Is C > R? Complex vs Real Set Size

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter samkolb
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the cardinality of the set of complex numbers compared to the set of real numbers. Participants explore whether the set of complex numbers is larger than the set of real numbers, examining various mappings and bijections between these sets.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the cardinality of the complex numbers (C) is greater than that of the real numbers (R), based on the idea that card(C) = card(R x R) and that card(R x R) > card(R).
  • Others argue that card(R x R) is actually equal to card(R), suggesting a one-to-one mapping between R x R and R, illustrated through a decimal merging technique.
  • A participant presents a bijection from C to R using the mapping z = x + iy to Im(z)/Re(z), claiming it demonstrates a different cardinality, but this claim is challenged by others who question its validity as an injection.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the well-defined nature of the proposed mappings, particularly in relation to decimal expansions and the handling of trailing nines.
  • Some participants acknowledge the classical example of decimal merging as a valid bijection, while others point out potential issues with the definitions used in these mappings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the cardinality of the complex numbers is greater than that of the real numbers. Multiple competing views remain regarding the validity of the proposed bijections and mappings.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved issues regarding the definitions of bijections, the treatment of decimal expansions, and the assumptions made about cardinality in the context of infinite sets.

samkolb
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Is it true that the set of complex number is bigger than the set of real numbers?

I know that card C = card (R x R) and I think that card (R x R) > card R. Is this true, and if so, why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
samkolb said:
Is it true that the set of complex number is bigger than the set of real numbers?

I know that card C = card (R x R) and I think that card (R x R) > card R. Is this true, and if so, why?

I think card (RxR) = card R

I would show this by setting up a one-to-one map between RxR and R

I will just show you a one-to-one between the unit square [0,1]x[0,1] and the unit interval [0,1]
You just look at the two decimal expansions and merge

(0.abcdefg..., 0.mnopqrs...) -> 0.ambncodpeq...
 
Last edited:
C is with cardinality c, or aleph if you want, the same as R.

The simple bijection is a+ib |-> (a,b) into RxR.

If you want a bijection from C to R, then z=x+iy|->Im(z)/Re(z) it's a bijection to [-infinity,infinity] which is RU{infininity,-infinity} this cardinality is aleph+2=aleph.

QED
 
Last edited:
loop quantum gravity said:
If you want a bijection from C to R, then z=x+iy|->Im(z)/Re(z) it's a bijection to [-infinity,infinity] which is RU{infininity,-infinity} this cardinality is aleph+2=aleph.
How could that possibly be a bijection? Obviously, z_1=a+ib is mapped to the same point as z_2=a z_1, so it is not an injection.

Marcus has already provided a valid bijection, his "decimal merging" is the classical example of this. Notice how it is also valid in \mathbb{R}^n.
 
Correct Big-T, but at least it's onto.
(-:
 
|C| = |R2| = |R|.

There's some discussion about that in this thread.

Minor point: marcus's function isn't even well-defined; consider decimal expansions with infinite trailing "9"s. (For example, 0.0999... = 0.1000..., but (0.0999..., 0.0000...) maps to 0.00909090..., and (0.1000..., 0.0000) maps to 0.10000000... .) However, the mapping from 0.abcdefgh... to (0.acef..., 0.bdfh...) is a well-defined surjection from [0, 1) to [0, 1)2, and that's all you need.
 
Marcus' function would be well defined if we agreed to use trailing nines wherever the decimal expansion is terminating, this should of course have been specified.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K