Mathematical Logic...
Pages
 1
 2
Author  Topic: Mathematical Logic... 

Law Bringer
Member # 335

written Friday, September 9 2005 08:08
Profile
Homepage
It's been significantly longer since I've studied sets, but here's how I reason through the first two. 1. R contains "more" elements than N. Correspondance isn't exactly an accurate test, but it makes the answer obvious in this case. (An interesting thing to ponder is the set of natural numbers and the set of square numbers. While all square numbers are natural and not all natural numbers are square, the sets are the "same" infinite size because each natural number, n, corresponds to one and only one square number, n^2.) 2. R is the same size as (0,1). The difference is one of scale, not of elements. Again, this isn't formal, but you can hopefully see why they are the same size. The two above neither prove nor disprove the existence of a set between N and R in size. —Alorael, who believes that the second step is somewhat arguable. He's willing to propose that in this case such a definition of sizes of infinity is more useful than another definition, although he has no particular grounds for doing so. Posts: 14579  Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67

written Friday, September 9 2005 08:44
Profile
Homepage
Question 4: Where does Q (the set of rational numbers (ie fractions)) fit into all this? Is is bigger or smaller or the same size as N? As R? [ Friday, September 09, 2005 08:45: Message edited by: Khoth ]  Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram. desperance.net  Don't follow this link Posts: 1798  Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 
Shaper
Member # 32

written Friday, September 9 2005 09:02
Profile
I suppose that would've been interesting too, but the fact that so many people said false indicates to me that they would say it is similar in size to N...  Lt. Sullust Cogito Ergo Sum Polaris Posts: 2462  Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67

written Friday, September 9 2005 09:24
Profile
Homepage
I wondered, because Alorael's argument as stated would show N < Q.  Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram. desperance.net  Don't follow this link Posts: 1798  Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 
Lifecrafter
Member # 59

written Friday, September 9 2005 11:03
Profile
quote:I thought the Continuum Hypothesis was that there is NO set whose cardinality is larger than that of the natural numbers and smaller than that of the real numbers (e.g., the rational numbers have the same cardinality as the natural numbers). I think it's usually accepted as an axiom. Posts: 950  Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 
Law Bringer
Member # 335

written Friday, September 9 2005 12:33
Profile
Homepage
That's a good point, Khoth, but it will take someone with more knowledge of this than I have to prove or disprove it. Let's define I as the set of irrational numbers. I'm confident that N < R and that N < Q. I'm not sure if I < R or I = R, but it's not relevant, because I am reasonably sure that Q < R and Q < I. So yes, that would make the set of rational numbers smaller than the set of real numbers. The set of irrational numbers might prove the Continuum Hypothesis by example as well, but I'm not at all confident of it. —Alorael, who actually leans towards the belief that I = R, although he can't justify it in any way. Posts: 14579  Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24

written Friday, September 9 2005 12:57
Profile
Homepage
Looks like I forgot most of number theory. However, I still remember how to answer Khoth's question #4. Here is a hint. Let's look at a quadrant in coordinate plane. The points in it have coordinates (0,0), (0,1), (0,2), (1, 0), (1,1), etc. We can fill this quadrant with natural numbers if we do it 1 diagonal at a time: 0 1 2 3 4 ... < xcoordinates 1 1 2 4 7 2 3 5 8 3 6 9 4 10  ycoordinates This method, extended to all 4 quadrants, shows that N = number of points in Cartesian coordinate plane. However, I completely forgot how to prove that some infinities are smaller than others.  Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649  Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67

written Friday, September 9 2005 13:32
Profile
Homepage
You make a list of all the real numbers, then show that actually you failed. The standard proof is to muck about with decimal expansions, but there are other ways.  Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram. desperance.net  Don't follow this link Posts: 1798  Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 
...b10010b...
Member # 869

written Friday, September 9 2005 15:47
Profile
Homepage
mathworld.wolfram.com says that the set of rational numbers does in fact have the same cardinality as the natural numbers. (Incidentally, so does the set of algebraic numbers.)  My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973  Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67

written Friday, September 9 2005 21:36
Profile
Homepage
And so does the set of real numbers which can be defined.  Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram. desperance.net  Don't follow this link Posts: 1798  Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 
Agent
Member # 2759

written Friday, September 9 2005 22:36
Profile
Homepage
The continuum hypothesis is accepted as an axiom by some, but not by others. I voted "false" on question 3, because in my view CH (and even more so the Generalised Continuum Hypothesis: GCH) unnecessarily restricts the size of the universe. Some results that I like (and many beautiful counterexamples) occur if you postulate Proper Forcing Axiom (PFA) or MA+¬CH. Forcing, by the way, is a fascinating methodology of taking a universe (=everything) and making it bigger (ie adding some new things that weren't included in everything). I recommend a book called "Set Theory" by Kenneth Kunen. However, that book is quite challenging.  Everything I know about the Avernum Trilogy: [ A1  A2  A3 ] Posts: 1104  Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00 
Shaper
Member # 32

