Intuition for countable vs. uncountable

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter redrzewski
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Intuition
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of countable and uncountable sets, particularly focusing on the nature of real numbers and their density compared to rational numbers. Participants explore intuitive understandings and visualizations of these mathematical ideas, addressing both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express a desire for intuitive explanations regarding the uncountability of real numbers and the density of rationals and irrationals.
  • One participant emphasizes that there is no "adjacent" real number to any other real number, suggesting that this misconception leads to confusion about cardinality.
  • Another participant points out that between any two distinct real numbers, there are more irrationals than rationals, which aligns with intuitive expectations about density.
  • A participant illustrates the concept of finding a rational number between any two real numbers using decimal representations, arguing that this demonstrates the density of rationals.
  • Some participants discuss the relationship between continuity and the nature of uncountable sets, noting that continuous intervals are uncountable while rationals do not fill these intervals completely.
  • One participant introduces surreal and hyperreal numbers, suggesting they are denser than real numbers and challenging the conventional understanding of points in these systems.
  • Another participant presents a thought experiment involving a one-to-one correspondence between the real number line and the unit circle, prompting further exploration of cardinality.
  • Several participants caution against thinking in terms of adjacency, reiterating that between any two distinct rationals, there exists another rational.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on intuitive understandings of countability and uncountability. Multiple competing views and interpretations are presented, indicating an unresolved discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations in the discussion include the reliance on definitions and the challenge of visualizing abstract concepts like cardinality and density. The conversation also reflects varying degrees of familiarity with advanced mathematical concepts.

redrzewski
Messages
115
Reaction score
0
Is there any way to visualize what is happening here, or do we just have to rely on the definitions/theorems?

1. Every open segment of reals (a,b) is uncountable
2. Every open segment of reals contains a rational
3. cardinality(R) = cardinality(PowerSet(N)). So an uncountable set is "much" bigger.
4. The function f(x): = 1 for x rational, 0 for x irrational is discontinous everywhere.

I follow the proofs/definitions justifying all the above. But intuitively, it doesn't make sense.

There are so many more uncountable numbers, it seems like there must be a bunch of them adjacent without a rational in between. But there can't be that many adjacent, because then we could actually create an open segment without a rational. But as soon as you have more than 1 point in a connected metric space, then we're back to an uncountable set, and rationals creep back in.

Does anyone have an intuitive explanation for this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You must remember that there is no "adjacent" real number to any other real number, so don't try to visualize it that way, or at all. Instead just remember that:

1. the rationals are countable and dense in the reals;
2. the irrationals are also uncountable and dense in the reals;

and know that these two facts do not contradict each other.
 
As Dragonfall said, you went wrong as soon as you thought about "adjacent"; you aren't looking at anything resembling a sequence or a graph. Your error of intuition has nothing to do with cardinality! :smile:

You'll notice, of course, that between any two distinct real numbers, there are more irrationals than there are rationals, just as our intuition demands. (both in the sense of cardinality and in the sense of measure)
 
Last edited:
redrzewski said:
There are so many more uncountable numbers, it seems like there must be a bunch of them adjacent without a rational in between. But there can't be that many adjacent, because then we could actually create an open segment without a rational. But as soon as you have more than 1 point in a connected metric space, then we're back to an uncountable set, and rationals creep back in.

Does anyone have an intuitive explanation for this?

Imagine you have a segment (a,b) whose endpoints are real (not rational). Both a and b admit a decimal representation, for example:

a = 0.123487498436621123...

b = 0.123487498436621987...

Then a position i exists in their decimal representations where they must differ (if it does not exist, a=b counter our hypothesis). In our example, i=16 and the last three positions are different. You can easily build the decimal representation of a number x such that a<b<x by picking some arbitrary sequence of numbers whose value is intermediate between a and b, e.g:

a = 0.123487498436621123...

x = 0.123487498436621500

b = 0.123487498436621987...

If you truncate the sequence representing x at any term in a position j>i, then x is a rational number. In other words, whatever two real numbers you pick, there is always a rational number in between.

Hope it helps,

Francesco
 
my intuition is on continuity versus non continuity. i.e. continuous intervals are uncountable. but rationals merely appear repeatedly, and never fill up continuous intervals.
 
I'm not sure if it makes things more or less clear, but the surreal numbers and the hyperreals are infinitely more dense than the real numbers. Conceptually, what seems like a point in these number systems is actually a monad (a small interval full of points) when viewed at a finer scale.
 
think pointilism versus smooth brush strokes.
 
I'm going to give some food for thought: Recall that two sets have the same cardinality iff their elements can be put into a one-to-one correspondence.

Consider these sets: R=the real number line, C:=the unit circle. Now superimpose the C on top of R with the zero of R at the center of C. Establish a one-to-one correspondence thus: from the point at the "top" of C, call it N, (N is the point (0,1) in Cartesian coordinates) construct a ray from N through any point P on the line R and map it to the point Q were the ray intersects C. For example: if P is zero, then Q is at (0,-1). Draw it. What does Q approach as P goes to infinity?

Notice that C may as well be a line segment of length 2\pi (or any length by adjusting the radius of C,) hence the set of real numbers and the set of points in a line segment have the same cardinality.

Try the same thing with a plane and a sphere.
 
redrzewski said:
There are so many more uncountable numbers, it seems like there must be a bunch of them adjacent without a rational in between. But there can't be that many adjacent, because then we could actually create an open segment without a rational.

As the others have pointed out, don't think adjacent. You can't even have two adjacent rationals -- between any two distinct rationals there is a third, distinct from the other two.
 
  • #10
It's quite obvious from your example that P cannot go to infinity because (1,0) will be the limit where P can goes and still connected with Q. So, what are you trying to tell us from the question "What does Q approach as P goes to infinity?"

Sorry, couldn't catch it.



benorin said:
I'm going to give some food for thought: Recall that two sets have the same cardinality iff their elements can be put into a one-to-one correspondence.

Consider these sets: R=the real number line, C:=the unit circle. Now superimpose the C on top of R with the zero of R at the center of C. Establish a one-to-one correspondence thus: from the point at the "top" of C, call it N, (N is the point (0,1) in Cartesian coordinates) construct a ray from N through any point P on the line R and map it to the point Q were the ray intersects C. For example: if P is zero, then Q is at (0,-1). Draw it. What does Q approach as P goes to infinity?

Notice that C may as well be a line segment of length 2\pi (or any length by adjusting the radius of C,) hence the set of real numbers and the set of points in a line segment have the same cardinality.

Try the same thing with a plane and a sphere.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
923
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K