
operation we may bring forth at least two objections:
• The first objection consists in the fact that out of what has been treated so
far, we do not know what "distance “ between two particles means, and
the correspondence of !! in (in the case of embedding) for 3! is almost
arbitrarily chosen (accordingly, the distance in has, for the time being, no
physical ground).
• The second objection refers precisely to this embedding. In the
correspondence between particles and balls in 53 nothing makes evident
the “position” of one particle in its relationship with the other ones, so that,
keeping the same correspondence between particles before and after the
shifting of 3! , no change has been produced in the Euclidean space (because
to 3! , the same ball ! will correspond all the time)
The situation is quite different if we take under consideration the expulsion
or the absorption of one particle, component of 3! . This time, the correspon-
dence between this component particle, which sometimes is free, yet sometimes
is bound, and the balls in 53 is changed, too. In this way, what is really essential
is the fact whether a particle is included or not in the composition of another
particle. On this account, we will lay as the foundation of our dynamic study the
emission and the absorption of component particles, a fact which will allow us,
a bit later, to introduce the notion of time. - Let us come back, then, to a more
53
54 Chapter 8 A bit of motion
rigorous way of treating all these problems.

Taking into account the above mentioned reasons, we will take into con-
sideration only those motions within the framework of which the structure of
the particles is changed. That is why we will consider the “emission” and the
“absorption” of the component particles as being primary notions. By following
this reasoning, we will suppose as being true.
Postulate VI. Any particle 3 ! emits and absorbs particles 3 # with / 7 ?.
In the case of emission, the particle 3 # , constituent of 3 ! , changes from a
bound particle into a free one, and in the case of absorption, the free particle 3 #
changes into a bound particle.
Of course, within the framework of the emission or absorption of the parti-
cle 3 # , the composition of the particle 3 ! changes, so that the determination
of the composition of 3 ! in different situations should be possible. In these
circumstances we have to state
Postulate VII. Any particle 3 ! allows, theoretically, the determination of
its composition whenever it is necessary (and so, we can talk about the carrying
out of Postulate I in different situations) and each new determination of the com-
position of 3 ! is quite different from another determination with, at least, one
constitutive particle.
Now, we have got closer to the possibility of de ning the notion of time.
However, we still have to make some steps further. So, we have,
Postulate VIII. There is a real parameter @ ! which is attached to the particle
3 ! and which is named particle–time, with the following properties:
1. to each determination of the composition of 3 ! (ensured by Postulate VII)
there will correspond, bijectively, a value @ ! ;
2. in the case of emission (or absorption) of 3 # by 3 ! , the case in which to
the value @ ! (1) there is corresponding the situation in which 3 # belongs
(or it does not belong) to 3! , and to the value @ ! (2) there is corresponding
the situation in which 3 ! does not belong (or it does belong) to 3 # , we
have @ ! (1) 8 @ ! (2).
0
We should notice that any , : @ ! $ @ ! monotone increasing application
leads to a new possible scale of the particle–time, a fact which meets the condi-
tions of the Postulate VIII.
We should also underline the fact that the transitivity property is logically
satis ed, because the set of the real numbers is ordered.
The dif cult problem we have to deal with in the next lines is that of the
synchronization of the particle-times. We will try to perform a synchronization
at least with a certain degree of approximation, in several steps, as follows.
55
a) The determination of @ ! (/), of the particle-time, when 3 # is emitted (or

absorbed) by 3 ! may be accomplished with any desired precision, because
Postulate VII ensures that among the composition determinations of 3 !
corresponding to @ ! (1) and we can insert some other determinations,
whenever it is necessary. Accordingly, we suppose that @ ! (/) is known.
b) Let us suppose that 3 # is simultaneously emitted (or absorbed) by the
particles 3 ! and 3) % (a fact which may always be achieved if ? 8 0 8 /
and 3 % is a component particle of 3) ! ), and @ % is the particle–time of
3) % . Then, by an adequate application, we can always choose @% and @)% so
that we should have @! (/) = @)% (/). – This procedure may go on without
any dif culty so that 3% should be synchronized with all the component
particles. In order to underline the fact that this problem is not a trivial one,
we should point out that our Galaxy is a particle 3 1 , and synchronization
within its frame is not easy to achieve.
c) Synchronization among free particles is dif cult, and it is connected to the
interaction of the particles, as well as to the determination of the distances
(the problem which was mentioned in 7). Taking into account these reasons,
we will admit
Postulate IX. For the domain from the Axiom 8 there is a real parameter
@ which is named time, and whose values coincide, for each particle 3! from ,
with the values of @! and harmonize with the synchronization speci cation which
is accepted for this domain.
* * *
Now, we want to point out a characteristic feature of the displayed model

which seems to us of being of an utmost interest: the permanent changing of the
real points into virtual ones, reciprocity being valid, as well.
In order to point out the validity of this statement, we take into consider-
ation a particle 3 ! synchronized with all its component particles. Now, let
(@0 # @ " ) be the succession of particle–time intervals for which if @ " $ @0 ,
and {3 ! # } (/ = 0# 1# 2# $$$) the sequent of particles for which 3 ! # emits the
particle 3 ! # 1 in the interval (@0 # @ # ). Let us note with ! ! # the fun-
damental set which corresponds to the particle 3 ! # before the emission of
0
3 ! # 1 and with ! ! # the fundamental set which corresponds to the parti-
cle 3 ! # after the emission of 3 ! # 1 . In the above mentioned conditions,
the sequent {! ! # } determines a real point % in the moment @0 , because
!
© !0 # " ª ! ! # 1 for any /. This real point disappears, because the sequent
! ! # , in which {! ! # } is changed into, does not satisfy
56 Chapter 8 A bit of motion
0 0
anymore the above mentioned condition, because ! ! # 6" ! 1 .
Let us now give a picture of what happens if instead of ! a virtual point
0 0
shows up. Let " ! be the closed ball corresponding to ! , and a
limited domain in which is embedded. If # " ## is suf ciently small, all
0 0 0
the balls " will belong to . By taking from each " ! one point ! !,
© 0 !ª
the set ! ! will be a bounded one and, in this way, it will have, at least,
0
one cluster point ! ! , which, according to the construction, is a virtual point.
The opposite procedure causes the changing of a virtual point into a real point.
The motion could be possible just because of the permanent changing of the
real points into the virtual ones, and the process may take place inversely, too.
That is why we add to those stated in Part 7 with
Axiom 9. The set $ \" is also dense in $, that is $ \" = $.
Chapter 9
and...a science fiction story
I. The end of the first stage. The Extragalactic 1 spaceship (EG1) had left
the Earth on the 2 % of November, 2199. Twenty-six years had since passed,
years measured in the proper time of the spaceship, a period in which the Earth
had gone round the Sun for about 3300 times, so that the Earth inhabitants, if
they were still living, would have reached the 55 th century.
The spaceship had been speeding up until recently, but now it was advancing
uniformly into the Galaxy, with a speed close to that of light. The reanimation
robots started their activity of bringing to normal life the 6 astronauts, 3 men and
3 women, who had spent all this time in a lethargic state. Everything had taken
place in a normal way.
The first to wake up was the biologist, Mrs. B., a fair-haired woman, of
medium height, who was always cheerful and invigorating. Having taken her
doctor’s degree in Genetics Engineering, Mrs. B. comitted herself to take part in
the mission of EG1 in order to provide the raw material necessary for the feeding
of the crew and to make studies on the behaviour of life in the special conditions
the spaceship had.
It is obvious that the weaker sex is more resistant, because it was Mrs. G.,
a gastronomer, who woke up next. Having taken her degree in Medicine, and
her doctor’s degree in the problem of metabolic diseases, she had been chosen
for this expedition as the most suitable person in guiding and supervising the
nourishment of the crew. I almost forgot to add that Mrs. G. was tall, slim, with
chestnut hair and dark eyes, always displaying a charming behaviour.
The physician of the crew, Dr., woke up a short time after Mrs. G. had. It was
the right time that a woken man should have been on the spaceship. Endowed
with an amazing sympathetic power, Dr. was a surgeon, and as his assistant, for a
possible surgical intervention, he had his robot. In his youth, he had won several
medals in athletics, so that he was in charge in maintaining the physical tonus of
the crew, by imposing compulsory gymnastics, which was not quite simple after
a sleep of 26 years.
The fourth to wake up was the third woman, Mrs. S., a specialist in soft and
having taken a degree in parapsychology. With her piercing, green eyes, a little
plumper than her colleagues, she was extremely attractive. Her knowledge on the
physiology of the nervous system was very large.
Then, Mr. H., an electronics engineer, woke up; he was a specialist in hard,
57
58 Chapter 9 and...a science fiction story
with extensive knowledge on electro-mechanics engineering whose duty was