written Saturday, September 10 2005 09:48
Profile
quote:I felt that phrasing the question in that way might give away the first answer too easily...  Lt. Sullust Cogito Ergo Sum Polaris Posts: 2462  Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 
BANNED
Member # 6248

written Saturday, September 10 2005 13:59
Profile
Homepage
wow what math nerds, HHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAh  Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeir Posts: 7  Registered: Friday, August 26 2005 07:00 
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431

written Sunday, September 11 2005 23:39
Profile
At the risk of bringing people down, it should be pointed out that there are lots of kinds of size, and what has been discussed in this thread is the relatively arcane version called 'cardinality'. Just as valid, and of a lot more practical use, is metrical size, according to which [0,1] is indeed much smaller than R. This is not set theory anymore, but geometry; but so what?  It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335  Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 
Law Bringer
Member # 335

written Monday, September 12 2005 07:47
Profile
Homepage
But geometry has nothing to do with the question under discussion! Don't sap ivory towers! —Alorael, who will consider the distance from a point to another point 1 unit away to be infinite if he pleases, all right? The distance from a point to another point twice as far away will be twice as infinitely far away, which is actually the same distance. Then some horrible thing with many tentacles will probably come through an acute angle and start Galactic Coring everyone. Posts: 14579  Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67

written Monday, September 12 2005 08:29
Profile
Homepage
I reckon it's reveal the answers time. N < R: This proof isn't my favourite, but it doesn't have as many subscripts so it's easier to put on a forum. It's obviously not true that N > R, because N is a subset of R. Suppose N = R. If this was the case, we could make a big list of all the real numbers, like so: 1: 23.553456765... 2: 4.0000000... 3: 3.14159.... . . . Now we take the diagonal after the decimal point (shown in bold), which makes the number 0.501.... Then we change every 5 to a 6, and every non5 to a 5, getting 0.655.... This number can't be the first in our list, because the first digit is different. It can't be the second, because the second digit is different, and so on. So it can't be on our list. But our list was supposed to be of all the real numbers. Contradiction, so the original assumption (that N = R) must be wrong. (0,1) = R Consider the function f(x) = tan(90x) (in degrees) This function takes everything in (0,1) to something in R, and everything in R is covered by this. So there is a onetoone mapping, so the sets are the same size.  Continuum hypothesis: It is consistent for it to be true, and consistent for it to be false. So there is a model of set theory which has a set of size between N and R, which is good enough for me. :) Edit: Formatting [ Monday, September 12, 2005 08:31: Message edited by: Khoth ]  Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram. desperance.net  Don't follow this link Posts: 1798  Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755

written Monday, September 12 2005 13:55
Profile
I hurt now. *owww* Posts: 4114  Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 
Master
Member # 4614

written Monday, September 12 2005 16:03
Profile
Homepage
Eh, I'll just leave it that if N = inifinity, then R = infinity squared. :P  ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360  Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 
Agent
Member # 2759

written Tuesday, September 13 2005 09:52
Profile
Homepage
quote:No no, N^2=N. R=2^N Seriously :P Edit: Fixed an idiotic mistake. Goodness, my set theory is rusty... [ Tuesday, September 13, 2005 09:57: Message edited by: Micawber ]  Everything I know about the Avernum Trilogy: [ A1  A2  A3 ] Posts: 1104  Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00 
Shaper
Member # 32

written Tuesday, September 13 2005 10:27
Profile
I'm not completely convinced by that little statement of yours that R = P(N)  Lt. Sullust Cogito Ergo Sum Polaris Posts: 2462  Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 
Agent
Member # 2759

written Tuesday, September 13 2005 10:50
Profile
Homepage
It is, nonetheless, provable in ZFC. I leave the details as exercise for the reader. Edit: Always wanted to say that [ Tuesday, September 13, 2005 11:20: Message edited by: Micawber ]  Everything I know about the Avernum Trilogy: [ A1  A2  A3 ] Posts: 1104  Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00 
Law Bringer
Member # 2984

written Tuesday, September 13 2005 13:49
Profile
Homepage
quote:That is the single most annoying statement I've come across in any text. The "details" frequently involve hours or days of brain straining. :rolleyes:  The Encyclopaedia Ermariana < Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey."  HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect."  SupaNik Posts: 8752  Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 
Shaper
Member # 32

written Tuesday, September 13 2005 14:04
Profile
Alrighty, I've done some digging... S = the set of all sequences of 0's and 1's P(N) = S R = S Thus we have P(N) = R.  Lt. Sullust Cogito Ergo Sum Polaris Posts: 2462  Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 
Agent
Member # 2759

written Tuesday, September 13 2005 21:51
Profile
Homepage
Yup, that's the way Cantor proved it, in 1895. The power set of N is, of course, identifiable with the set of all mappings N > {0,1}. And every real number has a binary expansion. Aran, I totally agree. But it's so much fun when you're the one setting the challenge. I really must write a textbook some time.  Everything I know about the Avernum Trilogy: [ A1  A2  A3 ] Posts: 1104  Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00 
Pages
 1
 2