Is there an injection from \mathbb{N}^{\mathbb{N}} to 2^{\mathbb{N}}?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jostpuur
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion establishes that the cardinality of \mathbb{N}^{\mathbb{N}} is equal to that of 2^{\mathbb{N}}. It is proven that |\mathbb{N}^\mathbb{N}| \leq |2^{\mathbb{N}}| through the relationship between \mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N} and \mathbb{N}. An explicit injection \phi from \mathbb{N}^{\mathbb{N}} to 2^{\mathbb{N}} is constructed, demonstrating that it is indeed possible to map elements from \mathbb{N}^{\mathbb{N}} to 2^{\mathbb{N}} effectively.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of cardinality in set theory
  • Familiarity with functions and injections
  • Knowledge of \mathbb{N} (natural numbers) and \mathbb{N}^{\mathbb{N}} (functions from natural numbers to natural numbers)
  • Basic concepts of sequences and series in mathematics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of cardinality and Cantor's theorem
  • Learn about injections and bijections in set theory
  • Explore the concept of countable vs uncountable sets
  • Investigate the implications of the continuum hypothesis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of set theory, and anyone interested in understanding the relationships between different infinities and cardinalities.

jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
How do you prove that [tex]\mathbb{N}^{\mathbb{N}}[/tex] does not have a cardinality greater than that of [tex]2^{\mathbb{N}}[/tex]? Is it possible to construct an injection

[tex] \phi:\mathbb{N}^{\mathbb{N}}\to 2^{\mathbb{N}}[/tex]
?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


You basically use that [tex]\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}[/tex] has the same cardinality than [tex]\mathbb{N}[/tex]:

[tex]|\mathbb{N}^\mathbb{N}|\leq |(2^{\mathbb{N})^\mathbb{N}}|=|2^{\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}}|=|2^\mathbb{N}|[/tex].

The other inequality is trivial to prove, so we have [tex]|\mathbb{N}^\mathbb{N}|=|2^\mathbb{N}|[/tex].
 


I see.

Actually I also figured out a way to write down an injection explicitly. It's not impossible. Like this:

[tex] \phi(0,0,0,\ldots)=(0,0,0,\ldots)[/tex]

[tex] \phi(1,0,0,\ldots) = (1,0,0,0,0,\ldots)[/tex]
[tex] \phi(2,0,0,\ldots) = (0,0,1,0,0,\ldots)[/tex]
[tex] \phi(3,0,0,\ldots) = (0,0,0,0,1,\ldots)[/tex]

[tex] \phi(0,1,0,\ldots) = (0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,\ldots)[/tex]
[tex] \phi(0,2,0,\ldots) = (0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,\ldots)[/tex]
[tex] \phi(0,3,0,\ldots) = (0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,\ldots)[/tex]

and so on. Then

[tex] \phi\Big(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} f(n) e_n\Big)<br /> = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \phi\big(f(n) e_n\big)[/tex]

Here [tex]e_n\in\mathbb{N}^{\mathbb{N}}[/tex] means the member that maps index [itex]i[/itex] to zero if [itex]i\neq n[/itex], and to one if [itex]i = n[/itex]. Any function [tex]f\in\mathbb{N}^{\mathbb{N}}[/tex] can be written as above.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K