to upkeep the spaceship. A robust man, a former weight lifter, he could also
intervene, whenever necessary, with his physical strength.
The last to wake up was the physicist, Mr. Ph. His mission was the most
dif cult one. For any failure in achieving the goal, the burden of responsibility
will lay on his shoulders, as the errors of his specialty will be to blame.
* * *
Once the crew summoned, all of them in good health, it was dif cult for each
of them to hide their emotions. A dif cult period of long cohabitation was going
to follow, in which ve people of the crew were supposed to compensate, for the
sixth one, all the people the last one needed. Anyway, they did not have much
time for such sentimentalisms, as they had to start their activities. First, it was
necessary to refresh the data they had received when they left the Earth.
II. The goal of the mission. The rememorizing of the data is started by
Mr. Ph., who displays the goal of the mission. It consists, as he is starting his
exposition, in nding some micro-galaxies and in creating some contacts with
them. Yet, this is the way in which the problem should be settled:
If matter is hierarchically organized, which could be the characteristic di-
mensions of an inferior organization (taking into account only its size, and not its
complexity) to the daily one? In order to nd an answer to this question, we will
proceed to a change of similitude of the fundamental values of mass ($), length
0 0 0
(%), and time (#). If, we will note with $ & % & # all these values after the above
mentioned transformation, we will have
0 0 0
$ = '$ ; % = (% ; # = )# & (II.1)
'& (& ) being the constants of the similitude. We will also introduce some units
after the transformation of similitude, and we will name them as they are named
in our universe, but we will add the suf x “prime” to them. In this way we will
have:
0 0 0
1*+ = '*+ ; 1$ = ($ ; 1, = ), (II.2)
and we will do it carefully so that we should not mistake the meter $ for the
mass $. Then, we have to determine, on the basis of some grounds, the constants
'& (& ) .
a) As the Sun is the best well known celestial body, we will start from its
characteristics, such as its mass and its radius:
# = 1-99 · 1030 *+; .# = 6-910 · 108 *$- (II.3)
The sun is a celestial body of a medium size, so that in its micro-cosmos it

59
should have a nucleus of a medium size. To this end, we choose the tin isotope.
The approximate mass and radius of this nucleus are:
25 15
& = 1-9 · 10 *+; .& = 6-4 · 10 $ (II.4)
We will determine two of the similitude constants, by supposing that to the

Sun there is corresponding, in this transformation, the nucleus of 120 /050 . In this
way, by approximation, we get:
01 & = ' = 1055 ; .0 1.& = ( = 1023 (II.5)
As we do not know the similitude, there is no use in determining these ratios

with extreme precision, but just orientationally. Even more, ' and ( may differ
from the values given in (II.5) with one order of magnitude, but we do hope that
we will not make some bigger errors.
b) The determination of ) is connected to a sentence which is completely
different from the previous one, as it is connected to some considerations on
the gravitational attraction. The universal character of this interaction makes us
suppose that it is the united effect of the changing process of all the component
particles. It means that gravitation functions similarly for all the levels of the
hierarchic organization of matter. So, if we correctly perform the transformation
of similitude, we should get the same value for the constant of the universal
attraction, so that we admit
0
2=2- (II.6)
On the other hand, as the dimension of is , we nd,
0
2 = ' 1( 3) 22 (II.7)
Consequently
' 1(3) 2
= 1& respectively, ) 2 = ' 1 ( = 1014 (II.8)
so that
) = 107 - (II.9)
In order to realize what this constant means, we should remember that a

year has approximately 3 · 107 , (to be more exact, the tropic year 1900 had
31556926,) and accordingly, a mini-year (year’) has 3 seconds.
c) Now, we have the possibility of evaluating the approximate dimensions of
a mini-galaxy. The diameter of the Galaxy which we are crossing is of 25*3,
(kiloparsec).
Knowing that
13, = 3-087 · 1016 $& (II.10)
it follows that the Galaxy diameter, 4' , is
4' = 25 · 103 · 3-087 · 1016 $ = 7-7 · 1020 $ (II.11)
Consequently, the diameters of the mini-galaxies should be the approximate

value of
0
4' = 7-7 · 1020 · 10 23 $ =
(II.12)
= 7-7 · 10 3 $ = 0-775$&
so, of approximately 15$. Such a mini-galaxy could nd enough room in a
peanut shell just as in the given motto (!).
* * *
From the point of view of dimension, to nd micro-galaxies does not seem

