Are Non-Standard Analysis Elements Countable and Real?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jem05
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around concepts in non-standard analysis (NSA), specifically addressing the countability of the hypernatural numbers (*N), the nature of limited elements of the hyperreal numbers (*R), and the proof involving infinitesimals and the cosine function. Participants explore theoretical implications and mathematical reasoning within the context of NSA.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether *N is countable, with one asserting it is not countable itself but is the *-transfer of countable.
  • There is a discussion on whether limited elements of *R are real, with a viewpoint suggesting that they generally are not, but can be expressed as the sum of a standard real number and an infinitesimal hyperreal number.
  • One participant attempts to prove that if x is infinitesimal, then cos(x) - 1 is also infinitesimal, using a *-transfer argument involving limits and epsilon-delta definitions.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about the validity of their argument regarding the transfer of predicates and the conditions under which they can be applied.
  • A later reply provides a sketch of a proof regarding the countability of *N, mentioning that every standard real number is infinitesimally close to a hyperrational number.
  • Participants discuss different methods for transferring predicates with free variables, including modeling predicates as functions to facilitate the transfer process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on some aspects of the discussion, such as the nature of *N and its relation to countability, but there remains uncertainty and differing interpretations regarding the application of transfer in proofs and the characterization of limited elements of *R. The discussion does not reach a consensus on these points.

Contextual Notes

Participants express limitations in their understanding of when to apply transfer and the implications of their arguments, indicating a need for clarity on the conditions under which certain mathematical statements hold true in the context of NSA.

jem05
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
hello,
Im reading goldblatt's NSA book, and i just finished the first part.
i have what i think are some trivial questions:
1) I am just wondering if *N is countable.
2) are limited elements of *R real?
3) I am trying to prove that if x is infinitessimal then cos(x) -1 is infinitessimal.
i thought i can *-transfer the statement:
(\forall n \in N) (\exists \delta \in R+) (\forall x \in R) (|x| < \delta) -->(|cos(x)-1|< 1/n)

i thought if x infinitessimal, then |x| , 1/n for any natural integer, and that makes it < \delta
so it will satisfy the transfer of the statement, making |cos(x)-1|< 1/n fr all n in *N.
is that valid?

thank you in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jem05 said:
1) I am just wondering if *N is countable.
No. It is the *-transfer of countable, though.

2) are limited elements of *R real?
Generally not. Every limited hyperreal number, however, can uniquely be written as the sum of a standard real number and an infinitessimal hyperreal number.

3) I am trying to prove that if x is infinitessimal then cos(x) -1 is infinitessimal.
i thought i can *-transfer the statement:
(\forall n \in N) (\exists \delta \in R+) (\forall x \in R) (|x| < \delta) -->(|cos(x)-1|< 1/n)

i thought if x infinitessimal, then |x| , 1/n for any natural integer, and that makes it < \delta
so it will satisfy the transfer of the statement, making |cos(x)-1|< 1/n fr all n in *N.
is that valid?
I'm not 100% sure what you're arguing. One possibility is, in fact, a valid argument -- but one that only works for standard real infinitessimals: i.e. zero.

What you want to do, I think, is to apply transfer only to
[tex]\forall x \in R : (|x| < \delta) \implies (|cos(x)-1|< 1/n)[/tex]​
Why just this part? Because you want to prove something for standard n and standard delta, but for nonstandard x.

Actually, it would be a lot easier to transfer the statement
[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow 0} \cos x = 1[/tex]​
and invoke the nonstandard definition of limits in terms of the standard part function.
 
Last edited:
hello,
for the *N countable part, i agree, but how does that prove to me that *N is not countable itself?

for the cos(x) - 1 part, i wasn't 100% sure if what i did was correct because on what you said, wanting the epsilon delta part stay standard,
what's confusing me is when do i have the right to just get them out of my sentence and transfer the rest.
thanks a lot again, that was very helpful.
 
For *N, I was just stating the fact, I didn't know you were looking for a proof. A short proof sketch is that every standard real number is infintiessimally close to a hyperrational number.



There are a couple of ways to deal with transferring a predicate with free variables.

One way is to realize that, for each particular choice of value for the free variable, you get a sentence. i.e. if P(x) is a predicate in the real variable x, and *P(x) is its transfer, a predicate in the hyperreal variable x, then P(a) iff *P(a) for any real number. In other words, *P is an extension of P to the hyperreals that has the same truth value on all standard numbers.

Another way is to model predicates is to write truth values as 0 and 1, and view the predicate as a function:
[tex]f(n, \delta) = \begin{cases}<br /> 1 & \forall x \in R : (|x| < \delta) \implies (|cos(x)-1|< 1/n) \\<br /> 0 & \neg \forall x \in R : (|x| < \delta) \implies (|cos(x)-1|< 1/n)<br /> \end{cases}[/tex]​
which can be transferred in the normal way.
 
thank you so much, this was a great help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K