Exploring the Countable Infinity of Disjoint Sets and their Cartesian Product

  • Thread starter Thread starter zeebo17
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinite Sets
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on why the Cartesian product of two disjoint countably infinite sets is also countably infinite. It explains that by mapping each set to the natural numbers, one can create a triangular mapping to demonstrate countability. A bijection is established through functions that map natural numbers to each set, ensuring that the Cartesian product is countable. An error in the initial function's surjectivity is acknowledged, clarifying that the correct approach involves a function from the product of natural numbers to the Cartesian product of the sets. Ultimately, the conclusion is that the Cartesian product of two countably infinite sets is indeed countable.
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.
 
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