Basic Transfinite Arithmetic Explained

Submitted by strangequark on Mon, 11/02/2009 at 5:01pm.

Well to say basic isn't exactly fair. But this is cool and important and not too hard! So George Cantor, the Father of Set Theory (an informal title) was the first to show that there are different "levels" of actual infinities. What he did was prove this by the all-powerful diagonalization reductio proof. The actual infinities that result are named Alephs, which are Hebrew letters, and they have different subscripts starting with 0 that show their ordinality.

1.What G.F.L.P Cantor did first was to assume that there was an actual 1-1 correspondence. This means that every member of one infinite set should be able to correspond to another member of another infinite set.

2.Then he began constructing numbers that differed according to each successive decimal place in an ordinary fashion. These were paired to a corresponding number in a different set (obviously).

3.But by doing this, he was able to construct a number that different from all other numbers in the set in every decimal place by the above. This is diagonalization!

4.Therefore, 1-1 correspondence failed between sets. Which in turn means that our starting assumption must be false. Which means there are different levels of infinity.

Not too hard, right? So the infinity of natural and rational numbers is aleph-null (an aleph with a subscript of 0). The next level is aleph-1, and so on. We can actually manipulate these actual infinities ;).

The big problem became: does aleph-1=C? That is to say, C is the cardinality of all the real numbers. This is the CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS: is there no set of cardinality larger than aleph-0 and smaller than that of the reals?

Well, the answer is not so simple. It could be true, it could be false, it could be neither. Paul Cohen and Kurt Godel proved that it was either true or false depending on a certain starting scheme that we use. Famous mathematicians were of divided opinion.

Thanks for viewing and good synapses,

strangequark

If you found this article interesting, please join The Emperor's Newest Minds:

» posted in strangequark's Blog
 

Comments:

by strangequark - 21 days ago
Quantum Superposition of States United States
Member Since: Oct 2008
Member Points: 2435

The mapping that you mention is the 1-1 correspondence. The second set that you mentioned are a set of rationals. However, so far as I know the two sets you mentioned are exhaustive of each-other. What was proven is that there are "more" reals than natural and rational numbers, and that there are always more members in a power set compared to its base set, even if these sets are infinite.

by val08 - 21 days ago
United States
Member Since: Mar 2009
Member Points: 2628

Lol, I heard about this last week from a man named Mordecai-Mark Mac Low, who is an Astrophysicist.  It was hard to follow what you said but I think he mentioned some thing like

If you list out the infinite natural number set,  1, 2, 3, 4....

and map them to the infinite real number set, .1, .2, .3, .4....

you'll realize that there are numbers that have no mapping in the second set so the second set must be larger than the first set even though both sets are infinite.

 

Add your comment:

Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.