Re: Two results of set geometry
- From: Mike Kelly <mikekellyuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:54:38 -0700
On 1 Oct, 00:19, Michael Press <rub...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<1191066414.782430.37...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Mike Kelly <mikekell...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 29 Sep, 12:00, Mike Kelly <mikekell...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<sniiiip>step...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Tony Orlow <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:As cardinality is defined, in conjunction with Cantor's diagonal
It can be proven that c has the same cardinality as the power set of omega.
argument, which is flawed, yes.
A thought struck me while showering. Why are we discussing diagonal
arguments? To prove that c has the same cardinality as the power set
of omega all we need is a bijection between the power set of omega and
the set of real numbers. William Hughes kindly gave the outline in a
previous post.
Let I(x,n) be an indicator function. x in P(N). n in N.
I(x,n) = 1 if n in x.
= 0 if n not in x.
Now a bijection between the power set of omega and the set of real
numbers is given by..
f : P(omega) -> R
f(x) maps to the equivalence class of Cachy sequences containing ( I(x,
0), I(x,0)+I(x,1)/3, I(x,0)+I(x,1)/3+I(x,2)/9, ... )
And I think that's it.. right?
Yes, that is it.
Thanks for confirmation.
.
- References:
- Re: Two results of set geometry
- From: Michael Press
- Re: Two results of set geometry
- Prev by Date: Re: Parallel Runga-Kutta Method
- Next by Date: Re: density of the range of an integer polynomial
- Previous by thread: Re: Two results of set geometry
- Next by thread: Re: Two results of set geometry
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|