The cardinality of the set of all finite subsets of an infinite set

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the cardinality of the set of all finite subsets of an infinite set, exploring whether this set has the same cardinality as the infinite set itself. Participants engage in various approaches to prove or disprove this claim, touching on concepts from set theory and cardinality.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the claim cannot be proven true, citing examples like the reals and their subsets, which have different cardinalities.
  • Others argue that the cardinality of the set of all finite subsets of an infinite set is indeed equal to that infinite set, particularly when the set is infinite.
  • One participant suggests a method involving the union of sets K^n for natural numbers n, proposing that the cardinality of the union is equivalent to that of K.
  • Another participant discusses the relationship between the set of finite subsets and the power set, noting that the cardinality of the set of finite subsets is less than or equal to 2^|X|.
  • There are mentions of Cantor's diagonal argument as a potential tool for proving strict inequalities in cardinality.
  • Some participants express a desire to explore the problem without relying on the continuum hypothesis (CH), emphasizing the use of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (ZFC).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; there are competing views on whether the set of all finite subsets of an infinite set has the same cardinality as the infinite set itself. Some participants believe it is true, while others provide counterexamples and argue against it.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the justification of certain assertions, and there are discussions about the implications of the continuum hypothesis on the problem. The conversation reflects a range of mathematical reasoning and assumptions that are not universally accepted.

Edward357
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
How do I prove that the set of all finite subsets of an infinite set has the same cardinality as that infinite set?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What have you tried?
 
Edward357 said:
How do I prove that the set of all finite subsets of an infinite set has the same cardinality as that infinite set?

You can't because its not true. Take the reals which have aleph-one cardinality, the subset {1} has cardinality 1 which is not aleph-one. Same goes for infinite subsets, naturals are a subset of reals but naturals have cardinality aleph-null.
 
Focus said:
You can't because its not true. Take the reals which have aleph-one cardinality, the subset {1} has cardinality 1 which is not aleph-one. Same goes for infinite subsets, naturals are a subset of reals but naturals have cardinality aleph-null.
Careful. The OP wants to prove that the set of all finite subsets of X has the same cardinality as X. This is certainly true whenever X is infinite.

Also, the cardinality of the reals is 2^aleph-0, and if the continuum hypothesis isn't assumed, this is generally not aleph-1.
 
Focus said:
You can't because its not true. Take the reals which have aleph-one cardinality, the subset {1} has cardinality 1 which is not aleph-one. Same goes for infinite subsets, naturals are a subset of reals but naturals have cardinality aleph-null.

I know that it is not true that every finite subset of an infinite set has the same cardinality as the infinite set. No finite subset of an infinite set has the same cardinality as the infinite set. The question was about the set of ALL finite subsets of an infinite set.
 
morphism said:
What have you tried?

O.k.

If K is an infinite set, then form U K^n for natural numbers n. We know that if card K = lKl, then K^2 has card lKl. We know that for any finite natural number, K^n has cardinality lKl. The union of all K^n is equivalent to lKl + lKl with the operation repeated countably many times. The sum must have cardinality lKl. It is clear that for every subset of elements {b1,..., bm}, there is injection that maps that set to an ordered set <b1,...,bm>. There are "more" ordered sets actually. It has to be true that the set of finite subsets is < or = the set of ordered n-tuples, which has cardinality lKl.
 
Sorry I misread the post. You could try it this way (assuming CH): you know that if S is the set of all finite sets then [tex]a_i \in X \qquad \{\{a_1\},\{a_2\},...\} \subset S[/tex] thus the cardinality of S is greater of equal to the cardinality of X. Now S is a subset of P(X) thus the cardinality of S is less than or equal to [tex]2^{|X|}[/tex]. I think you may be able to construct a proof to make that last inequality strict (perhaps by Cantors diagonal argument), then you have that |S|=|X|.

Hope this is more helpful :blushing:
 
The union of all K^n is equivalent to lKl + lKl with the operation repeated countably many times. The sum must have cardinality lKl.
Your proof looks right, including this assertion here as well. But from the way you phrased it, I'm not entirely sure your justification for this assertion is correct. Would you elaborate?
 
For any infinite K, K^n has the same cardinality as K provided n is finite. Then U{K^n : n in N} has a card equal to lK^1 + K^2 + K^3 ... + K^n...l for all natural numbers n. Each K^n has card lKl so this calculation is equivalent to lKl . aleph_0 which equals lKl because lKl is infinite. I can conclude that card U{K^n : n in N} = lKl.

The cardinality of the set of all ordered finite n-tuples is lKl and there are at least as many finite n-tuples as there are finite subsets. There should be a way to injectively map a finite subset {b1,...,bn} to some finite ordering of the elements b1,...,bn using choice if there are many such ordered tuples. This would show that the set of finite subsets has a cardinality less than or equal to the set of finite tuples.

We know that it is easy to define an injective function from K to the set of all finite subsets of K. Simply map each element of K to its singleton. Call the set of all finite subsets S and the set of all finite n-tuples T. lSl ≤ lTl, lKl ≤ lSl, lTl = lKl, so lSl ≤ lKl. Because lKl ≤ lSl and lSl ≤ lKl, lKl = lSl.

Hopefully that makes sense.
 
  • #10
Focus said:
Sorry I misread the post. You could try it this way (assuming CH): you know that if S is the set of all finite sets then [tex]a_i \in X \qquad \{\{a_1\},\{a_2\},...\} \subset S[/tex] thus the cardinality of S is greater of equal to the cardinality of X. Now S is a subset of P(X) thus the cardinality of S is less than or equal to [tex]2^{|X|}[/tex]. I think you may be able to construct a proof to make that last inequality strict (perhaps by Cantors diagonal argument), then you have that |S|=|X|.

Hope this is more helpful :blushing:

Thanks, but I want to do this without CH. I should not need more than plain old ZFC.
 
  • #11
any comments?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
422
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K