Question about cardinality and CH

In summary, under the continuum hypothesis, we readily see that that |{a < \aleph_1 : \textrm{a is a cardinal}}| = \aleph_0. However, under the negation of CH, this set can have any cardinality.
  • #1
Werg22
1,431
1
Under the continuum hypothesis, we readily see that that [tex]|{a < \aleph_1 : \textrm{a is a cardinal}}| = \aleph_0 [/tex]. What happens under the negation of CH? Is this equality still true or not? If the latter, always under the negation of CH, are there any infinite cardinals lambda for which the inequality [tex]|{a < \lambda : \textrm{a is a cardinal}}| = \lambda [/tex] fails?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
First, what do you mean with [tex] |a<\aleph_1 : a \text{ is a cardinal}|[/tex]. Do you simply mean the cardinality of the set [tex] \{a<\aleph_1 : a \text{ is a cardinal}\}[/tex]??

In that case, it is always true that

[tex] \{a<\aleph_1 : a \text{ is a cardinal}\}=\mathbb{N}\cup \{\aleph_0\} [/tex]

So wheter CH holds or not, this set is always countable.
In general we have that (by definition almost)

[tex] \{a<\aleph_\alpha : a \text{ is a cardinal}\}=\mathbb{N}\cup \{\aleph_\beta~\vert~\beta<\alpha\}[/tex].

For your second question, this is not always true. For example:

[tex] \{a<\aleph_2 : a \text{ is a cardinal}\}=\mathbb{N}\cup \{\aleph_0,\aleph_1\}[/tex].

But this is also countable, so [tex] |a<\aleph_2 : a \text{ is a cardinal}|=\aleph_0[/tex]

Where CH does come into play, is with the set

[tex] |a<2^{\aleph_0} : a \text{ is a cardinal}|[/tex]

If CH is true, then this is [tex]\aleph_0[/tex]. But if CH is not true, then it can be any cardinal. E.g. it is consistent with ZFC that

[tex] |a<2^{\aleph_0} : a \text{ is a cardinal}|=\aleph_{666}[/tex]

and so on if you replace 666 with any ordinal.

I hope this answer was helpful...
 
  • #3
micromass said:
and so on if you replace 666 with any ordinal.

I don't think you can replace it with any ordinal. What about, e.g., [tex]\omega_1[/tex]? Could that really be consistent?
 
  • #4
But it is consistent with ZFC that [tex] 2^{\aleph_0}=\aleph_{\omega_1} [/tex]. See Easton's theorem...
 
  • #5
CRGreathouse said:
I don't think you can replace it with any ordinal. What about, e.g., [tex]\omega_1[/tex]? Could that really be consistent?

I believe there are some very weak limits on possible cardinalities of the continuum - I think the cofinality of the continuum is uncountable, and so, for instance, 2^aleph_0 can't be aleph_omega.
 
  • #6
Many thanks micromass, you're clarified a few things for me. :smile:
 

1. What is cardinality?

Cardinality refers to the number of elements in a set. In other words, it is the measure of the size or amount of items in a set. It is denoted by the symbol |A|, where A is the set.

2. What is the difference between finite and infinite cardinality?

Finite cardinality refers to sets that have a specific and countable number of elements, while infinite cardinality refers to sets that have an uncountable number of elements. For example, the set of natural numbers has an infinite cardinality because it is impossible to count all the elements in the set.

3. What is the continuum hypothesis?

The continuum hypothesis (CH) is a conjecture proposed by mathematician Georg Cantor, which states that there is no set whose cardinality is strictly between that of the integers and the real numbers. In other words, there is no infinite set with a cardinality that lies between countable and uncountable.

4. What is the importance of the continuum hypothesis?

The continuum hypothesis has significant implications in the field of mathematics, particularly in set theory and mathematical logic. It has also sparked debates and discussions about the nature of infinity and the concept of completeness in mathematics.

5. Has the continuum hypothesis been proven to be true or false?

No, the continuum hypothesis has not been proven to be true or false. It is actually one of the most famous unsolved problems in mathematics. In 1963, mathematician Paul Cohen proved that CH is independent of the standard axioms of set theory, meaning that it cannot be proven or disproven using these axioms. This means that both the hypothesis and its negation can be assumed to be consistent with the axioms of set theory.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
928
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
3K
Back
Top