Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Math Help - This is making me go 1N54N3!!

  1. #1
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9

    This is making me go 1N54N3!!

    I already asked the following 2 question but they were not answer thus I shall ask them again.

    1)Are the cardinal numbers countable?

    2)Are the cadinal numbers dense; meaning, for \aleph_n<\aleph_m there exists a \aleph_p such as \aleph_n<\aleph_p<\aleph_m. For example, the rationals and the reals are dense? (Perhaps this is connected to the continuum hypothesis?)

    3)Finally we get to a question to is making me go insane! I was thinking about this when I was falling asleep. Consider the set of all FINITE sets. What is the cardinality of this set?!?! I was able to prove (although not formally but you can consider it to be a proof) with the property of the power set, that I can make the cardinality of this set as large as I like!!!!! Thus, there is no cardinal number for this set!!!! When I was falling asleep a solution entered my mind. Who says that any infinite set must have a cardinal number? Perhaps, that reasoning is not true. And this is such a case. Thus, I decided to this the "super-cardinal number". Just as a cardinal number always excedes any natural number (cardinality of finite sets) so too the supercardinal number excedes any cardinal number (cardinality for SOME infinite sets). What happened?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker
    3)Finally we get to a question to is making me go insane! I was thinking about this when I was falling asleep. Consider the set of all FINITE sets. What is the cardinality of this set?!?!
    Try something simpler. What is the Cardinality of all sets with ONE element?

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    I did, and I approach to the same conclusion. This set can be made larger than any cardinal number!

    Did I find something new?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker
    I did, and I approach to the same conclusion. This set can be made larger than any cardinal number!

    Did I find something new?
    I'm being elliptic. I promise to be more direct in future.

    When I ask about the cardinality of all sets with one element I am trying
    to get you to think about "sets of what?". I want you to do this because
    I suspect you have in mind something like a set of all sets.

    The reason this is something to think about is because such an entity is
    not well defined or unparadoxical.

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Member
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    From
    Gdansk, Poland
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker
    I already asked the following 2 question but they were not answer thus I shall ask them again.

    1)Are the cardinal numbers countable?

    2)Are the cadinal numbers dense (...)

    3)Finally we get to a question to is making me go insane! I was thinking about this when I was falling asleep. Consider the set of all FINITE sets. What is the cardinality of this set?!?! I was able to prove (...) that I can make the cardinality of this set as large as I like!!!!!(...)

    Ad 2. It is the continuum hypothesis (generalised). It states that there is no cardinal number between  \aleph_n and  2^{\aleph_n} thus the set of cardinal numbers is not dense.

    Ad 3. Yes if we assume that generalised continuum hypothesis is true. Let us imagine sequence that it's first element is 0, the second element is  \aleph_0 , the third 1, the fourth  2^{\aleph_0}  and so on... it is
    <br />
x_1 = 0, \quad x_2 = \aleph_0<br />

    <br />
x_n = x_{n-2}+1 \quad for \quad n = 2k+1 > 2 <br />

    <br />
x_n = 2^{x_{n-2}} \quad for \quad n = 2k > 2, <br />

    <br />
where \quad k \in \mathbb{N}<br />
    Due to continuum hypothesis we can't miss any infinite cardinal, and because natural numbers are countible we can't miss them either.

    Ad 3.
    And it is very interesting. What is that proof?
    Just as the set of all sets does not exist, maybe the set of all finite sets also. But I cannot imagine the proof of this fact is like this one Russel did. Maybe the fact that it does not really have cardinallity could be such proof. Interesting.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Member
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    From
    Gdansk, Poland
    Posts
    117
    Hmm... Looks like you are already at this forum. Greetings to you
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    My proof is not going to be very formal (and I do not need the countinuum hypothesis ) I am going to be working with a set of sets having single elements. This is what CaptainBlack proposed because I think it would be easier.

    Let \mathbb{Z^+}=\{1,2,3,...\} the natural numbers. Thus, P(\mathbb{Z^+}) is larger (the property of a power set). Thus, \bigcup\{x\} ,x\in P(\mathbb{Z^+}) having the cardinality greater than \aleph_0. But the previous demonstration is the the uninon of all sets having single elements. Further, by the properties of the power set we have that P(P(\mathbb{Z^+})) is even larger. Thus, \bigcup\{x\},x\in P(P(\mathbb{Z^+})) is the union of sets having a single element. This is even larger then the previous one. Thus, using this construction we can construct the cardinality of "the sets of all finite sets" to be as large as we like. Thus there is no such cardinal number. Now the conclusion I draw from this that some sets can be so large that you cannot use cardinals numbers anymore, and thus there is no problem with this set.


