Exploring the Countable Infinity of Disjoint Sets and their Cartesian Product

  • Thread starter Thread starter zeebo17
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinite Sets
zeebo17
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I was wondering if two sets are disjoint countably infinite sets why is their Cartesian product also countably infinite?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can order your two sets a_1,a_2,a_3,... and b_1,b_2,b_3 mapping them onto the set of natural numbers.

Then, you can form a triangular mapping recursively (like you do to prove that the set of rational numbers is countably infinite)... so:
(a_1,b_1) maps to 1,
(a_1,b_2) maps to 2,
(a_2,b_1) maps to 3,
(a_1,b_3) maps to 4,
(a_2,b_2) maps to 5, etc. etc.
 
Another way to think about the problem...

Since we have two countably infinite sets call them A , B we can define two bijections:

\alpha: N \rightarrow A and \varphi: N \rightarrow B.

We can then define another function \zeta: N \rightarrow A X B as \zeta(n) = ( \alpha(n) , \varphi(n) ).

\zeta is a bijection since \alpha and \varphi are bijections and therefore A X B is countable.
 
CharmedQuark, what you said isn't exactly correct, since your constructed function from N to AxB won't be surjective.
 
Good point, in fact, it is very badly non surjective!

For example, if \alpha(2)= p and \beta(2)= q, then \zeta(2)= (p, q) but there is NO other \zeta(n) giving a pair having p as its first member nor is there any other n so that \zeta(n) is pair having q as its second member.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Good point, in fact, it is very badly non surjective!

For example, if \alpha(2)= p and \beta(2)= q, then \zeta(2)= (p, q) but there is NO other \zeta(n) giving a pair having p as its first member nor is there any other n so that \zeta(n) is pair having q as its second member.

Yeah I wrote it last night and wasn't paying attention to what I was writing. The function should instead be a function from N X N \rightarrow A X B. Other than that little error the principle is the same. \zeta( n_{1} , n_{2} ) = ( \alpha( n_{1} ) , \varphi( n_{2} ) ). This function is a bijection and N X N is countable so any cartesian product of two countably infinite sets is countable.
 
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