to be a dif cult task. It is more dif cult to interpret the signals which come from
these micro-structures, but about all these problems Mrs. S. will talk a bit later.
Here, we only restate the fact that for 1 Mps (megaparsec) more galaxies are to
be found. But
1 3, = 3 · 1022 $ = (3-10 1 ) 1023 $ (II.13)
That is, for 305$ we should nd more mini-galaxies (in a sphere with its
diameter of 305$).
III. The miracles of electronics. Let us narrate, as Mrs. S. puts it, the part
the computers play in this mission.
We have to begin with what had happened more than two centuries before.
Till then, a lot of inexplicable facts of that time had been gathered and system-
atized and they laid the foundation of a new science, parapsychology (pps). We
will point out only some of these parapsychological phenomena, trying to give
the explanation of those pioneering times.
a) The most often accepted pps phenomenon, yet not unanimously, was telepa-
thy: the conveyance of thoughts at some distance. It also became a dangerous
weapon, as it made possible the conveyance of secrets without, practically, any
control. Yet, for us, something else is important. It had been concluded that
the telepathic signals may cross both water and the Faraday cage, a fact which
eliminated the hypothesis of its transmission by electromagnetic waves, i.e., 62
61
by eld. Instead, during the last century, telepathic links were created between
human beings who were at a distance of millions of kilometers one from the
other. It was concluded that their reception was, in actual fact, instantaneous,
and consequently, the propagation speed of these signals was higher than that of
light.
b) A rarer pps phenomenon, yet equally important, is telekinesis: the move-
ment, the deformation, the breaking into pieces of some objects from a certain
distance, through an effort of concentration. As it had been concluded, this
phenomenon strongly connected to fakirism: the strengthening of the skin cells
which so resists to a sharp blade or to a sharpened point. In both cases we deal
with a concentration of the energy of a certain eld 53 , which is named bio- eld.
In order to better understand what it is all about, let us refer to a phenomenon
which is quite familiar to us, namely to the concentration of energy of the electro-
magnetic eld, a certain eld 62 , around the electric charge, as it was described
by Maxwell’s tensor. The electric charges, characteristic to the particles in / 1 ,
by their concentration in the smallest possible domains, may accumulate around
them some very high energies of the 62 eld. When we state that they are very
high, we refer to 6 2 energies which may be compared with the energies in
6 1 . Certain arrangements of the / 1 particles lead to distributions of eld 6 2 ,
which, in its turn, concentrates energies of the 6 3 eld. This phenomenon
takes place in the case of the living cells, as well. The concentrated 6 3 eld
in the living cell is the bio- eld of the cell. The change of information between
cells takes place due to the bio- eld signals. These signals possess extremely
small energies, but they prove to be strong enough to trigger the release of some
energies of the cell. This is a natural continuation of Cybernetics, which conducts
great energies, which are ordered by extremely small energies.
A certain arrangement of the cells succeeds in concentrating a bio- eld of
energy which may be compared to that of the 6 1 eld. The ability of some peo-
ple to perform such an arrangement becomes visible by their power of mastering
telekinesis, or by fakirism.
c) The dream interpretation led to some other sensational discoveries. It
had been long known that some people may foresee, by their dreams, with a
coincidence of more than 90%, some phenomena that are going to happen. This
is due to the reception of some telepathic signals by the subconscious and their
conscious conveyance during the sleep, when the activity of the cortex is much
diminished.
The pps human medium, by chance or consciously, has learnt a code of read-
ing the dreams. This code may differ from one case to another, but the important
thing is that it should be learnt. The subconscious permanently registers signals,
but it can convey them to the conscious only when we sleep, when the functions
of the conscious are, in practice, disconnected. The information is given in the
language of the learnt code. If, when waking up, this certain medium still remem-
bers what he has dreamt, by knowing the code, he may decipher the message on
his own.
Foresights of this kind may also occur due to the emission of the conscious,
who knows that he will travel, will get married, etc., and these signals may be
registered by another one’s subconscious, who, in this way, may foresee them
before being informed about that event.
But, how does it happen that these messages are conveyed even before that
certain event is to take place, an event which is so foreseen? This question, to
be more precise, the answer to it, led to one of the most important discoveries.
The subconscious is, among other things, a reservoir of data on everything that is
happening in the body: he knows the state of almost each cell and he knows
whether a certain one is working in a normal way, or not. As everything is
running due to the nervous cells, signals of the bio- eld are emitted all the time.
As soon as the number of the sick cells, that is, of those which do not work
in a normal way, increases, the signals of the bio- eld concerning this process
are ampli ed, a fact which allows another subconscious to receive them. In this
way, the latter one may foresee an illness or even death before they happen, by
conveying the message to the conscious.
We will see, a bit later, the importance of this discovery. But, as we are here,
let us talk about another pps problem.
d) Now, let us talk about astrology. Of course, anybody may wonder about the
connection between astrology and pps. The question is entirely justi ed, but let
us settle things. The gravitational eld is very weak, yet, however, it may induce
some modi cations to the 6 3 eld, and, accordingly, it may in uence the bio-
eld. In this case, during the creation of the cell or even of the planets, what really
matters is the gravitational eld. Long ago, there was noticed a similitude in
character and behaviour of those whose first cells, which also contain the genetic
code, multiplied in the same environment, including the gravitational eld of
the Sun, of the Moon, or of some big or closed planets. – All the phenomena
in which there appear certain in uences on the bio- eld, which, in its turn, has
some implications upon the psychological behaviour, belong to the domain of
parapsychology.
* * *
All these discoveries led to the idea of designing an electronic micro-system

