Is the Continuum of Decimals Larger than the Set of Natural Numbers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hippasos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinity
Hippasos
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
Cantor's s(w)et :)

Hi!

I don't know if this makes any sense, but after reading the book "Pi in the Sky"
this summer (It got really exceptionally hot here in high latitudes) I was let wondering the following:

Let C be the number of the continuum of numbers (with decimals).

Let N be the number of all natural numbers.

When counting decimals in the numbers which belongs to C,
is there numbers which have C-number decimals
more than numbers which have N-number decimals ?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


What do you mean by C-number decimals and N-number decimals?
 


I apologize for my mediocre English...
Thinking another way to rephrase this.
 


Hippasos said:
Hi!

I don't know if this makes any sense, but after reading the book "Pi in the Sky"
this summer (It got really exceptionally hot here in high latitudes) I was let wondering the following:

Let C be the number of the continuum of numbers (with decimals).

Let N be the number of all natural numbers.

When counting decimals in the numbers which belongs to C,
is there numbers which have C-number decimals
more than numbers which have N-number decimals ?

Thanks!
Unfortunately, I can't quite make out what you are asking here. You say "Let C be the number of the continuum of numbers" but then you ask about "numbers which belong to C" so apparently what you really mean is "Let C be the continuum of numbers (the set of such numbers)" and "Let N be the set of all natural numbers". Now what do you mean by "counting decimals"? Are you asking "is the Cardinality of C greater than the Cardinality of N"? If so, the answer is definitely yes- that was shown by Cantor's "diagonal" method. We "count" cardinality by setting up a "one to one correspondence", that is an assignment to such that each object in one set is assigned to one and only one object in the other set. If such is possible, then the two sets have the same Cardinality. Cantor showed that, however you try to set up such an assignment, there are numbers in C that are "left over"- that is, in this sense, there are "more" numbers in C than there are in N and so C has greater cardinality than N.
 


Hi!

I think I got it right this time... :D

Let C be the number of the continuum of numbers (with decimals).

Let N be the number of all natural numbers.

When counting decimals in the numbers which belongs to the continuum,
is there numbers which have C decimals
more than numbers which have N decimals ?
 


Hippasos said:
Let C be the number of the continuum of numbers (with decimals).

Let N be the number of all natural numbers.

When counting decimals in the numbers which belongs to the continuum,
is there numbers which have C decimals
more than numbers which have N decimals ?

I think that C is \mathbb{R}, the set of real numbers. In that case I interpret the question as: Is |\mathbb{R}|>|\mathbb{N}|? The answer, of course, is yes: this is Cantor's theorem.
 
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...

Similar threads

2
Replies
95
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
21
Views
9K
Replies
33
Views
8K
2
Replies
80
Views
9K
Back
Top