My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math

Math General Math Forum - For general math related discussion and news


Thanks Tree5Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
May 28th, 2017, 09:12 PM   #41
Member
 
Joined: May 2017
From: USA

Posts: 31
Thanks: 0

Is it possible, that |N|=|P(N)| for the domain [-∞,∞], as both |N| and |P(N)| representing infinite "quantitative parameters" sets, along a line?
Microlab is offline  
 
May 29th, 2017, 06:17 AM   #42
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: USA

Posts: 574
Thanks: 44

Quote:
Originally Posted by Microlab View Post
Is it possible, that |N|=|P(N)| for the domain [-∞,∞], as both |N| and |P(N)| representing infinite "quantitative parameters" sets, along a line?
No. See one of my previous posts where I went through a bit of a longer exposition than needed to show that $|\mathbb{N}| < |P( \,\mathbb{N}) \,|$ (I was trying to walk you through the logic behind the proof).

Simply, let's assume there is a function $f$ that is bijective (or surjective) from $\mathbb{N}$ onto $P( \,\mathbb{N}) \,$. We denote it like this:

$$\exists f : \mathbb{N} \xrightarrow{\text{1-to-1, onto}} P( \,\mathbb{N}) \,$$

Now, remember my 'sneaky' set $A$?:

$$\text{Let } A = \{ n \in \mathbb{N} : n \notin f( \,n) \, \}$$

In English, the above definition says "let $A$ be the set of natural numbers $n$ such that $n$ is not an element of $f( \,n) \,$." For example, if 1 was an element of $f( \,1) \,$, then 1 would not be an element of $A$ by definition. The same goes for 2, 3, 4, ... (all natural numbers).

We know that $A$ is a set of natural numbers (or the empty set, denoted $\emptyset$), therefore, $A$ is an element of $P( \,\mathbb{N}) \,$. Because $A$ is in $P( \,\mathbb{N}) \,$, there must be a natural number $k$ such that $f( \,k) \, = A$ should our assumption that $f$ is bijective be correct. No natural number $k$ can exist, however:

$k \in A \implies k \notin f( \,k) \, = A$ (a contradiction: "$k$ is in $A$ implies $k$ is not an element of $f( \,k) \, = A$)
$k \notin A \implies k \in f( \,k) \, = A$ (again, a contradiction: "$k$ is not in $A$ implies that $k$ is an element of $f( \,k) \, = A$).

Therefore, there does not exist a natural number $k$ such that $f( \,k) \, = A$. Where no natural number $k$ can map to $A$, the function $f$ is not bijective (or, likewise, surjective).

Where no bijective or surjective function can exist from $\mathbb{N}$ onto $P( \,\mathbb{N}) \,$, we have proven:

$$|\mathbb{N}| < |P( \,\mathbb{N}) \,|$$
AplanisTophet is online now  
May 29th, 2017, 06:30 AM   #43
Member
 
Joined: May 2017
From: USA

Posts: 31
Thanks: 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by AplanisTophet View Post
No. See one of my previous posts where I went through a bit of a longer exposition than needed to show that $|\mathbb{N}| < |P( \,\mathbb{N}) \,|$ (I was trying to walk you through the logic behind the proof).

Simply, let's assume there is a function $f$ that is bijective (or surjective) from $\mathbb{N}$ onto $P( \,\mathbb{N}) \,$. We denote it like this:

$$\exists f : \mathbb{N} \xrightarrow{\text{1-to-1, onto}} P( \,\mathbb{N}) \,$$

Now, remember my 'sneaky' set $A$?:

$$\text{Let } A = \{ n \in \mathbb{N} : n \notin f( \,n) \, \}$$

In English, the above definition says "let $A$ be the set of natural numbers $n$ such that $n$ is not an element of $f( \,n) \,$." For example, if 1 was an element of $f( \,1) \,$, then 1 would not be an element of $A$ by definition. The same goes for 2, 3, 4, ... (all natural numbers).