which should be able to concentrate the bio- eld, to be able to emit and receive
63
6 3 signals. If we think that at this level there is working a quanti cation which
0
has as its foundation the 7 Planck micro-constant given by
0
717 = '( 2 ) 1
= 1055 · 1046 · 10 7
= 1094 (III.1)
because the dimension of 7 is [7] = 82 9 1 , we realize the dif culties. Indeed,
0
7 is very small, as it follows from the above mentioned relation, from where we
nd that
0 94 34 128
7 = 10 · 6-6 · 10 :, = 6-6 · 10 :,- (III.2)
Nevertheless, the electronic cell could be created, its creation being inspired
by the living cell, a discovery of nature.
The robots which accompany us are endowed with such electrocells. Each
crew member is doubled by such a robot that continuously registers the emissions
of the subconscious and has a continuous control on the health state of the person
he supervises.
At the slightest discrepancy, the alarm signal warns us, the robot also points
out the way of eliminating what is going wrong and the disease is prevented from
breaking out. In all those 26 years of deep sleep, as the space travelers were
connected to the robots, the latter ones would intervene on their own whenever
they were in need.
As we will see, the possibility of emitting which was controlled by 6 3
signals, will play a decisive role during the last stage of our mission.
IV. Health above anything else. Without the successes achieved in the first
two centuries of the third millennium – as Dr. starts his lecture – our expedition
would have been impossible. The maintaining of an inactive life for a long period
of time was achieved by following two ways. - The first one was based on the
slow freezing of the body and, then, its even much slower and supervised thaw-
ing, sometimes intervening to make some organs to function again. It permitted,
in practice, an unlimited conservation of the body, and the refrigerating system
was the only one which had to be supervised. - The second way also used a
cooling of the body, without refrigerating it. As a matter of fact, all the body
was running, but in an extremely slow rhythm. A robot would continuously
check not only the body temperature, but also the way in which its organs were
working. An arti cial heart and arti cial lungs could intervene any moment, by
a pass-by operation of a vein which was crossing the robot, in order to regulate
the oxygenation and the irrigation of the body. By this way, the robot could also
administer some doses of medicine. This method did not allow the conservation
of life for more than 25 – 30 years, a period of time in which the body was
getting only approximately one year older, and it needed a continuous supervi-
sion. However, this one was the method which was chosen for our expedition
because it was much safer and it kept the intellect unaffected. The total freezing
sometimes erased completely or partially, the memory. It is true that the brain
continued to be capable to learn again what it had forgotten, but the spaceship
conditions could not afford such a possibility.
As Mrs. S. pointed out, we are continuously supervised by our robots with
the help of which we hope to prevent any illness. Nevertheless, a robot remains
a robot, and that is why a physician is always useful. I have been chosen on the
grounds that the only domain in which the robot cannot manage is surgery. I do
hope, from the bottom of my heart, that neither you, nor I will ever need my skill.
It is quite strange that the robot can not perform a simple appendicitis, but
instead, it can solve the majority of interventions on the brain, by the intravenous
injection of some electronic cells, their guidance to the affected place and pro-
grammed to carry out some local interventions.
In time, after such a long sleep, it is necessary to reactivate the tissues, which
is not simple at all. The choice of movements, their length of time, is different
from one person to another. This dosage and the maintaining of the muscular
tonus after reactivation are my duties.
Now, I would deal with the problem of the lethargic sleep periods. We will
compulsory have four such periods, because, during the acceleration and de-
acceleration these states are obligatory. Until our coming back to the Earth, we
have been once accelerated, we will be slowed down after we get out of the
Galaxy, we will be again accelerated on our way back until we enter the Galaxy,
and, nally, we will be slowed down until we get home. Yet, we are going to
travel twice on our way forth and back, for twenty years, at a uniform motion.
The question is why we do not give our permission to be put to sleep for these
periods, as well. First of all, because, needless to say, any such conservation
displays a certain risk, and the risk must be reduced to its minimum, and, above
all, after six almost successive stages of being put to sleep, we will have to face
a severe muscular atrophy.
V. The motion of the spaceship. The motion is uniformly accelerated if the
quadriacceleration
;( = <=( 1<> & (? = 1& 2& 3& 4) (V.1)
has constant the spatial components
;) = <=) 1<> & (' = 1& 2& 3) (V.2)
In order to evaluate the consequences of this definition we specify that the

65
relativist invariant is
¡ 2 ¢
<,2 = 52 <#2 <@ + <A 2 + <B 2 = 52 <> 2 & (V.3)
and the quadrispeed is de ned as
<@( <#
=( = & so that =0 = 5 - (V.4)
<, <>
By formally dividing the relation (V.3) by we nd
=0 =0 =) =) = 52 - (V.5)
We have advanced the hypothesis that the values ;) are constant. So, we have
from (V.2) and then from (V.5)
"
=) = ;) > and =0 = 52 + ;) ;) > 2 (V.6)
Now, we can nd the connection between the time # of the observer on

the Earth and the proper time > of the spaceship, accordingly, the function # (> ).
Indeed, requiring # (0) = 0 from (V.4.2) and (V.6.2) we have
Z* Z* "
1 0 1
#= = <> = 52 + ;) ;) > 2 <> (V.7)
5 5
+ +
and respectively
5 h ³ p ´ p i
#= ln C + 1 + C2 + C 1 + C2 & with C = ;> 15& (V.8)
2'
where we denoted ;) ;) = ;2 .
Now, we pass on to the determination of the speed D of the spaceship when
compared to that of the Earth. If we divide (V.3) by 52 <#2 we have
µ ¶2
D2 <>
1 2
= & (V.9)
5 <#
or, with the help of (V.4.2) and (V.6.2)
D2 2
¡ 2 2 2
¢ "
1 = 5 1 5 + ; > so that D = ;5> 1 52 + ;) > 2 (V.10)
52
If the motion takes place in the direction of the axis Ox, we will have
1
@ = ;> 2 ; @ (0) = 0- (V.11)
2
The dependence of @ to # is to be found, by reversing the function (V.8), a func-

tion which exists, even if we can not express it with the help of some elementary
functions.
* * *
Now, let us proceed to an approximate evaluation of the data which concern

us.
By a special treatment and training, the human body has come to resist to
an acceleration ten times higher than the gravitational one. It means that we can
rely, as a maximum value, on an acceleration, calculated in its proper system, of
; = 102 $, 2 - (V.12)
Now, let us see which is the total distance we have to travel through. We
know that our Galaxy has a diameter of 25 kps, and the thickness in its center is
of 5 kps. We are travelling parallel to the Galaxy axis to the North of it. As the
Solar system is at about 2/3 of the radius from the center of the Galaxy, it is quite
enough to cover the distance of approximately
< = 3*3, #
= 3 · 103 · 3 · 1016 $ $ 9 · 1019 $- (V.13)
Let us admit that one third of it will be covered in an accelerated motion, so that
the time > 1 of acceleration is given by:
<13 = ;> 21 12& (V.14)
respectively:
µ ¶1,2
1,2 2 ¡ ¢1,2
> 1 = (2<13;) = · 10 2 19
· 9 · 10 = 60 · 1016 #
= 8 · 108 ,&
3
(V.15)
which means
> 1 13 · 107 #
= 26 years. (V.16)
At the end of the acceleration period, the speed of the spaceship, according
67
to the relation (V.10.2), becomes

£ ¤1,2
D1 = ;5> 1 (11;> 1 ) 1 + (51;> 1 )2 =
# 2 2 2
= 5 [1 (5 12; > 1 )] =
16 4 17
= 5 [1
µ (9 · 10 12¶· 10 · 6 · 10 )] = (V.17)
3
=5 1 · 10 5
4
so that D1 is different from the speed of light only with the
5th decimal!
As its proper speed, at this moment, is
=1 = ;> 1 #
= 8 · 1010 $1, (V.18)
the spaceship will cover the next kps in the following time:
> 2 = <13=1 = 3 · 1019 18 · 1010 #

=
# 8 37 # (V.19)
= 3-7 · 10 , = 3 years = 12 years
For the next stage, that of deceleration, there are passing:
>3 = >1 #
= 26 years. (V.20)
Yet, along the stages of acceleration and deceleration the crew is in a lethargic
state and in this state 25-30 years is the equivalent of one year in the ageing
process of the body, so that on our way forth we are growing old with 1+12+1=14
years. This process of ageing will take place in the same way on our way back.
However, if we take into account our proper time, on our way forth, there are
passing
>0 = >1 + >2 + >3 #

