Proving Cardinality of $\mathbb{N}$ Subsets

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bomba923
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cardinality Subsets
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the cardinality of the set of finite subsets of the natural numbers, specifically addressing the question of whether the cardinality of the set of all finite subsets of \(\mathbb{N}\) is equal to \(\left| \mathbb{N} \right|\). The scope includes theoretical reasoning and mathematical arguments related to cardinality and set theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest counting the subsets of size \(n\) and unioning over all \(n\) to establish a bijection with \(\mathbb{N}\).
  • Others propose using indicator functions to represent finite subsets, noting that these can be mapped to sequences that correspond to elements in the set.
  • A participant mentions an injective mapping of finite subsets into the rationals, although later retracts this method as incorrect.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of proving that the countable union of countable sets is countable to support their argument.
  • Some participants discuss the uniqueness of prime factorization as a method to represent finite subsets, suggesting a mapping of subsets to products of primes.
  • There is a mention of the Axiom of Choice, indicating that under this assumption, the set of all finite subsets of an infinite set has the same cardinality as the set itself.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various methods and perspectives on proving the cardinality, with no consensus reached on a single approach. Some methods are challenged or retracted, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the distinction between finite subsets and the power set of \(\mathbb{N}\), highlighting that the latter is uncountable while the former is under consideration with a restriction on cardinality.

bomba923
Messages
759
Reaction score
0
How can I prove that
[tex]\left| {\left\{ {A \subset \mathbb{N}:\left| A \right| \in \mathbb{N}} \right\}} \right| = \left| \mathbb{N} \right|[/tex]
?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By counting them. How many subsets of size n are there in N? So how many subsets do you have unioning over all n?

Or just enumerate them directly - a subset is the same as an indicator function. A finite subset is just an indicator function that is 1 finitely many times, that is a sequence such as

{0,..,0,1,0,..,0,1,0...,0,1,0,...}

The place where you put the 1s corresponds to the elements in the set. eg the set {1,2,4} is the indicator/sequence

{1,1,0,1,0,0,0,...}

It is easy to put these in bijection with N. In fact these are usually put in bijection with N by crackpots in an attempt to disprove the uncountability of the reals since they mistakenly believe that N all subsets of N have finitely many elements.
 
matt grime said:
By counting them. How many subsets of size n are there in N? So how many subsets do you have unioning over all n?

Or just enumerate them directly - a subset is the same as an indicator function. A finite subset is just an indicator function that is 1 finitely many times, that is a sequence such as

{0,..,0,1,0,..,0,1,0...,0,1,0,...}

The place where you put the 1s corresponds to the elements in the set. eg the set {1,2,4} is the indicator/sequence

{1,1,0,1,0,0,0,...}

It is easy to put these in bijection with N. In fact these are usually put in bijection with N by crackpots in an attempt to disprove the uncountability of the reals since they mistakenly believe that N all subsets of N have finitely many elements.

I prefer to just create an injective map into the rationals.

Say for example A is the set {1,2,5,6}, then map it to 0.1256. And so on.

We can see it's one-to-one into the rationals. Since the rationals are countable, then is the collection of all the finite subsets of N.
 
JasonRox said:
I prefer to just create an injective map into the rationals.

Say for example A is the set {1,2,5,6}, then map it to 0.1256. And so on.

We can see it's one-to-one into the rationals. Since the rationals are countable, then is the collection of all the finite subsets of N.

Nevermind, this is wrong. I'll leave it here just so readers and understand why.

Anyways, if you can prove that the countable union of a collection of countable sets is countable then all you must do is show that...

All sets of cardinality n is countable.

So, that you have all finite sets of cardinality 1, 2, 3, ..., n,... and union them all to get the collection of all finite sets of N. Since it is a countable union of a collection of countable sets then the collection of all finite sets of N is countable.

Note: matt_grime's method is definitely solid. I just like thinking of different ways to go about it. There's no doubt a lot of ways to do this.
 
JasonRox said:
Anyways, if you can prove that the countable union of a collection of countable sets is countable then all you must do is show that...

All sets of cardinality n is countable.

So, that you have all finite sets of cardinality 1, 2, 3, ..., n,... and union them all to get the collection of all finite sets of N. Since it is a countable union of a collection of countable sets then the collection of all finite sets of N is countable.

Note: matt_grime's method is definitely solid. I just like thinking of different ways to go about it. There's no doubt a lot of ways to do this.

That was my method 1. I gave two methods.
 
JasonRox said:
Nevermind, this is wrong. I'll leave it here just so readers and understand why.

A method like that will almost always be wrong. There is a way to correct it, though, that is very useful. The problem is that in general the lack of uniqueness of decompositions (here 1256 decomposes as 1|2|5|6, and 12|56 amongst many other options). But we know something where we do have uniqueness - prime decomposition, and there are infinitely many primes. So send {1,2,5,6} to

p_1*p_2*p_5*p_6

for p_i the i'th prime (i.e. 2*3*11*13)
 
matt grime said:
A method like that will almost always be wrong. There is a way to correct it, though, that is very useful. The problem is that in general the lack of uniqueness of decompositions (here 1256 decomposes as 1|2|5|6, and 12|56 amongst many other options). But we know something where we do have uniqueness - prime decomposition, and there are infinitely many primes. So send {1,2,5,6} to

p_1*p_2*p_5*p_6

for p_i the i'th prime (i.e. 2*3*11*13)

Nice. I was thinking of a different approach to make it work, such as primes. You beat me to it. :smile:
 
What is confusing you? Is it that the power set of N is uncountable? Note how here we have a further restriction that all the sets we are considering have finite cardinality.
 
bomba923 said:
How can I prove that
[tex]\left| {\left\{ {A \subset \mathbb{N}:\left| A \right| \in \mathbb{N}} \right\}} \right| = \left| \mathbb{N} \right|[/tex]
?

Indeed, if Axiom of Choice is assumed, the set of all finite subsets of an infinite set [tex]\alpha[/tex] has the same cardinality as [tex]\alpha[/tex].
This is seen in this way: Call the set of all finite subsets [tex]F(\alpha)[/tex].
[tex]|F(\alpha)|=\displaystyle \sum_{n\in\mathbb N}|\alpha^n|\\<br /> = \displaystyle \sum_{n\in\mathbb N}|\alpha| = \aleph_0\cdot|\alpha|=|\alpha|[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K