Cardinality of the set of all finite subsets of [0,1]

Damidami
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Hello, I was wondering this, what is the cardinality of the set of all finite subsets of the real interval [0,1]

It somehow confuses me because the interval is nonnumerable (cardinality of the continuos \mathfrak{c}), while the subsets are less than numerable (finite). It is clear that it has to be equal or greater than \mathfrak{c} because one can consider subsets of only one element and there you got one set for each real number in the interval. It is equal to it, isn't?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Damidami said:
Hello, I was wondering this, what is the cardinality of the set of all finite subsets of the real interval [0,1]

It somehow confuses me because the interval is nonnumerable (cardinality of the continuos \mathfrak{c}), while the subsets are less than numerable (finite). It is clear that it has to be equal or greater than \mathfrak{c} because one can consider subsets of only one element and there you got one set for each real number in the interval. It is equal to it, isn't?

Thanks.

You are correct that the cardinality is at least as much as the cardinality of [0.1]. The power set of an infinite set always of greater cardinality than the base set. I don't know about the finite subsets.
 
Damidami said:
Hello, I was wondering this, what is the cardinality of the set of all finite subsets of the real interval [0,1]

It somehow confuses me because the interval is nonnumerable (cardinality of the continuos \mathfrak{c}), while the subsets are less than numerable (finite). It is clear that it has to be equal or greater than \mathfrak{c} because one can consider subsets of only one element and there you got one set for each real number in the interval. It is equal to it, isn't?

Thanks.

Yes. Equality holds. To see this, try to figure out the cardinality of

\mathcal{A}_n=\{A\subseteq [0,1]~\vert~|A|=n\}

Then the set you are looking for is

\bigcup_n \mathcal{A}_n

a countable union.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top