= 26 + 12 + 26 = 64 years. (V.21)
Let us estimate the years that pass on the Earth in this period of time. We
have seen that ;> 0 EE 5. Consequently, in (V.8) we can neglect the logarithmic
term and we have, for the first period (you may also see (V.15))
p
#1 # = ;> 1 > 2 125 #
= (> 1 125) 52 + ;2 > 21 # =
# 2 7 8 #
= 10 · 6 · 10 12 · 3 · 10 = (V.22)
#
= 1011 , #
= 1011 13 · 107 years #
= 3300 years.
During the second period, as the motion is uniform, on the Earth there will pass
(see (V.10))
p
= > 2 1 1 (D1 152 ) #
#2 #2 # = ;> 1 > 2 15 #
=
# 16 1,2
= 10 · (60 · 10 ) · 3-7 · 10 13 · 108 =
2 8 (V.23)
= 9-6 · 1010 , = 3200 years.
As #3 = #1 , we will have a total of
#1 + #2 + #3 #
= 9800 years (V.24)
that will have passed on the Earth until our coming back.
VI. Various problems of the crew. Of course, the crew had a lot of problems
to solve. We will mention only some of them.
Mr. H., besides the maintenance of the robots, was also in charge of collecting
energy from the cosmos. Any possibility had to be taken into account, all the
diverse small contributions would add up and made possible the saving of the
reserves which had been taken from the Earth. Even in the deep darkness of the
Cosmos, the photocells were working and they were providing a small amount
of current, but the effect was incomparably more impressive when the spaceship
was passing, from time to time, by a star. The spaceship would always capture
nuclei, wandering ions, which were immediately sorted by a mass spectrograph
and guided to the future nuclear fuel. The cosmic dust was also decomposed,
analysed and distributed. Their contribution was essential, because they slowed
down the spaceship by collision, a reason for which the spaceship was periodi-
cally re-accelerated, mainly using the captured fuel.
Mrs. B.’s duty was to provide food and air. To this end, air and water had to
be recycled (where Mr. H. was giving a helping hand, as well). She had large
areas to grow algae, which could be found in a great variety on the spaceship.
Actually, the algae provided all the food. They were processed, so providing
the dairy products, meat and farinaceous foods, as well as vitamins, etc. This
solution had long proved to be much better than adapting the human body to the
nourishment by pills.
The dosing and displaying the food, which was not a negligible problem at
all, was assigned to Mrs. G. As it was a permanent problem, she was not to envy.
The importance of perpetuating the crew should not be overlooked. At about
two years after their awakening, two girls and one boy were born (we leave to
the reader to guess who the parents of each of them were). Until the next stage
in which they all are to be put to sleep again, the children will have reached the
age of ten, so that they had to be trained, an activity in which everybody was
involved. But the grown-ups too, had to have a cultural life so that they should
69
not get dehumanized. They had at their disposal large libraries, audio and video
recordings, both for their cultural necessities and to satisfy their special interests.
Above all these, their contributions in different elds of activity were stored in
the memory of the computers.
VII. The final station. By performing their daily activities, twelve years in
a uniform motion had passed. The robots which were used to put them to sleep
started to work, this time for only nine persons. The spaceship started to slow
down, which meant a reduced energy consumption, as, being outside the Galaxy,
its gravitational attraction was working in favour of the speed slowdown.
When the speed of the spaceship in reference to that of the Galaxy became,
in a matter-of-fact way, zero, the crew were awakened once more. Now, the
robots were careful to first awake the grown-ups, so that the children should not
experience a psychological trauma.
Only now, the solving of the main problem could be brought up: namely, that
of discovering some civilizations in mini-galaxies, of achieving some contacts
with them and of deciphering their messages. The electronic cells were sending
out weak signals of the eld and they also had to receive the signals which they
were to get as answers. The converting, recording and decoding processes of
these signals were tasks performed by the group of robots.
We should keep in mind the fact that a period of a mini-year (year’) lasted
for about 3 second, so that, in one minute, 20 years’ passed on a mini-planet, and
1,200 years’ passed in an hour. As, for one day, it means a number of 28,800
years’, in a period of one year, a period of time in which the spaceship was
supposed to be stationed in this extra-galactic position (this span of time was
absolutely necessary in order to recover the muscular tonus of the crew, and, on
the other hand, it did not have enough fuel for a longer period of time, as keeping
the position, because of the attraction manifested by the Galaxy, needed a large
consumption of fuel),there could be recorded the appearance and the disappear-
ance of several cultures of the human kind, that is, of conscious beings.
They were lucky enough, and after only one week there were recorded some
answers from several mini-planetary systems, which were to be found in different
mini-galaxies. A huge amount of information was stored. What did it contain?
We leave to you the pleasure of letting your imagination run wild.
VIII. Cadenza (In music, a cadenza (from cadenza, meaning cadence)
is, generically, an improvised or written-out ornamental passage played or sung
by a soloist or soloists, usually in a "free" rhythmic style, and often allowing for
virtuosic display.)
The author’s cadenza. The beings on the mini-planet , after having recorded
the request of the spaceship from the Earth, sent out messages for one year’
(one mini-year), that is for approximately 3 seconds of ours. A huge amount of

material was gathered. Indeed, as it was later proved, they succeeded in sending
out, continuously, bits per s’, which means that in one year’, they sent out bits.
Their procession by the robots of the spaceship was made along the usual period
of time, so that, before the take off of the spaceship, only the check up of the
recording and of the processing could be made.
The specialized robots also worked during the period of time in which the
spaceship accelerated on its way back. When the crew woke up, when the
spaceship was, once again, at the edge of the Galaxy, they could begin the study
of the received messages, only to nd themselves amazed of what they could
read. From these messages we can only select those ones which seemed more
interesting to us.
- The first thing which is worth mentioning is the fact that the mini-beings
sent out their messages from a mini-spaceship, which was close to the edge of
their mini-Galaxy. They had got there having in view some goals which were
similar to those of our spaceship and they were lucky enough (actually, it was
our luck, as well) to also receive signals from a spaceship from an inferior level,
that is, from , which, in its turn, had received signals from a spaceship in , and
so on up to the level. In this way, due to their generalizations, the received data
were of great importance.
- From the received data, there could be concluded that none of the crews
on these spaceships knew they would nd any survivors on their return to their
home planet. Only the crew of the spaceship on were more optimistic, because,
on their departure, there were advanced plans to create an arti cial mini-planet.
It was to be made out from the selected matter of some other planets, so as not
to considerably reduce the mass of their own planet. The assembling of the new
mini-planet was to be performed at the proper distance from the mini-sun in order
to create adequate living conditions. Similarly, the mass of the arti cial mini-
planet was to be increased, so that, in a few mini-centuries it could approximately
have the mass of the mother mini-planet, and so, it could become able to sustain,
in a natural way, an atmosphere so necessary to life.
- What is even more important, on their departure from the mini-planet, they
were thoroughly exploring one of their natural satellites in order to better survey
the Universe (just like the Earth inhabitants were exploring the Moon), and,
with the help of some arti cial satellites, they were able to keep a permanent
contact between different localities. In this way, the new mini-planet was going
to possess, in its turn, its own arti cial satellites which were supposed to be of
noticeable size.
- As regards their future, only the crews of the spaceships in / 1 & / 4 & / 5
71
, and / 9 were more optimistic, and if their optimism could be measured, we