    I asked some people about this problem, and they have no idea. I hope someone finds a solution to my problem. Perhaps, the problem is that no one ever considered this set.

    CaptainBlack, you mention a "well-defined set" I heard this term many times before and wanted to ask what it mean? Further I happen to know that the "Super-set" the set of all sets is not well defined and thus we cannot use it. Further, my set is the set of all FINITE sets and it itself is infinite, thus it is not an element of itself. I see no problem with my set.
    Last edited by ThePerfectHacker; February 9th 2006 at 05:47 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker
    My proof is not going to be very formal (and I do not need the countinuum hypothesis ) I am going to be working with a set of sets having single elements. This is what CaptainBlack proposed because I think it would be easier.

    Let \mathbb{Z^+}=\{1,2,3,...\} the natural numbers. Thus, P(\mathbb{Z^+}) is larger (the property of a power set). Thus, \bigcup\{x\} ,x\in P(\mathbb{Z^+}) having the cardinality greater than \aleph_0. But the previous demonstration is the the uninon of all sets having single elements. Further, by the properties of the power set we have that P(P(\mathbb{Z^+})) is even larger. Thus, \bigcup\{x\},x\in P(P(\mathbb{Z^+})) is the union of sets having a single element. This is even larger then the previous one. Thus, using this construction we can construct the cardinality of "the sets of all finite sets" to be as large as we like. Thus there is no such cardinal number. Now the conclusion I draw from this that some sets can be so large that you cannot use cardinals numbers anymore, and thus there is no problem with this set.


    I asked some people about this problem, and they have no idea. I hope someone finds a solution to my problem. Perhaps, the problem is that no one ever considered this set.

    CaptainBlack, you mention a "well-defined set" I heard this term many times before and wanted to ask what it mean? Further I happen to know that the "Super-set" the set of all sets is not well defined and thus we cannot use it. Further, my set is the set of all FINITE sets and it itself is infinite, thus it is not an element of itself. I see no problem with my set.
    Suppose such a set of all sets exists, then each of its subsets is an element
    of it, hence it contains its Power Set. Hence the Cardinality of its Power
    Set is less than or equal to its Cardinality.

    But you will have seen a proof that the Cardinality of the Power Set of a Set
    is strictly greater than the cardinality of the Set itself - Contradiction

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Member
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    From
    Gdansk, Poland
    Posts
    117
    So, we have all to prove that the set of all one-element sets does not exist. Let  \mathfrak{U}_1 denote the set of all one-element sets.
    Using Cantor theorem we have that the cardinality of  \mathcal{P}(\mathfrak{U}_1) is greater than the cardinality of  \mathfrak{U}_1 .

    Suppose that  X \in \mathcal{P}(\mathfrak{U}_1) The set {X} satisfies  {X} \in \mathfrak{U}_1 by the definition thus there exist an injection from  \mathcal{P}(\mathfrak{U}_1) to  \mathfrak{U}_1 . This way:  card (\mathcal{P}(\mathfrak{U}_1)) \leq card( \mathfrak{U}_1) . It is in contradiction with Cantor theorem thus the set  \mathfrak{U}_1 does not exist.

    I've heared that there is the sollution of your problem. The set of all sets does not exist, however there exists the class of all sets. The class theory was founded by von Neumann and Bernays. In thirties Kurt Godel have created axiomatic system of class theory. More details I don't know.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainBlack
    Suppose such a set of all sets exists, then each of its subsets is an element
    of it, hence it contains its Power Set. Hence the Cardinality of its Power
    Set is less than or equal to its Cardinality.

    But you will have seen a proof that the Cardinality of the Power Set of a Set
    is strictly greater than the cardinality of the Set itself - Contradiction

    RonL
    AH!!!!!!
    But you are assuming that it has a CARDINALITY!!!!
    Not necessarily it has a cardinal number, did Canotr prove that each infinite set has a cardinal number???
    I demonstrated that this is false by construction the set of all finite sets.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by albi
    So, we have all to prove that the set of all one-element sets does not exist. Let  \mathfrak{U}_1 denote the set of all one-element sets.
    Using Cantor theorem we have that the cardinality of  \mathcal{P}(\mathfrak{U}_1) is greater than the cardinality of  \mathfrak{U}_1 .

