play and relax: games for kids games
  Cut the knot: learn to enjoy mathematics
A math books store at a unique math study site. Learn to enjoy mathematics.
Google
Web CTK
Try our no ads browsing

Sites for teachers
Sites for parents
Terms of use
Awards

Interactive Activities
CTK Exchange
CTK Insights - a blog

Games & Puzzles
What Is What
Arithmetic/Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Outline Mathematics
Make an Identity
Book Reviews
Stories for Young
Eye Opener
Analog Gadgets
Inventor's Paradox
Did you know?...
Proofs
Math as Language
Things Impossible
Visual Illusions
My Logo
Math Poll
Cut The Knot!
MSET99 Talk
Other Math sites
Front Page
Movie shortcuts
Personal info
Privacy Policy

Guest book
News sites

Recommend this site

Games to relax

Tutor Match Tutoring and Homework Help

Sites for teachers
Sites for parents

Education & Parenting

Manifesto: what CTK is about Buying a book is a commitment to learning Table of content Try our no ads browsing Things you can find on CTK Chronology of updates Email to Cut The Knot Recommend this page

Cardinal Numbers

The key to a definition of cardinal numbers is the notion of a 1-1 correspondence. Two sets are said to be of the same cardinality if there exists a 1-1 correspondence between the two. Two finite sets have the same cardinality only if they have the same number of elements. Their common number of elements serves to denote their cardinality. So the term finite cardinal number is a synonym for natural number. The cardinality of the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} is 5. Cardinality of the empty set Ø is 0. A frequent notation for the cardinality of set A is |A|, so that

 |{1, 2, 3, 4, 5}| = 5

and

 |Ø| = 0.

(No less frequent is another one A. I'll be using the vertical bars as more manageable in the HTML environment.)

For finite sets, the cardinality of a proper subset is strictly less than the cardinality of the set itself:

(1) A ⊂ B and A ≠ B implies |A| < |B|.

As we know, this is not true for infinite sets. If E is the set of even natural numbers and N the set of all natural numbers then |E| = |N|. The cardinality of both is denoted (pronounced aleph-null or aleph-zero), where is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

The fact that a proper subset of a set may have a cardinality equal to that of the set itself is often taken as the definition of infinite sets: a set is infinite if is contains a proper subset with the same cardinality.

For disjoint finite sets,

(2)|A∪B| = |A| + |B|.

For disjoint sets of which at least one is infinite,

(3)|A∪B| = max{|A|, |B|}.

The two cases can be combined if we define the addition of two cardinal numbers as the cardinality of the union of two disjoint sets with the given cardinalities. I.e., if we use (2) for any two sets A and B (whether finite or infinite), to define |A| + |B|. In this case, (3) converts to

(4)|A| + |B| = max{|A|, |B|},

provided at least one of the sets A, B is infinite. Cardinalities corresponding to infinite sets are called transfinite.

For either finite or infinite sets, it is true that

(1') A ⊂ B implies |A| ≤ |B|.

For finite sets,

(5) |A| ≤ |B| and |B| ≤ |A| implies |A| = |B|.

With all the differences in behavior between finite and infinite sets, it may be surprising that (5) holds for transfinite cardinalities as well. (5) is the content if Cantor-Bernstein-Schroeder theoremSchröder-Bernstein theorem. The theorem comes under many alternative names, e.g. the attributions Cantor-Bernstein-Schroeder theorem, Cantor-Bernstein theorem, Schroeder-Bernstein Theorem, Bernstein's theorem, all usually refer to the same statement.

In order to prove the theorem we need to pay more attention to the "≤" relation as applied to the transfinite cardinals, something we glossed over in (3) and (4).

We say that |A| ≤ |B| if there exists an injection f: A→B. Bernstein's theorem then asserts that if there exists an injection from A to B and another from B to A, then there is a 1-1 correspondence between A and B. (The proof of the theorem appears elsewhere.) We say that |A| < |B| iff |A| ≤ |B| and |A| ≠ |B|.