could get in ascending order / 1 & / 9 & / 5 & / 4 . Their reason may be found
in the appearance of the mass destruction weapons. In the view of the more
optimistic ones, these weapons had been used in their incipient stages, that is
why society was on full alert. The higher or lower degree of optimism was due
to the fact that these weapons could be used by some extremist groups which
no longer were under the supervision of the society. In all the other levels these
weapons reached a very high degree of development and even used for only once
time, they could destroy their entire society.
- Another problem, also raised by the optimistic crews, was that of the popula-
tion. They had succeeded in halting the population growth and maintain it within
some convenient limits. These limits took into account some grounds. First,
it was taken into account the fact that a conscious being had a whole series of
necessities besides food such as, the cultural ones, the scienti c ones, as well as
those concerning the change of place, etc. These necessities can not be satis ed
as long as the population is excessively dense and the planet can not feed them
all. On the other hand, a too rare population is not of high ef ciency, either.
The probability that individuals with outstanding scienti c, artistic or political
abilities could be born, remains very low. That is why, there has been imposed a
minimum limit in the population number, so capable of providing the emergence
of such individuals in a large enough number and they will secure the leadership
and the progress of the society. According to their estimates, this population
will be of approximately one quarter of the maximum number of beings that the
planet can feed. (Our crew began to ponder. Could have mankind reached this
wisdom after they had left?)
- On one matter, the crews of all the levels did agree. If, along the process
of evolution, together with the emergence of the intelligent beings, the parapsy-
chological communication played a key role, as soon as communication of some
other nature (speaking, writing, etc.) developed among individuals, along with a
certain development of their consciousness, all these led to an increasingly dimin-
ishing importance of the role played by the parapsychological communication,
and consequently, the beings’ ability of receiving and sending off such signals
became very limited. Yet, in many situations, the telepathic communication has
proved to have been life-saving and that is why, in the period of an extremely
high development of society, the re-evaluation of the qualities of parapsychology
was performed in an organized way, within the framework of education, starting
with the early age, when this type of communication is still functioning among
some other primary instincts.
Appendix A
The list of postulates, axioms,
definitions and theorems
Let’s note with the system of all particles that we nowadays name them as
being elementary, and with the elementary particles where the superior index
numbers the particles. We assume that the particles are composed of particles ,
and the sum of the particles forms the system .Following the method, we come to
the particles and to the adequate systems .Following the method in the opposite
direction we come to the system whose elements are heavenly bodies, and at the
system of galaxies.
9.1 Postulates
(
Postulate I. Each , particle consists of a finite number * (0& ?) of particles
-
, 1.
Postulate II. For any 0 there is a F (0) so that for any ? we should have
* (0& ?) % (!) and there is afinite so that (!) for any !. (This
postulate assures us that out of the particles of the " 1 system there can not be
formed particles of the " system, no matter how big they are, not even at the
limit of ! ! ").
Postulate III. There are particles #! which do not come into the compo-
nent of the particles #" +1 .
Postulate IV. The set " , with a given !, is numerable.
Postulate V. card" = ## implies card$ = ## .
Postulate VI. Any particle # emits and absorbs particles # $ with % & !.
In the case of emission, the particle # $ , constituent of # , changes from a
bound particle into a free one, and in the case of absorption, the free particle # $
changes into a bound particle.
Postulate VII. Any particle #! allows, theoretically, the determination of
its composition whenever it is necessary (and so, we can talk about the carrying
out of Postulate I in different situations) and each new determination of the com-
position of #! is quite different from another determination with, at least, one
constitutive particle.
Postulate VIII. There is a real parameter '! which is attached to the particle
!
# and which is named particle–time, with the following properties:
73
74 Appendix A The list of postulates, axioms, definitions and theorems
1. to each determination of the composition of #! (ensured by Postulate VII)

