Re: Another set with cardinality |Z|

From: Eray Ozkural exa (erayo_at_bilkent.edu.tr)
Date: 09/29/04

  • Next message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Skolem's Paradox and why is math the way it is?" 
    Date: 28 Sep 2004 20:26:10 -0700

    stephen@nomail.com wrote in message news:<cjc2af$1l0o$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
    > In comp.theory Eray Ozkural exa <erayo@bilkent.edu.tr> wrote:
    > : stephen@nomail.com wrote in message news:<cjahpf$cld$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
    >
    > : That's very interesting indeed, but a path does not have to be named
    > : like that to exist, in my opinion.
    >
    > In order for a path to exist it must connect to vertices that exist.
    > Every vertex has a finite depth.

    Existence does not necessarily imply nameability. (According to
    standard set theory) Every vertex does indeed has finite depth in my
    paragraph below.

    > : I can show inductively that I can always find a path of length one
    > : more than you can (stating your choice as a base case), e.g. the
    > : agreed upon definition of countable infinity, hence there is at least
    > : one simple path that has infinite cardinality. You can view the path
    > : as a set of pairs (u,i) where u is a vertex and i is its a position in
    > : the sequence, starting from 1. All i's are finite, but the cardinality
    > : of the set is |N|. Does that make sense?
    >
    > No. It makes as mush sense as claiming that there is an infinite
    > integer because you can always find an integer larger than any
    > integer I name. There are no infinite integers.

    Excuse me, but that is a broken analogy. In the above, I make it
    explicit that the depth of individual vertices in the path sequence
    are finite, but the cardinality of the path set {(u,i}} is Aleph-0.

    Likewise, for integers, there is no "infinite" integer by definition,
    but the set of all integers has cardinality Aleph-0.

    If you do not trust proofs by induction, then I cannot show you why my
    argument above holds. You might be beating the wrong straw man. The
    one you would be interested in is different, see my latest response to
    Robert Low. (a bijection that works in finite case, but is supposedly
    defunct in infinite case)

    Again, I would welcome corrections, e.g. why I cannot apply the
    induction above to have a simple path set {(u,i) : u in V, i index of
    vertex in path} with cardinality Aleph-0. This would imply that the
    level set L has cardinality Aleph-0 as well. Disproof for either would
    be acceptable.

    Thanks for all your responses, they've been really helpful. I now have
    a much better idea of what should go into an essay on constructive
    set theory. It seems that such a theory is incommensurable with the
    received set theory, but that is no big deal as I see it. (e.g. in the
    constructivist set theory, we might not be able to distinguish among
    cardinalities exactly in the same way, but there are ways of
    distinguishing among kinds of infinities which are just as powerful,
    via measures of computational complexity)

    Regards, 

    --
Eray Ozkural
  • Next message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Skolem's Paradox and why is math the way it is?"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Another set with cardinality |Z|
      ... standard set theory) Every vertex does indeed has finite depth in my ... It makes as mush sense as claiming that there is an infinite ... but the set of all integers has cardinality Aleph-0. ...
      (comp.theory)
    • Re: Infinity
      ... > and axioms, ... > about 'Dedekind infinite' we're talking about set theory, ... since you don't know what set theory IS. ... While you're right that I misstated the Dedekind definition of an infinite set, ...
      (sci.math)
    • Re: Infinity
      ... >> system and axioms, ... >> making your proofs in set theory. ... > infinite set, and I apologize, the original question had nothing to ... >> equivalent with that of the definition of 'Dedekind infinite'. ...
      (sci.math)
    • Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
      ... Why, in your opinion, is the orthodoxy in set theory ... mathematics, ignoring the misgivings of geniuses like Poincare, Weyl, ... When NW said that "You don't need axioms", ... NAFL theories (but infinite proper classes, ...
      (sci.logic)
    • Re: infinitely many nns = infinite nns?
      ... You have no IDEA as to basic logic for mathematics. ... of set theory, and it IS shown to contradict the axioms of set theory, ... nonstandard infinite positive integer) ... that the contradictions just listed really ...
      (sci.logic)
    • Quantcast