We know that $A$ is a set of natural numbers (or the empty set, denoted $\emptyset$), therefore, $A$ is an element of $P( \,\mathbb{N}) \,$. Because $A$ is in $P( \,\mathbb{N}) \,$, there must be a natural number $k$ such that $f( \,k) \, = A$ should our assumption that $f$ is bijective be correct. No natural number $k$ can exist, however:

$k \in A \implies k \notin f( \,k) \, = A$ (a contradiction: "$k$ is in $A$ implies $k$ is not an element of $f( \,k) \, = A$)
$k \notin A \implies k \in f( \,k) \, = A$ (again, a contradiction: "$k$ is not in $A$ implies that $k$ is an element of $f( \,k) \, = A$).

Therefore, there does not exist a natural number $k$ such that $f( \,k) \, = A$. Where no natural number $k$ can map to $A$, the function $f$ is not bijective (or, likewise, surjective).

Where no bijective or surjective function can exist from $\mathbb{N}$ onto $P( \,\mathbb{N}) \,$, we have proven:

$$|\mathbb{N}| < |P( \,\mathbb{N}) \,|$$
Thanks.
I have to work on it. I am missing a lot.
Can you suggest any literature I can pull up to read and study.
Microlab is offline  
May 29th, 2017, 07:36 AM   #44
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: USA

Posts: 574
Thanks: 44

Quote:
Originally Posted by Microlab View Post
Thanks.
I have to work on it. I am missing a lot.
Can you suggest any literature I can pull up to read and study.
I went through a few books trying to find one that I think will suit you well. Try this one:

http://www.math.toronto.edu/weiss/set_theory.pdf

Jech does a wonderful job too, but can be a little more difficult... check out this one that he co-authored:

http://www.unalmed.edu.co/~jmramirez...set-Theory.pdf
AplanisTophet is online now  
May 29th, 2017, 07:39 AM   #45
Member
 
Joined: May 2017
From: USA

Posts: 31
Thanks: 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by AplanisTophet View Post
I went through a few books trying to find one that I think will suit you well. Try this one:

http://www.math.toronto.edu/weiss/set_theory.pdf

Jech does a wonderful job too, but can be a little more difficult... check out this one that he co-authored:

http://www.unalmed.edu.co/~jmramirez...set-Theory.pdf
Thanks for all your support!
Microlab is offline  
May 29th, 2017, 07:57 AM   #46
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: USA

Posts: 574
Thanks: 44

Quote:
Originally Posted by Microlab View Post
Thanks for all your support!
You're welcome! Enjoy!!
AplanisTophet is online now  
May 29th, 2017, 11:09 AM   #47
Member
 
Joined: May 2017
From: USA

Posts: 31
Thanks: 0

Does anyone has any idea?
How its possible to endlessly splitting PRECISED matter into any |P(N)| size particles that will never make same size matter again?
Look like I am trying to fill 10 gallons tank with light.
Microlab is offline  
May 29th, 2017, 11:12 AM   #48
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,395
Thanks: 750

Quote:
Originally Posted by Microlab View Post
Does anyone has any idea?
How its possible to endlessly splitting PRECISED matter into any |P(N)| size particles that will never make same size matter again?
Look like I am trying to fill 10 gallons tank with light.
Math $\neq$ physics.
Maschke is offline  
May 29th, 2017, 11:28 AM   #49
Member
 
Joined: May 2017
From: USA

Posts: 31
Thanks: 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maschke View Post
Math $\neq$ physics.
Ok, ok, sorry. But still ...
I think, something is missing out there. Something big!
Microlab is offline  
May 29th, 2017, 02:38 PM   #50
Member
 
Joined: May 2017
From: USA

Posts: 31
Thanks: 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maschke View Post
Math $\neq$ physics.
What about coordinates along of precised line - | P ( ab ) |?
Where (a) - starting point and ( b ) - ending.
This is a math!

Last edited by Microlab; May 29th, 2017 at 02:43 PM.
Microlab is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math

Tags
infinity



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
To infinity and beyond shunya Elementary Math 5 July 18th, 2014 09:09 AM
is 1/infinity = lim x->infinity 1/x sivela Calculus 1 June 25th, 2012 10:04 AM
Infinity... nerd9 Algebra 22 July 18th, 2010 03:47 PM
Solve X where -infinity>x>infinity -DQ- Algebra 5 September 14th, 2009 05:13 AM
infinity fibonaccilover Applied Math 9 July 26th, 2009 08:07 PM





Copyright © 2019 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.