A subset S of a set A is categorized by a binary function f: A → {0, 1} such that S = {aA: f(a) = 1}. For this reason, the set of all subsets of A is denoted 2A.

Theorem

For any A, |A| < |2A|.

Proof

The proof is by the diagonal process invented by G. Cantor.

First of all, |A| ≤ |2A| because an element a of A can be identified with the 1-element set {a}. Suppose to the contrary that there is a 1-1 correspondence f: A → 2A. Function f relates to each element a of A a subset f(a) of A. There are two possibilities: either af(a) or not. Let's define set S as a collection of the elements of aA that do not belong to their image f(a):

(6) S = {aA: af(a)}.

Since f is assumed to be 1-1, it is surjective: there is an sA such that S = f(s). This creates a problem.

Indeed, either s belongs to S or it does not. Let's check the first possibility first. It can't be that sS, because, by definition, S consists of those a for which af(a). So that if sS then, too, sS. We see that it can't be that sS. But sS is also impossible, for if this were the case, s would be an element of S, by the same definition.

It follows that our assumption of the existence of a 1-1 correspondence between A and 2A leads to a contradiction. The conclusion follows: |A| < |2A|.

Starting with any set A we may construct a sequence of sets

(7) A, 2A, 22A, 222A...

As a consequence of the theorem, the cardinalities of the sets in sequence (7) are all different. Furthermore,

(8) |A| < |2A| < |22A| < |222A| < ...

The usual notation for the exponentiation of cardinalities is

(9) 2|A| = |2A|.

The set of real numbers, the continuum has the cardinality (also called continuum)

  c = .

(This is because the real numbers in the interval [0, 1) when represented in the binary system by the sequences of 0s and 1s can be identified (with some precautions) with subsets of the natural numbers.) Cantor believed but could not prove that

  c = ,

i.e., the "next" cardinal number after . The assertion became known as the Continuum Hypothesis (CH): there are no cardinal numbers between and c or, in other words,

(10)

The investigation into CH has been crowned by two results, 25 years apart, that had profound repercussion on the whole notion of the axiomatization of mathematics.

Set Theory, as developed by G. Cantor, is often termed naive as it was based on the intuitive notion of sets and their properties. Everything was a set until it was realized, first by B. Russell, that such an unrestricted handling of sets leads to contradictions. For example, the idea of the "set of all sets" is contradictory. To avoid such constructs and keep Set Theory contradiction-free mathematician came up with several axiomatic systems, of which the one known as Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) became the most popular.

In 1939, Kurt Gödel proved that CH does not contradict to ZF and, therefore, could not be disproved based on ZF. In 1963, Paul Cohen proved a similar result for the negation of CH which showed that CH can't be derived from ZF either.

There are many more cardinals than is suggested by (7). There are some with so peculiar construction that they are termed inaccessible (not to the human mind of course). To grasp what are these one needs the notion of a different kind of infinities, viz., the ordinal numbers.

Copyright © 1996-2008 Alexander Bogomolny

30725062Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


Search:
Keywords:



Latest on CTK Exchange
try this puzzle ?/?? + ?/?? + ?/? ...
Posted by albert1950
5 messages
12:40 PM, Nov-18-08

Help me find Hisashi ABE, Pythago ...
Posted by likesmath
2 messages
11:11 AM, Oct-06-08

triangle construction
Posted by Elianto84
12 messages
07:06 PM, Oct-30-08

Gardner's Torus cutting puzzle... ...
Posted by itineracy
3 messages
11:22 PM, Nov-02-08

Three Concurrent Circles
Posted by billmillar
2 messages
12:26 PM, Oct-28-08

disjoint sets
Posted by jay_shark
0 messages
07:36 PM, Nov-13-08

Error in Fractal Curves and Dimen ...
Posted by miguemate22
1 messages
08:51 AM, Nov-16-08