Cardinality of Complex vs. Real

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the set of complex numbers has the same cardinality as the set of real numbers. A proposed bijection between complex numbers, represented as (a, b), and real numbers is examined, particularly through the interleaving of their decimal expansions. Concerns are raised about the ambiguity of decimal representations, such as 0.5 and 0.4999..., which are the same number but yield different results in the proposed mapping. It is clarified that an injection from complex numbers to reals can be established without ambiguity if the mapping avoids certain decimal representations. Ultimately, the conclusion is that the cardinality of complex numbers, reals, and the Cartesian plane is the same.
Parth Dave
Messages
298
Reaction score
0
Prove that the set of complex numbers has the same cardinality as the reals.

What I did was say that a + bi can be written as (a, b) where a, b belong to real. Which essentially means i have to create a bijection between (a, b) and z (where z belongs to real).

Suppose:
a = 0.a1a2a3a4a5...
b = 0.b1b2b3b4b5...

Then,

z = 0.a1b1a2b2a3b3...

Is there anything wrong with that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to do a little more work. First, does that constitute a one to one correspondence between the reals and the complex numbers? Also, you need to deal with ambiguous representations of certain numbers such as 0.5 and 0.4999...
 
Well essentially that shows that there is a one to one relationship between the reals and the cartesian plane (x, y). Also, there is a one to one relationship between complex and the cartesian plane. Thus, the cardinality for all 3 is the same.

Pertaining to the ambiguosity of certain number, I'm not sure if i see how they pose a problem because if x is 0.5 or 0.499999 you get a different result.

ps. pardon my ignorance. I just started set/number theory two days ago :-p .
 
Parth Dave said:
Well essentially that shows that there is a one to one relationship between the reals and the cartesian plane (x, y). Also, there is a one to one relationship between complex and the cartesian plane. Thus, the cardinality for all 3 is the same.

Pertaining to the ambiguosity of certain number, I'm not sure if i see how they pose a problem because if x is 0.5 or 0.499999 you get a different result.

The problem is that 0.5 and 0.4\bar 9 are the same number and lead to different results!
 
he only needs an injection from the complexes to the reals, since there is an inclusion the other way, and if he assumes his reals are finite or infinite decimals not ending in all 9's, then his map never sends any pair of reals to a decimal ending in all 9's. so he does get an injection.
 
Tide said:
The problem is that 0.5 and 0.4\bar 9 are the same number and lead to different results!

There is no real number 4.9999...
4.99... and 5 are just two metha-variables to denote the number 5 in R .Here denote means "interpretation." .
 
Last edited:
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top