Cartesian Product: \mathbb{R}^3

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cartesian Product
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Cartesian product of sets, specifically examining whether \(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^2\) is equal to \(\mathbb{R}^2 \times \mathbb{R}\) and whether both are equivalent to \(\mathbb{R}^3\). The scope includes theoretical considerations and implications of notation in mathematics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the equality of \(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^2\) and \(\mathbb{R}^2 \times \mathbb{R}\), noting that their elements are structured differently.
  • Another participant acknowledges that while they are not equal in a strict sense, they are often treated as such in practice.
  • A later reply emphasizes that they are isomorphic rather than equal, introducing the concept of canonical isomorphisms in category theory.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the equality of the Cartesian products, with some suggesting that they are isomorphic but not equal, while others imply that the distinction is often overlooked in practice. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the significance of this distinction.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the potential ambiguity in notation and the assumptions underlying the definitions of Cartesian products. The implications of treating these products as equal or isomorphic are not fully explored.

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
Is it true that

[tex]\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^2 = \mathbb{R}^2 \times \mathbb{R} = \mathbb{R}^3[/tex]

?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes. (with a but)
 
Wouldn't the elements of [tex]\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^2[/tex] all be of the form (a, (b, c)) whereas the elements of [tex]\mathbb{R}^2\times\mathbb{R}[/tex] all be of the form ((a, b), c)?
 
(Assuming you meant the 2 to have precedence over the x)
 
That's the essense of the "but".
 
But how important is this "but"?
 
It's so unimportant, I didn't feel the need to elaborate on it in my response. :biggrin:

In the strictest sense, they aren't equal, but I don't think I've ever really seen anyone distinguish between them.
 
Strictly speaking they are isomorphic not equal, however the isomoprphism is fairly 'canonical' and in general there are canonical isomorphisms between Ax(BxC) and (AxB)xC, and we will by commonly accepted abuse of notation refer to it as AxBxC.

This is one of the "modern" ways of saying it in the lagauge of category theory.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K