Question about the size of a set.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cragar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the cardinality of the union of uncountable sets, specifically addressing the scenario where there is an uncountable number of sets, each containing an uncountable number of elements. The scope includes theoretical aspects of set theory and cardinality.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant posits that taking the union of an uncountable number of uncountable sets may yield a cardinality of either uncountable or specifically 2^{\aleph_1}.
  • Another participant clarifies that 2^{\aleph_1} is indeed uncountable and emphasizes that the cardinality of the sets and the number of sets must be specified, as the answer is contingent on these factors and whether the sets are disjoint.
  • A participant specifies having 2^{\aleph_0} disjoint sets, each containing 2^{\aleph_0} elements.
  • In response, another participant asserts that the union in this case would result in 2^{\aleph_0} elements.
  • One participant expresses a desire for guidance on how to prove the result for uncountable sets, referencing a method applicable to countable sets.
  • A later reply suggests that any good set theory book would provide a proof for this scenario.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the cardinality of the union of uncountable sets, with multiple competing views and conditions presented throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the importance of specifying the cardinalities involved and the nature of the sets (disjoint or not) when determining the outcome of the union. There are unresolved assumptions regarding the implications of these factors on the cardinality of the union.

cragar
Messages
2,546
Reaction score
3
If I had an uncountable number of sets, and each of these sets had an uncountable number of elements. Then I took the union of all of these sets would the number of elements be uncountable or would it be 2^{\aleph_1}
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, 2^{\aleph_1} IS uncountable.

Second, you failed to mention the cardinality of your number of sets and the cardinality of the sets in question. The answer depends crucially on that.
Also, the answer depends on whether the sets are disjoint or not.

Right now, the only thing we can say is: if you have an uncountable union of uncountable sets, then this union will be an uncountable set. It might or might not be 2^{\aleph_1}.
 
I have 2^{\aleph_0} sets. And they each have 2^{\aleph_0} elements. And all the sets are disjoint. The sets share no common elements.
 
Then you'll end up with 2^{\aleph_0} elements.
 
ok thanks for your answer. I am trying to think how you would prove that. Could you give me a hint on how to prove that. I mean if I had a countable number of sets I could just map all the elements in the first set to all the numbers between 0 and 1 and then for the next set map them to 1 to 2. I am not sure how you would do it with an uncountable number of sets.
 
Last edited:
Any good set theory book will prove this.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
960
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K