    Suppose that  X \in \mathcal{P}(\mathfrak{U}_1) The set {X} satisfies  {X} \in \mathfrak{U}_1 by the definition thus there exist an injection from  \mathcal{P}(\mathfrak{U}_1) to  \mathfrak{U}_1 . This way:  card (\mathcal{P}(\mathfrak{U}_1)) \leq card( \mathfrak{U}_1) . It is in contradiction with Cantor theorem thus the set  \mathfrak{U}_1 does not exist.

    I've heared that there is the sollution of your problem. The set of all sets does not exist, however there exists the class of all sets. The class theory was founded by von Neumann and Bernays. In thirties Kurt Godel have created axiomatic system of class theory. More details I don't know.
    How can a set not exists

    I was reading on Wikipedia that first we have Naive set theory which rested on intuition then Axiomatic set theory came along and removed all the paradoxes in set theory. Thus, I understand that a set (even though undefined) must satisfy some condition to be a set, right? Thus, my set does not satisfiy that.

    Important, you set my problem was the set of all sets, and I know that no such set exists (called superset), but my problem is more reasonable that it is a set of all finite sets. Again, I am not speaking about the Superset overhere, taking about a completely different set.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker
    AH!!!!!!
    But you are assuming that it has a CARDINALITY!!!!
    Not necessarily it has a cardinal number, did Canotr prove that each infinite set has a cardinal number???
    I demonstrated that this is false by construction the set of all finite sets.
    No I'm not, Cardinality denotes a relationship between sets.

    We say set A has a greater than or equal cardinality to set
    B if there exists a one-one mapping from B into A.

    We say set A has a cardinality equal to that of a set B if there
    exists a one-one mapping from B into A, and there exists a
    one-one mapping from B into A

    The proof that the Cardinality of the Power Set of a set is strictly greater
    than the cardinality of the set itself is a proof the there is a one-one
    mapping form the set into the Power Set, but that there is no such one-one
    mapping from the Power Set into the Set itself.

    Thus our contradiction stands.

    RonL

    (note into in this context includes onto)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #13
    Member
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    From
    Gdansk, Poland
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker
    How can a set not exists
    Important, you set my problem was the set of all sets, and I know that no such set exists (called superset), but my problem is more reasonable that it is a set of all finite sets. Again, I am not speaking about the Superset overhere, taking about a completely different set.
    Read again. I'm not talking about universum (or superset as you are saying). I am talking about \mathfrak{U}_1, it is the set of all ONE-ELEMENT sets.


    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker
    AH!!!!!!
    (...), did Canotr prove that each infinite set has a cardinal number???
    I don't know what Cantor was thinking about cardinal numbers. However I have seen two (similar!) attitudes to this problem in my Set Theory book.

    We can simply introduce an axiom that every set has cardinal number. (For every set there exists cardinal number such as card(A) = card(B) if and only if A has the same number of elements as B)

    The second one was to introduce something called "relation type" (it is the direct translation from Polish, I was unable to find anyting about it in Wikipedia or MathWorld).

    Axiom. For any relation system <A, \mathcal{R}>, \mathcal{R} \subset A \times A there exists "relation type".
    Two relation systems <A, \mathcal{R}> and <B, \mathcal{S}> have the same "relation type" iff they are isomorphic.

    The cardinal number of the set  A is "relation type" of the system <A, A \times A>.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  14. #14
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainBlack
    No I'm not, Cardinality denotes a relationship between sets.

    We say set A has a greater than or equal cardinality to set
    B if there exists a one-one mapping from B into A.

    We say set A has a cardinality equal to that of a set B if there
    exists a one-one mapping from B into A, and there exists a
    one-one mapping from B into A

    The proof that the Cardinality of the Power Set of a set is strictly greater
    than the cardinality of the set itself is a proof the there is a one-one
    mapping form the set into the Power Set, but that there is no such one-one
    mapping from the Power Set into the Set itself.

    Thus our contradiction stands.

    RonL

    (note into in this context includes onto)
    Ah, but then how did Cantor proof the the fundamental property of the power set if it fails in this case with the Superset!!!???
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  15. #15
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker
    Ah, but then how did Cantor proof the the fundamental property of the power set if it fails in this case with the Superset!!!???
    Look at the ZF axioms. The axiom of regularity effectivly rules that
    your "set of all sets" is not a set in ZF set theory.

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Making r the subject
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 28th 2009, 02:29 PM
  2. Making a PDF
    Posted in the LaTeX Help Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 23rd 2008, 07:14 AM
  3. Making sence of this?
    Posted in the Math Software Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 1st 2008, 07:18 AM
  4. Making an equation.
    Posted in the Pre-Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 17th 2008, 10:35 AM
  5. Just making sure
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 2nd 2008, 08:03 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum