Re: set question
- From: William Elliot <marsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:45:06 -0800
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Dave L. Renfro wrote:
On Jan 29, 4:39 pm, David C. Ullrich <ullr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As nulset x nulset = nulset andThe empty set is a bijection from the empty set to the
empty set. Remember what it means for f to be a function
from set A to set B -- f is a subset of A x B that has
a certain property. The empty set is a subset of
(empty set) x (empty set), and "empty set" is vacuously
a bijective function. (The definitions of "function" and
"inverse is a function" are certain conditional statements
that, in this case, are vacuously true.)
And now we have a proof that 0^0 = 1 for cardinal numbers.
(Well, at least a proof that 0^0 > 0.)
A = { f:nulset -> nulset } subset P(nulset x nulset)
A = { nulset }
I think this is going to do it for me today. It's time to go home. (AndNo problem, this will wait until tomorrow.
I doubt I'll be getting on the internet this evening.)
Assume K nonnul. nulset x K = nulset = K x nulset
B = { f:K -> nulset } = nulset
C = { f:nulset -> K } = { nulset }
From A,B and C we have0^0 = 1
0^|K| = 0
|K|^0 = 1
.
- References:
- set question
- From: bikrant
- Re: set question
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: set question
- From: Dave L. Renfro
- set question
- Prev by Date: Re: Small Set Theory,Updated.
- Next by Date: Re: More primality testing (was: Elementary group theory: Proof of Fermat-Maas ...)
- Previous by thread: Re: set question
- Next by thread: Re: set question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|