Is the Equality of Aleph Null and Aleph One Proven Through Factorials?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doom of Doom
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the factorial of aleph null and aleph one, questioning whether (aleph null)! equals aleph one. It explores the factorial function for aleph null through the Cartesian product of sets, illustrating that (aleph null)! can be represented as the product of countably infinite sets. A proposed method involves establishing a bijection between this product and the power set of the naturals, leading to the conclusion that the cardinality is beth one unless the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) is assumed. The conversation highlights that without CH, the factorial is shown to equal beth one rather than aleph one. This analysis emphasizes the complexities of cardinality in set theory.
Doom of Doom
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
How might one show that (aleph_null)! = aleph_1?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One might start by defining the "factorial function" for aleph_null!
 
Ok, so the person who proposed this problem to me gave me a way to understand (aleph_null)!.

So, consider two sets, A and B. Then |A|*|B|=|A x B|, where AxB is the cartesian product of A and B.

Thus, consider N_m={1,2,3,...m}, and |N_m|=m.

Then (aleph_null)! = |N_1 x N_2 x N_3 x ... |.

So how can I find a bijection from N_1 x N_2 x N_3 x ... to, say, P(N), the power set of the naturals?
 
Consider {1} x {1, 2} x {1, 2, 3} x ... as the base 1-2-3-... expansion of a number in [0, 1), then biject [0, 1) with the reals by your favorite method. You have at most a countable number of issues with rational numbers. which you can likewise deal with in your preferred method.

This shows that the set has cardinality \beth_1, not \aleph_1 unless you have the CH.
 
Or show that 1x2x3x4...is greater than or equal to 2x2x2x2x2... and less than or equal to aleph null^aleph null. Still, this only indicates the factorial is equal to beth_1 without CH, like CRGreathouse said.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K