'random' maps between infinite sets

In summary, the conversation discusses the mapping of elements from one infinite set to another and the challenges that arise when there is no function or formula that can be used. Instead, the elements have to be listed individually, but this process will never finish due to the infinite nature of the sets. The conversation also touches on the concept of functions and their definitions, and how they are not limited to being expressed by a formula.
  • #1
tgt
522
2
Say we want to map elements from one infinite set into another. But there is no function or formula to which all elements can be assigned hence we will need to specify or list the elements one by one. However this process of listing will never finish since we have infinite sets. Has anyone come across this problem before? How do people go about it?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This is the sort of question that tends to have a straightforward answer... but only if you are exceedingly clear and precise about what exactly you mean to ask.
 
  • #3
Hurkyl said:
This is the sort of question that tends to have a straightforward answer... but only if you are exceedingly clear and precise about what exactly you mean to ask.

Isn't it clear?

Some maps are functions where the input is clearly defined and the output can be calculated straight forwardly. But what happens if there is no function to assign the elements? Then defining the map would be on an element by element basis only. Since there is no rule and there are an infinite number of elements, listing it all is impossible so there will always be some elements that we don't know will get mapped to what.

i.e Say we map elements from the natural numbers into the Natural Numbers. But there is no rule or formula for assigning arbitrary elements. So one can only list 1->4, 2->45, 3->90, ... one is only mapping elements across individually. If you're wondering why 4, 45, 90, ... it's because that's what I felt like these numbers should be associated to at that time. Hence you can see the lack of order in assigning the numbers and no wonder why no function can be found.
 
  • #4
There is a famous (?) paradox here, in that there is (for example) no uniform real-valued measure over the real numbers such that the measure of the entire real line is finite. In particular there is no uniform probability measure, such that p((-inf, +inf)) = 1.
 
  • #5
Some maps are functions where the input is clearly defined and the output can be calculated straight forwardly.
Asking "is it straight forward to calculate the function at a point" is different from "is it defined at that point".
But what happens if there is no function to assign the elements?
There's always a "total" function mapping a set (whether infinite or not, except perhaps for the empty set, which is a partial function) to something. Take the identity function(for a one-to-one onto function), or a constant function for instance.
Of course when you take two different sets and start asking whether a one-to-one or an onto function can exist there might be some limitations, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here!

Then defining the map would be on an element by element basis only. Since there is no rule and there are an infinite number of elements, listing it all is impossible so there will always be some elements that we don't know will get mapped to what.
Defining a function is not limited to an equation or by an element by element basis, they can be defined set theoretically merely by satisfying certain properties.

So one can only list 1->4, 2->45, 3->90, ... one is only mapping elements across individually. If you're wondering why 4, 45, 90, ... it's because that's what I felt like these numbers should be associated to at that time.
The result of your feelings is a partial mapping, i.e a mapping which misses some elements from the domain. This is quite different from a (total) function, but nonetheless, you can turn this into a function! Let p: A ->B be a partial map from A to B, where it's defined for at least one element of A, denoted the set of such elements D. Then it's not hard to see that f:D->B is a function, where f is defined similar to p!
 
Last edited:
  • #6
The idea of a mapping between infinite sets is an abstract idea and is manipulated without concern for the things you're worried about. The way you use "function, formula" indicates that to deal with a function we need to know an association rule which defines it. This is not the case, at least not in contemporary mathematics.
 
  • #7
tgt said:
Isn't it clear?
No. "Function" and "map" are synonymous, along with rule (I think). If you have a function, then you have a map as well as a rule. Functions need not be (uniquely) expressed by a formula. If you have a function expressed by a formula, there is no guarantee that you can do "computation", even in principle.

For example, consider the annoying function from the set {0} to the set {1, 2}, defined by the following formula:

[tex]
f(0) = \begin{cases}
1 & |\mathbb{R}| = |\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})| \\
2 & |\mathbb{R}| \neq |\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})|
\end{cases}
[/tex]

The proposition [itex]f(0) = 1[/itex] is undecidable in ZFC -- it is strictly impossible* to determine whether this statement is true or false.


Furthermore, there is no problem dealing with indeterminate functions; using the indeterminate variable f to denote a real-valued function of the reals operates on exactly the same principle as letting the indeterminate variable x denote a real number.


Any of these answers can change dramatically, just by making a small change in the particulars of the question you're asking.

*: Assuming ZFC is consistent
 
  • #8
I thought [itex]|\mathbb{R}| = |\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})|[/itex] was an easily proved theorem of ZFC. Are you sure you don't mean [itex]|\mathbb{R}| = \aleph_1[/itex]?
 
  • #9
Citan Uzuki said:
I thought [itex]|\mathbb{R}| = |\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})|[/itex] was an easily proved theorem of ZFC. Are you sure you don't mean [itex]|\mathbb{R}| = \aleph_1[/itex]?
Yes, that's what I meant. :redface:
 
  • #10
r these things related to the random operators in analysis if yes then i have some thing to include in.
 

Related to 'random' maps between infinite sets

1. What is a 'random' map between infinite sets?

A 'random' map between infinite sets is a function that assigns elements from one infinite set to elements in another infinite set in a seemingly random manner. This function can be used to generate a random arrangement or ordering of elements in a set.

2. How is a 'random' map between infinite sets different from a normal function?

A 'random' map between infinite sets differs from a normal function in that it does not follow any specific rule or pattern in assigning elements between sets. This means that the mapping is not predictable and can vary each time it is applied.

3. Can a 'random' map between infinite sets produce the same output more than once?

Yes, it is possible for a 'random' map between infinite sets to produce the same output more than once. Since the mapping is not based on any specific rule or pattern, it is possible for the same element to be assigned to different elements in the other set.

4. How is a 'random' map between infinite sets useful in mathematical research?

A 'random' map between infinite sets can be useful in exploring and studying the properties of infinite sets. It can also be used in generating examples for mathematical theorems and counterexamples to disproving conjectures.

5. Are there any limitations to using 'random' maps between infinite sets?

One limitation of using 'random' maps between infinite sets is that it cannot be used to prove or disprove statements about all elements in the sets, as it only provides a random sample of the elements. Additionally, the results of a 'random' mapping may not always be applicable in real-world scenarios.

Similar threads

  • General Math
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
586
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top