Silly questions about sets and fields

  • Thread starter Thread starter jcsd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fields Sets
Click For Summary
The discussion addresses whether the empty set, {0}, and {0,1} qualify as fields, concluding that {0,1} is indeed the smallest field since it contains at least two elements. It highlights that a field must have binary operations that satisfy specific rules, differentiating it from a mere set. The cardinality of the hyperreals is explored, with references to aleph_1 and aleph_2, and the complexity of their construction using ultrafilters. The conversation also touches on the continuum hypothesis and its implications for the cardinality of the reals and their subsets. Overall, the thread emphasizes the foundational concepts of fields and cardinality in set theory.
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
13
Are the following sets fields: the empty set, {0} {0,1}? (it's that I've seen {0,1} as an example of a field yet I thought for any element of a field, there must be another element such as the sum of the two is equal to zero.

Also while I'm asking silly questions: what is the cardinality of the hyperreals?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
a field has to have at least two elements, so {0,1} is the smallest field. 1+1=0.

the hyperreals are carved out of sequences of real numbers in one approach. the number of sequences of real numbers is aleph_2, i think. but I'm not sure how much of aleph_2 is carved out. card(R*) is either aleph_2 or aleph_1=card(R).
 
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
a field has to have at least two elements, so {0,1} is the smallest field. 1+1=0.

the hyperreals are carved out of sequences of real numbers in one approach. the number of sequences of real numbers is aleph_2, i think. but I'm not sure how much of aleph_2 is carved out. card(R*) is either aleph_2 or aleph_1=card(R).

I'm unfamiliar with the hyperreals, but the set of all sequences of real numbers has cardinality C since a hilbert-hotel type apprach will create a bijection between sequences of real numbers, and individual real numbers.
 
Last edited:
The fundamental difference between a set and a field is that a set (by itself) has no binary operations. A field is a set with two operations (and inverses) satisfying a whole collection of rules. The operations are generalizations of addition and multiplication.

The cardinality of the reals is usually designated by C (continuum). The continuum hypothesis states that C=aleph1. Under the generalized continuum hypothesis, the set of all subsets of the reals has cardinality aleph2.
 
As a matter of taste, it's probably better to say

<br /> |{}^*\mathbb{R}| = 2^c<br />

So you don't have to talk about the continuum hypothesis.


The construction of the hyperreals goes as follows:

We have a magical thing, called an ultrafilter, which tells us whether a subset of N is "big" or "small". It has the properties that if A is a big set, then the complement of A is a small set. It also has the properties that all finite sets are small sets, and if A is big and B contains A, then B is big, and the union of two small sets is small.

(I think you need the axiom of choice to prove ultrafilters exist)


Using this ultrafilter, we can define an ordering relation on sequences of real numbers. If s and t are sequences of real numbers, then:

<br /> s &lt; t~\mathrm{if~and~only~if}~\{n \epsilon \mathbb{N} | s_n &lt; t_n\}~\mathrm{is~big}<br />

And similarly for any other ordering operation (including equality).
 
Last edited:
The point of the generalized continuum hypothesis (gch) is 2c=aleph2. Without gch, the equation is unprovable.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K