there will correspond, bijectively, a value '! ;
2. in the case of emission (or absorption) of # $ by #! , the case in which to
the value '! (1) there is corresponding the situation in which # $ belongs
(or it does not belong) to #! , and to the value '! (2) there is corresponding
the situation in which #! does not belong (or it does belong) to # $ , we
have '! (1) ( '! (2).
0
We should notice that any ) : '! ! ' ! monotone increasing application
leads to a new possible scale of the particle–time, a fact which meets the condi-
tions of the Postulate VIII.
We should also underline the fact that the transitivity property is logically
satis ed, because the set of the real numbers is ordered.
The dif cult problem we have to deal with in the next lines is that of the
synchronization of the particle-times. We will try to perform a synchronization
at least with a certain degree of approximation, in several steps, as follows.
a) The determination of '! (%), of the particle-time, when # $ is emitted (or
absorbed) by #! may be accomplished with any desired precision, because
Postulate VII ensures that among the composition determinations of #!
corresponding to '! (1) and we can insert some other determinations,
whenever it is necessary. Accordingly, we suppose that '! (%) is known.
b) Let us suppose that # $ is simultaneously emitted (or absorbed) by the
particles #! and #% & (a fact which may always be achieved if ! ( * ( %
and #! & is a component particle of #% ), and '! & is the particle–time of
#% & . Then, by an adequate application, we can always choose '!& and '%& so
that we should have '! (%) = '%& (%). – This procedure may go on without
any dif culty so that #!& should be synchronized with all the component
particles. In order to underline the fact that this problem is not a trivial one,
we should point out that our Galaxy is a particle # 1 , and synchronization
within its frame is not easy to achieve.
c) Synchronization among free particles is dif cult, and it is connected to the
interaction of the particles, as well as to the determination of the distances
(the problem which was mentioned in 7). Taking into account these reasons,
we will admit
Postulate IX. For the domain from the Axiom 8 there is a real parameter
' which is named time, and whose values coincide, for each particle #! from ,
with the values of '! and harmonize with the synchronization speci cation which
9.3 Axioms 75
is accepted for this domain.
9.2 Definitions
Definition I. The particles #! that are components of a particle #" +1
are named bound ones, and the other ones are named free.
Definition II. The system $ of the free particles #! , a subsystem of
" , is named a field of order !.
Definition 1. If +! $ +% 1 $ ,,,,,, $ +' ( , then we state that +' ( belongs
to +! .
!($) !($) !($+1)
Definition 2. The system {+ $ } with % = !- ! + 1- ,,,- where + $ $+ $ 1
is named point.
!($)
Definition 3. If the sequence {+ $ } determines the point . , then we agree
on saying that . belongs to each element of this sequence.
0 !($)
Definition 4. The points . and / determined by the sequences {+ $ } and
%()) 0
{+ ) } are then, and only then, equal (. = / ) if starting with a 0 index we
!(() %(()
have + ( = + ( , where 1 = 0- 0 + 1- ,,,,,.
Definition 5. The totality of the points included in the element +! builds
up the fundamental set 2 ! of points of the particle #! .
Definition 6. The fundamental sets are named bounded or free, as the corre-
sponding particles are bounded or free.
Definition 7. The totality of the points obtained through the setting up of all
the possible sequences which fulfil Definition 2 forms the geometrical space•• .
Definition 8. We name topology on the geometrical space 3 the subset of
4(3) of 3 , made up of all the possible unions of the fundamental sets 2$% ,
including the empty set.
Definition 9. The points of the subsspace (5- 6 * ) embedded into %
73 are named real points, and the elements of \5 are named virtual points.
9.3 Axioms
Axiom 1. The +! = +' $ equality takes place if and only if ! = % and
8 = 9.
Axiom 2. For each element +! there exists a finite number of elements
!
+!1 1 - ,,,- + 1 , so that,
n o
!
+! = +!1 1 - ,,,,,,- + 1
! ! !
and we will write + ! 1 % +! or + ! 1 & +! (1 0 %), just as + ! 1
is, in its turn, considered to be a set of elements + 2 , or simply as an element
of +! .
Axiom 3. The +! and +% elements, with 8 6= 9 , can not have any + 1
component element in common.
© ª
Axiom 4. The set 7 = +! , with ! determined, is numerable.
Axiom 5. For any !:; there exist free fundamental sets.
Axiom 6. Any of the fundamental sets 2 ! may submerge into a closed ball
< ! (a sphere with its interior) of the three-dimensional Euclidean space 73 .
Axiom 7. The space (3- 6 ) has, at least, a metrizable non-empty subset
5 6= =.
Axiom 7 arouses another problem, which will be solved immediately. If
metrization can be performed only on a subset 5 of (3- 6 ), what does metric
compatible with the space topology mean? With this end in view, we use the
topology 6 * induced by the topology 6 in the subset 5 % 3 throughg
6 * = {> ' 5} , where {>} = 6 We know that (5- 6 * ) is a topological
space subspace of (3- 6 ), and the metric should be compatible with the topology
6 *.
Axiom 8. For any metrizable subspace (5- 6 * ) of (3- 6 ) there exists a
domain % 73 and its subset < % , so that the following conditions should
be satis ed:
1. there is a bijection ) : 5 ! < and
2. < = .
Axiom 9. The set * \< is also dense in *, that is * \< = *.
9.4 Theorems
Theorem 1. If +! and +% have a common element + 1 , then +
!
= +%
(therefore 8 = 9 ).
Theorem 2. There is no such element + $ , with % & !, that could belong
to two different elements +! and +% .
Theorem 3. If the +! and +% $ elements contain a common element + ( ,
then one of the following three relations is true: +! % +% $ (if ! & %), +! =
+% $ (if ! = %), or +! $ +% $ (if ! ( %).
Theorem 4. If the elements +! and +% $ have a common point . , then one
of the following three relations is true: +! = +% $ for ! = %; +! $ +! $ for
9.4 Theorems 77
! ( %; +! % +! $ for ! & %.
Theorem 5. The element +! includes the element +% $ , that is +! $ +% $ ,
iff (iff = if and only if) all the points included in +% $ belong to +! (that is 2 % $ %
2 ! ).
Theorem 6. The sets 2 % and 2 % $ are equal iff ! = % and 8 = 9 .
Theorem 7. The intersection of the fundamental sets 2 ! and 2 % is empty
\ %
(that is 2 ! 2 = =) if 8 6= 9 .
Theorem 8. For any 2 ! , there is a natural number ? , so that we should
have
[ [
2 ! = 2 !1 1 ,,, 2 !" 1
where for any % 6= 0 (1 %- 0 ?)

!
\ !
2 1 2! 1= =
!( )
Theorem 9. If {2 } (! = 0- 0 + 1- ,,,) is a sequence of fundamental sets
!( ) !( +1)
that satisfy the condition 2 $2 1 for any !, then their intersection is a
set made up of only one point, . , that is
!())
\ \ !( )
\ \
!
!( )
2 ) ,,, 2 ,,, = 2 = {. }
!=1
Theorem 10. The points . and . 0 obtained by the intersection of the sets
!( ) %( )
{2" } and {2 } respectively, are different if at least for an index ! = 1 we
!(() %(()
have 2 ( = 2 ( .
Theorem 11. If the sets 2 ! and 2 % $ have a common point, then one of
the following three relations is true: 2 ! = 2 % $ for ! = %; 2 ! $ 2 % $ for
! ( %; 2 ! % 2 % $ for ! & %.
Theorem 12. The fundamental sets 2 ! are simultaneously both open and
closed, being deprived of any boundary.
Theorem 13. The set {. } made up of only one point . is a closed one.
Theorem 14. The set 2 f of all the fundamental sets 2 ! is base of the
topology 6 .
Theorem 15. The totality of the sets 2 ! (. ) which contain the point . is a
fundamental system of vicinities of the point . .
Theorem 16. The topological space (3- 6 ) is not compact.

Theorem 17. The fundamental sets 2 ! are perfect and compact in them-
selves.
Theorem 18. The fundamental sets are rare and have the power of the con-
tinuum, that is card 2 ! = #.
Appendix B
List of Notations
(it is given the page where the sign first appears)
@- A- B set elements
5- <- $ sets
@&5 @ is an element of 5
@& C5 @ is not an element of 5
{@- A} the set of the elements @- A
5\< the difference of 5 and <
54< the symmetrical difference of 5 and <
5%< 5 included in <
5×< the Cartesian product of 5 with <
5(< 5 united to <
5'< 5 intersected by <
5 the Cartesian product 5 × 5 × ,,, × 5
û the interior of
the closure of
0
the derivative set of
the cardinale of
the closure of closure
! base of topology
!! the complementary of ! to
"
!# bubble closed in "3
## a eld of order $
%&'( the cardinal of
) open set
*"# element attached to +"#
"3 the three-dimensional Euclidian space
"# the set {*"# } with a fixed $
, application
," the characteristic function of
- ( . 2) the set of all ," with "
/ set of indexes
79
80 Appendix B List of Notations
0 ($. 1) the number of the particles +#+1 which constitute +"#

