Silly questions about sets and fields

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jcsd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fields Sets
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of sets and fields, specifically questioning whether certain sets qualify as fields and exploring the cardinality of the hyperreals. It includes theoretical considerations and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the empty set, {0}, and {0,1} can be considered fields, noting that a field must have elements whose sum equals zero.
  • Another participant asserts that a field must contain at least two elements, identifying {0,1} as the smallest field and mentioning that 1+1=0.
  • There is a discussion about the hyperreals, with one participant stating that they are constructed from sequences of real numbers, and suggesting that the cardinality of these sequences might be aleph_2, though uncertainty remains about how much of aleph_2 is represented.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of cardinality of the reals being designated by C (continuum) and references the continuum hypothesis, which posits that C=aleph1.
  • A further contribution discusses the construction of hyperreals using ultrafilters, explaining their properties and how they relate to sequences of real numbers.
  • One participant mentions the generalized continuum hypothesis (gch) and its implications for the relationship between 2^c and aleph_2, stating that without gch, this relationship is unprovable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of fields and the cardinality of the hyperreals, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about fields and the cardinality of sets, as well as the dependence on the continuum hypothesis and generalized continuum hypothesis, which are not universally accepted.

jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
13
Are the following sets fields: the empty set, {0} {0,1}? (it's that I've seen {0,1} as an example of a field yet I thought for any element of a field, there must be another element such as the sum of the two is equal to zero.

Also while I'm asking silly questions: what is the cardinality of the hyperreals?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
a field has to have at least two elements, so {0,1} is the smallest field. 1+1=0.

the hyperreals are carved out of sequences of real numbers in one approach. the number of sequences of real numbers is aleph_2, i think. but I'm not sure how much of aleph_2 is carved out. card(R*) is either aleph_2 or aleph_1=card(R).
 
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
a field has to have at least two elements, so {0,1} is the smallest field. 1+1=0.

the hyperreals are carved out of sequences of real numbers in one approach. the number of sequences of real numbers is aleph_2, i think. but I'm not sure how much of aleph_2 is carved out. card(R*) is either aleph_2 or aleph_1=card(R).

I'm unfamiliar with the hyperreals, but the set of all sequences of real numbers has cardinality C since a hilbert-hotel type apprach will create a bijection between sequences of real numbers, and individual real numbers.
 
Last edited:
The fundamental difference between a set and a field is that a set (by itself) has no binary operations. A field is a set with two operations (and inverses) satisfying a whole collection of rules. The operations are generalizations of addition and multiplication.

The cardinality of the reals is usually designated by C (continuum). The continuum hypothesis states that C=aleph1. Under the generalized continuum hypothesis, the set of all subsets of the reals has cardinality aleph2.
 
As a matter of taste, it's probably better to say

[tex] |{}^*\mathbb{R}| = 2^c[/tex]

So you don't have to talk about the continuum hypothesis.


The construction of the hyperreals goes as follows:

We have a magical thing, called an ultrafilter, which tells us whether a subset of N is "big" or "small". It has the properties that if A is a big set, then the complement of A is a small set. It also has the properties that all finite sets are small sets, and if A is big and B contains A, then B is big, and the union of two small sets is small.

(I think you need the axiom of choice to prove ultrafilters exist)


Using this ultrafilter, we can define an ordering relation on sequences of real numbers. If s and t are sequences of real numbers, then:

[tex] s < t~\mathrm{if~and~only~if}~\{n \epsilon \mathbb{N} | s_n < t_n\}~\mathrm{is~big}[/tex]

And similarly for any other ordering operation (including equality).
 
Last edited:
The point of the generalized continuum hypothesis (gch) is 2c=aleph2. Without gch, the equation is unprovable.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K