# Proof That $\mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q}$ Is Not an $F_{\sigma}$ Set

I am trying to prove that the set of irrational numbers $\mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q}$ is not an $F_{\sigma}$ set. Here's my attempt:

Assume that indeed $\mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q}$ is an $F_{\sigma}$ set. Then we may write it as a countable union of closed subsets $C_i$: $$\mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q} = \bigcup_{i=1}^{\infty} \ C_i$$ But $\text{int} ( \mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q}) = \emptyset$, so in fact each $C_i$ has empty interior as well. But then each $C_i$ is nowhere dense, hence $\mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q} = \bigcup_{i=1}^{\infty} \ C_i$ is thin. But we know $\mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q}$ is thick, a contradiction.

This seems a bit too simple. I looked this up online, and although I haven't found the solution anywhere, many times there is a hint: Use Baire's Theorem. Have I skipped an important step I should explain further or is Baire's Theorem used implicitly in my proof? Or is my proof wrong? Thanks.

EDIT: Thin and thick might not be the most standard terms so:

Thin = meager = 1st Baire category

-

## 2 Answers

Your solution is correct. You could also argue that $\mathbb{R} = \bigcup_{i =1}^{\infty} C_{i} \cup \bigcup_{q \in \mathbb{Q}} \{q\}$, so by Baire one of the $C_{i}$ must have non-empty interior, contradicting the fact that $\mathbb{R} \smallsetminus \mathbb{Q}$ has empty interior.

-

@milcak: I forgot to mention that you assume Baire implicitly when asserting that $\mathbb{R}\smallsetminus\mathbb{Q}$ is thick – t.b. Mar 12 '11 at 2:59

Suppose $\mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q}$ is an $F_{\sigma}$ set. Then $\mathbb{Q}$ is a $G_{\delta}$ set which is a contradiction. In other words, suppose $$\mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q} = \bigcup_{i=1}^{\infty} \ C_i$$ Then by Demorgan's Laws $$\mathbb{Q} = \bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty} \ C_i^{c}$$ which is a contradiction since $\mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q}$ is a countable intersection of open sets and we know that the intersection between the rational is irrationals is $\emptyset$. So $\emptyset$ is a countable intersection of open dense subsets which contradicts Baire's category theorem.

-

1
What does this line mean: " we know that the intersection between the rational is irrationals is ∅"? – Soarer Mar 11 '11 at 7:41
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 23, "mathjax_display_tex": 3, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "github"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9606278538703918, "perplexity_flag": "head"}