Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Cantor's diagonal argument (among various similar names [note 1]) is a mathematical proof that there are infinite sets which cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the infinite set of natural numbers – informally, that there are sets which in some sense contain more elements than there are positive integers.
Sentences are then built up out of atomic sentences by applying connectives and quantifiers. A set of sentences is called a theory; thus, individual sentences may be called theorems. To properly evaluate the truth (or falsehood) of a sentence, one must make reference to an interpretation of the theory.
The best known example of an uncountable set is the set of all real numbers; Cantor's diagonal argument shows that this set is uncountable. The diagonalization proof technique can also be used to show that several other sets are uncountable, such as the set of all infinite sequences of natural numbers (see: (sequence A102288 in the OEIS)), and the set of all subsets of the set ...
In proof by exhaustion, the conclusion is established by dividing it into a finite number of cases and proving each one separately. The number of cases sometimes can become very large. For example, the first proof of the four color theorem was a proof by exhaustion with 1,936 cases. This proof was controversial because the majority of the cases ...
In ZF, a set is infinite if and only if the power set of its power set is a Dedekind-infinite set, having a proper subset equinumerous to itself. [4] If the axiom of choice is also true, then infinite sets are precisely the Dedekind-infinite sets. If an infinite set is a well-orderable set, then it has many well-orderings which are non-isomorphic.
The proof of sentence c can be formalized within the system S, and therefore the statement c, "p is not provable", (or identically, "not P(p)") can be proved in the system S. Observe then, that if we can prove that the system S is consistent (ie. the statement in the hypothesis of c), then we have proved that p is not provable.
To investigate the left distributivity of set subtraction over unions or intersections, consider how the sets involved in (both of) De Morgan's laws are all related: () = = () always holds (the equalities on the left and right are De Morgan's laws) but equality is not guaranteed in general (that is, the containment might be strict).
An archetypal double counting proof is for the well known formula for the number () of k-combinations (i.e., subsets of size k) of an n-element set: = (+) ().Here a direct bijective proof is not possible: because the right-hand side of the identity is a fraction, there is no set obviously counted by it (it even takes some thought to see that the denominator always evenly divides the numerator).