Countability of Finite Product Sets: Foundational Issues?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter WWGD
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Issues
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the countability of finite product sets, specifically the set of pairs represented as ##\mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N} \times \ldots \times \mathbb{N}##. The proof provided involves an injection defined by the mapping ##(a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_n) \rightarrow p_1^{a_1} p_2^{a_2} \ldots p_n^{a_n}##, where ##p_i## are distinct primes. The conclusion asserts that this injection demonstrates that the finite product set is countable, as it maps to an infinite subset of the naturals, thereby confirming its countability. The discussion also clarifies misconceptions regarding the relationship between subsets and cardinality.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of countability and cardinality in set theory
  • Familiarity with injections and bijections
  • Knowledge of prime factorization and distinct primes
  • Basic concepts of natural numbers and their properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of injections and bijections in more detail
  • Explore the implications of Cantor's theorem on countability
  • Learn about the properties of prime numbers and their applications in set theory
  • Investigate the differences between finite and infinite sets in terms of cardinality
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of set theory, and anyone interested in the foundational aspects of countability and cardinality in mathematics.

WWGD
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
13,105
TL;DR
It seems obvious that ##A \subset B## implies ##|A|<|B|##. Does it need proof?
Hi,
I gave my friend a proof that the set of pairs ##\ mathbb N \times \mathbb N \times...\mathbb N ## (Finite product) is countable. I gave an injection :

##(a_1, a_2,...,a_n) \right arrow p_1_^{a_1} p_2^{a_2}...p_n^{a_n}##

Where the ##p_i## are distinct primes. My friend is telling me this is not enough and I can't see why,but I may be missing some foundational issues. I should each such product injects into the Naturals and any subset of the Naturals is countable. Am I missing anything here? Seems he's missing something or blowing it out of proportion.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, it's not true. ##\mathbb{N}\subset\mathbb{Z},## but ##|\mathbb{N}|=|\mathbb{Z}|.##

It is true that ##A\subset B## implies ##|A|\leq |B|##, but this is just a matter of definition: ##|A|\leq |B|## means that there is an injection ##A\hookrightarrow B##, and if ##A## is a subset of ##B##, then just use inclusion.

Anyway, since your map, let's call it ##f##, is an injection, ##\mathbb{N}\times\ldots\times\mathbb{N}## is in bijection with ##f(\mathbb{N}\times\ldots\times\mathbb{N})##, which is an infinite subset of ##\mathbb{N}##, and hence countable.
 
Infrared said:
Well, it's not true. ##\mathbb{N}\subset\mathbb{Z},## but ##|\mathbb{N}|=|\mathbb{Z}|.##

It is true that ##A\subset B## implies ##|A|\leq |B|##, but this is just a matter of definition: ##|A|\leq |B|## means that there is an injection ##A\hookrightarrow B##, and if ##A## is a subset of ##B##, then just use inclusion.

Anyway, since your map, let's call it ##f##, is an injection, ##\mathbb{N}\times\ldots\times\mathbb{N}## is in bijection with ##f(\mathbb{N}\times\ldots\times\mathbb{N})##, which is an infinite subset of ##\mathbb{N}##, and hence countable.
Thanks. My bad, I was assuming finite subsets, so strict inclusion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K