2($) sup 0 ($. 1) with $ fixed
2 sup 2 ($)
2( ) the equivalence class of
3 Cantor’s discontinuum
3#" fundamental set
3f#" the set of all 3%$ 3#"
3f the set of all 3#"
4. 5 points
6 the set of natural points
7( ) the set of parts
5 the set of the rational numbers
8 the set of the real numbers
+# the particle of orders $
9# the system of the particles +#
9 the set of cardinal numbers
: time
:"# the time-particle of +"#
;& (4 ) the open bubble centered in 4
;e (4 ) the proximities fundamental system of 4
;e !;e (4 )
< (4 ) proximity of 4
<e (4 ) the proximities set of 4
= geometrical space
(>. ? ) topological space
@ the set of the integers
4 a domain connective in "3
A (4. 5) metric
physical space
? the set of all the open ones
B void set
" alef (first letter of the Hebrew alphabet), the cardinal of 8
"0 the cardinal of 6
2! the cardinal of - ( . 2)
Appendix C
Alphabetical Index
particles, 2
application, 11 bound, 3, 75
free, 3, 75
Cantor, Georg, 5 physical space, 9
discontinuum, 38 point, 20, 23, 75
cardinal numbers, 12 adherent, 20, 27, 32
Cartesian product, 8 boundary, 20, 27, 32
characteristic function, 11 cluster, 20, 27
closure, 31 exterior, 20, 27
connected domain, 47 interior, 20, 27, 28
lonely, 20, 27
de Morgan’s
points, 27
generalized relations, 8
real, 52, 75
relations, 7
virtual, 52, 75
element, 9 power of the continuum, 15
equivalency
set
class, 12
relation, 12 boundary of a, 28
bounded, 21
eld of order n, 3, 75 closed, 21, 28, 31
fundamental neighbourhood sys- perfect, 28
tem, 20 closure, 21
compact in itself, 28
geometrical space, 23, 75 compact in the topological
space, 28
metric complementary of a, 7, 31
space, 50 dense, 28
derivative, 21, 28
numerables, 14
diameter of a, 51
infinite, 14
empty, 6
open ball, 19 fundamental, 23, 75
order relation, 12 interior of a, 21
of symbols, 12
particle–time, 54, 74 open, 21, 31
81
rare, 28 proper, 6
sets, 6 system of neighbourhood, 19
difference of, 8
distance of, 51 topological, 27
equal, 6 space, 27
equipotent, 11 embedded in the, 30
structure, 27
equivalent, 11, 16
subspace, 30
free, 23, 75
topology
open, 26, 27
base of the, 32
point
coarsed, 29
finite, 21
discreet, 29
infinite countable, 21 induced, 29
infinite non-countable, 21 on the geometrical space, 33,
symmetrical difference of, 8 75
union, 7 transfinite numbers, 18
subset, 6
improper, 6 vicinity, 20
82
PART II
Original papers
Chapter 10
Original papers
85
86 Chapter 10 Original papers
87
89
91
93
95
97
99
101
103
105
107
109
111
113
115
117
119
121
123
125
127
129
131
133
135
137
139
141
143
145
147
149
151
153
155
157
159
161
163
165
167
169

Apărut 2011. Format 17 x 24 cm.

Editura Ars Longa, Str. Elena Doamna nr. 2
Tel./Fax: (0)232 21.50.78 Iasi - Romania
E-mail: arslonga@mail.dntis.ro
Printed in Romania

Curs Fizica

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Curs Fizica

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats



0   

  :;     ! < 

#   2

I dedicate this book alike:

To my father, Vasile Gottlieb, from whom I

To my wife, Cleopatra Mociutchi, with all my

called “Cantor’s discontinuum”.

Few words about this book... IX

PART I Overlapped universes XV

5 Elements of general topology 27

6 An example of Georg Cantor 37

7 Embedding into the Euclidean space 47

9 and...a science fiction story 57

A The list of postulates, axioms, definitions and theorems 73

PART II Original papers 83

10.1 Contribu ii la studiul problemelor geometrice ale teoriei relativit! ii

10.2 Matter and Point Set Theory – Ali Kyrala 103

10.3 L’hyphotese d’un modele de la structure de la materie – I. Gottlieb 105

10.4 Some hypotheses on space, time and gravitation – I. Gottlieb 121

10.6 Games with Cantor’s dust – I. Gottlieb, M. Agop, V. Enache 143

10.7 My picture over the World – I. Gottlieb 149

Anatole France, “The Garden of Epicurus”

with great difficulties”. His anticipation proved to be true. Professor O. Mayer

P. S. II In the following years we succeeded in supplementing the static

The sets * and + are disjoint if * ' + = 9

Let’s prove the validity of de Morgan’s first relation. - Let us take ; #

We can integrate the model presented in Chapter 1 in a quite large mathemat-

" " "

same power) if there exists a bijection = : * ! + , and we write * ) + . From

. = 0# .1 .2 $$$. $$$# where . 6= " # 0 or 9$

Indeed, . 6= "1 , because .1 6= "11 , but . 6= "2 , because .2 6= "22 and

have the same power, because the bijective map

And inversely, to the number 2 = 0# 51 52 53 54 $$$ there will correspond that

We are entitled to ask ourselves if a cardinal higher than ! exists? To our

Indeed, to each element of 7 ( ), i.e., the % subset of , only one charac-

We will point out that

Indeed, let us take into consideration the map

Thus, we have chosen the characteristic functions of the subsets of with

transfinite numbers. In the ordinated set of the transfinite cardinals, !, is the

Concerning the suggested model in Chapter 1, we will state

[( &)2 + (" ')2 + (# ()2 ]1!2 + ,! (, - 0)

Actually, ) (% ) is the interior of a sphere with its centre in point % and a

their centre in % builds up a fundamental neighbourhood system of % (we have

Let us pass again to the model suggested in Chapter 1. A succession of

Proof. The proof results from Axiom 2, as the decomposition of ! ! corre-

And this is what we were supposed to demonstrate.

These properties of the closure allowed C. Kuratowski to give an alternative

number of open sets, as well as the union of a finite number

In the following lines we will give

91 = 90 \(153) 253) = [0) 153] ! [253) 1]

"2 = "0 \{(1!3 2!3) (1!9 2!9) (7!9 8!9)} =

% = (0 1 1!3 2!3 1!9 2!9 7!9 8!9 ###)

2598 = 2 · 103 + 5 · 102 + 9 · 101 + 8 · 100

% = {%0 = 0 %1 = 1 %2 ### %&"1 }

we pass from the base 3 to base 10 and the reverse.

2598 | 12 = (2 · 123 + 5 · 122 + 9 · 12 + 8) |10 =

We have chosen the second example, deliberately, as we have considered

.0 .1 ###. |10 = (43 + /$ )10

4 |10 = (5 3 + /$"1 ) |10

.0 .1 ###. |10 = (5 32 + /$"1 3 + /$ ) |10

.0 .1 ###. |10 = 61 62 ###6$ |&

1475 | 10 = (122 · 12 + 11) |10 = [(10 · 12 + 2) · 12 + 11] |10 =

0

:; ! <

# 2

# = 1-99 · 1030 +; .# = 6-910 · 108 $- (II.3)