Re: Questions on sets with infinitely many elements



On Mar 9, 11:04 pm, Phil <toob-head...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No one would be impressed if we said, "If x is the last odd number, and
we take the number preceding x, namely w, then (w+2) is also an odd
number, so x is not the last odd number."

OF COURSE they would.
Compare to "If x is the last natural number, adn we take the
number preceding x, namely w, then w+2 is also a natural
numeber, so x is not the last natural number". THAT IS a
proof. EVERYbody (who knows anything) is impressed.


My proof that x is not the last odd number is PURE
CRAP!!!

Hardly. But that also hardly matters; what is abundantly clear
is that you simply don't know what a proof is. Would you like
to learn?

But I see "proofs" like that in mathematics, especially where
infinity is involved, all the time ...

That doesn't matter; since you are not understanding them, it
doesn't matter that you are seeing them.

....

It works in the sense that I now have a set with a member which both has
an immediate predecessor, and is preceded by infinitely many members.

Idiot, PLEASE: you had THAT in THE FIRST reply you ever
got to your ORIGINAL message, on Mar.7. I ought to know,
since I wrote it. Just in case you didn't read it the first time,
here it is again:

Yes, it is possible for an infinite well-ordered set to have a last
element.
The canonical examples are infinite "successor ordinals".
If you define x as the set of natural numbers, then x U {x}
is a set whose last element is infinite (x) and whose earlier elements
are all finite naturals. But this ordering is not INHERENT to this
set;
this is the ordering IMPOSED by the membership relation. YOU COULD
permute this set into any one of uncountably many OTHER DIFFERENT
orders, if you felt like it.

(4) Element x is followed, in set A, by elements (x+1), (x+2), (x+3), ...

Yes; under one definition of addition (ordinal addition), x U {x}
MEANS x+1.
x+2 would just be (x+1)+1, and the last element of x+2 would be x+1.

So if you had this set, which we have here called x+2, its members
would
be {0,1,2,...,x, x+1}.
The last element of this set, x+1, is a member which has an immediate
predecessor (x), and which is preceded by infinitely many members.

My big question is this: can I link or align each member of the set:

{a_1, a_2, a_3, ...., b, c}

with the natural numbers, as in:

{a_1, a_2, a_3, ...., b, c}
| | | | |
{ 1, 2, 3, ...., x, y}

Not if you map a_n to n for every natural n, no.
However, you don't have to map them that way.
You could map a_69 to 70 and a_n to n+1 for all n>69,
and then you could let x be 0 and y be 69.
So b would be mapped to x=0 and c would be mapped to y=69,
and all the infinitely many a's would be mapped to all the other
infinitely many natural numbers.

So that x is a natural number,
one which is preceded by infinitely many
natural numbers?

It's YOUR mapping. You can have x preceded
by WHATEVER NATNUMS YOU LIKE,
in WHATEVER ORDER YOU LIKE.
But since you are re-ordering infinitely many different things,
some of your orders might not be communicatable finitarily.


.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Orlow cardinality question
    ... >> basically the entire system of maths education of the modern world has ... The set is infinite. ... >>> difference between any two successive members. ... > naturals is the number of them, the size of the set, minus 1. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity ...
    ... Tony Orlow: ... it was specifically a bijection between two sets of infinite binary ... >> We can show a mapping from the finite naturals in N ... >> to the finite subsets of N (the finite members of P(N)) using your ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Orlow cardinality question
    ... >> Who says anything about the lengths of strings being bounded? ... >> than the naturals are bounded in size, ... Sets are unbounded, their members are not. ... >> need not contain members which are in any sense infinite. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Orlow cardinality question
    ... >>> than the naturals are bounded in size, ... Sets are unbounded, their members are not. ... >>> need not contain members which are in any sense infinite. ... > the set match the parity of its members. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: More natural numbers
    ... You seem to be confused about cardinality. ... This merely means that since there are no infinite natural numbers, ... An infinite set of naturals does *not* have a maximum ... equal the number of numbers preceding it! ...
    (sci.logic)