A question about cardinalities

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter phil335
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of cardinalities, particularly in relation to infinite sets and the nature of infinity. Participants explore the implications of having infinite whole numbers and decimals, as well as the cardinality of various sets, including power sets and the continuum. The conversation touches on foundational issues in set theory and the paradoxes that arise from different comprehension axioms.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the existence of infinite whole numbers and decimals leads to the idea of infinite infinities, questioning the nature and hierarchy of these infinities.
  • One participant explains that for a set with infinitely many elements, its power set has a cardinality that is strictly greater than the original set, suggesting a relationship between different levels of infinity.
  • There is mention of the cardinality of whole numbers being aleph null, while the cardinality of non-terminating decimals is associated with the continuum, raising questions about the classification of infinities.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about the coherence of the cardinality of the set of all cardinalities, indicating a lack of consensus on this notion.
  • Participants discuss Russell's paradox in relation to unbounded comprehension, highlighting the implications of accepting such a concept in set theory.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the nature of infinity and cardinalities, with no clear consensus reached. Disagreements arise regarding the coherence of certain concepts and the implications of different comprehension axioms.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved questions about the hierarchy of infinities and the implications of Russell's paradox on set theory. The discussion also reflects differing interpretations of cardinalities and their relationships.

phil335
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
a question about infinity
If there are an infinite number of whole numbers, and an infinite number of decimals between any two whole numbers, and an infinite number of decimals in between any two decimals, does that mean that there are infinite infinities? And an infinite number of those infinities? And an infinite number of those infinities? And an infinite number of those infinities? And an infinite number of those infinities? And… (Infinitely times. And that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. And..)...

 
Physics news on Phys.org
phil335 said:
TL;DR Summary: a question about infinity

If there are an infinite number of whole numbers, and an infinite number of decimals between any two whole numbers, and an infinite number of decimals in between any two decimals, does that mean that there are infinite infinities? And an infinite number of those infinities? And an infinite number of those infinities? And an infinite number of those infinities? And an infinite number of those infinities? And… (Infinitely times. And that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. And..)...

Yes.

If we have a set ##X## with infinitely many elements ##|X|## then its power set ##P(X)##, i.e. the set of all subsets of ##X## has ##|P(x)|=2^{|X|}## many elements which is strictly bigger than ##|X|## because ##P(X)## contains all subsets ##\{x\}\in P(X)## for ##x\in X## and many more sets. There is no one-on-one map between ##X## and ##P(X).##

It is not clear whether there is another proper infinity class ##c(X)## between them, i.e. whether
$$
|X| \leq c(X) \leq |P(X)|=2^{|X|}
$$
implies ##|X|=c(X)## or ##c(X)=2^{|X|}## or whether this is not the case.
 
Last edited:
Look up "aleph null" and go from there.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker
phil335 said:
TL;DR Summary: a question about infinity

If there are an infinite number of whole numbers,
The cardinality of the whole numbers is normally taken as aleph null.
phil335 said:
and an infinite number of decimals between any two whole numbers
The cardinality of the set of terminating decimals between any two whole numbers is also aleph null.
The cardinality of the set of not necessarily terminating decimals between any two whole numbers is the cardinality of the continuum -- the cardinality of the power set of the naturals.

phil335 said:
and an infinite number of decimals in between any two decimals
Again, the cardinality of the set of terminating decimals between any two distinct decimals is aleph null while the cardinality of the set of non-terminating decimals between them is the cardinality of the continuum.
phil335 said:
does that mean that there are infinite infinities?
There are at least aleph null infinities. Because for each infinite cardinality there is an obvious successor.

However, I am not entirely sure that the cardinality of the set of all cardinalities is a coherent notion.
 
How many elements are there in the set of all elements that are not part of a set?
 
DaveC426913 said:
How many elements are there in the set of all elements that are not part of a set?
Have you been exposed to Russell's paradox and the distinction between bounded and unbounded comprehension?

Bounded comprehension or the Axiom Schema of specification says that if you have a set and a predicate (a yes/no function that operates on set members) then a set that contains exactly those set members that satisfy the predicate exists.

Unbounded comprehension is pretty much the same thing. But it does not require a set as a starting point. Just the predicate. It would assert that if you have a predicate then the set of all elements that satisfy the predicate exists. Naively, this seems sensible enough. Generations of mathematicians were perfectly willing to accept this idea.

The problem with unbounded comprehension is Russell's paradox. Let the predicate be "does not contain itself as a member" and you have the set of all sets that do not contain themselves. To avoid the paradox, one approach is to accept only bounded comprehension.

Your question above uses unbounded comprehension. So we reject it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DaveC426913 and fresh_42

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
6K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
9K