Constructing proofs of denumerable sets

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffordboy23
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proofs Sets
AI Thread Summary
To prove that a set is denumerable, establishing a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers is essential, as demonstrated in functional analysis texts. While theorems may seem to provide intuitive results, rigorous proof often requires careful construction. When dealing with infinite elements represented in a table format, the diagonal method is necessary for proper enumeration. Row-by-row enumeration is insufficient since it cannot guarantee coverage of all elements due to the infinite nature of each row. Thus, diagonal counting is the recommended approach for constructing proofs of denumerable sets.
buffordboy23
Messages
545
Reaction score
2
Hi, I am doing some self-studying on the topic of functional analysis, specifically set theory at the moment.

Suppose that we want to show that some set is denumerable. Is it required that we directly show the one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the set and the set of natural numbers? This seems to be the method of proof employed in the text for the given theorems, but the results of the theorems themselves seem to offer hand-waving. For example, the set that consists of the sum of a denumerable number of denumerable sets is itself denumerable.

Now suppose that the elements of some set that we are trying to prove is denumerable can be represented by a table of infinite elements. Must we use the "diagonal method" to prove that we can enumerate the elements of this set? Or is it sufficient to enumerate row by row, although the number of elements in each row of the table is infinite (we would never make it to the next row)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
HI

when constructing proofs for a denumerable number of denumerable sets you will need to use diagonal counting.
 
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