Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
There are two ways to define the "cardinality of a set": The cardinality of a set A is defined as its equivalence class under equinumerosity. A representative set is designated for each equivalence class. The most common choice is the initial ordinal in that class. This is usually taken as the definition of cardinal number in axiomatic set theory.
As a consequence, the cardinality of the real numbers, which is the same as that of the power set of the integers, is strictly larger than the cardinality of the integers; see Cardinality of the continuum for details. The theorem is named for Georg Cantor, who first stated and proved it at the end of the 19th century.
A bijective function, f: X → Y, from set X to set Y demonstrates that the sets have the same cardinality, in this case equal to the cardinal number 4. Aleph-null , the smallest infinite cardinal In mathematics , a cardinal number , or cardinal for short, is what is commonly called the number of elements of a set .
A set A is said to have cardinality smaller than or equal to the cardinality of a set B, if there exists a one-to-one function (an injection) from A into B. This is denoted |A| ≤ |B|. If A and B are not equinumerous, then the cardinality of A is said to be strictly smaller than the cardinality of B. This is denoted |A| < |B|.
In set theory, the cardinality of the continuum is the cardinality or "size" of the set of real numbers, sometimes called the continuum. It is an infinite cardinal ...
In set theory, the concept of cardinality is significantly developable without recourse to actually defining cardinal numbers as objects in the theory itself (this is in fact a viewpoint taken by Frege; Frege cardinals are basically equivalence classes on the entire universe of sets, by equinumerosity).
Since every set is a subset of this latter class, and every cardinality is the cardinality of a set (by definition!) this intuitively means that the "cardinality" of the collection of cardinals is greater than the cardinality of any set: it is more infinite than any true infinity. This is the paradoxical nature of Cantor's "paradox".
Scott's trick assigns representatives differently, using the fact that for every set there is a least rank in the cumulative hierarchy when some set of the same cardinality as appears. Thus one may define the representative of the cardinal number of A {\displaystyle A} to be the set of all sets of rank V α {\displaystyle V_{\alpha }} that have ...