Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Georg Cantor published this proof in 1891, [1] [2]: 20– [3] but it was not his first proof of the uncountability of the real numbers, which appeared in 1874. [ 4 ] [ 5 ] However, it demonstrates a general technique that has since been used in a wide range of proofs, [ 6 ] including the first of Gödel's incompleteness theorems [ 2 ] and ...
Cantor gave two proofs that the cardinality of the set of integers is strictly smaller than that of the set of real numbers (see Cantor's first uncountability proof and Cantor's diagonal argument). His proofs, however, give no indication of the extent to which the cardinality of the integers is less than that of the real numbers.
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.
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 ...
The answer to this is that the square root of any natural number that is not a square number is irrational. The square root of 2 was the first such number to be proved irrational. Theodorus of Cyrene proved the irrationality of the square roots of non-square natural numbers up to 17, but stopped there, probably because the algebra he used could ...
In the case that the continuum hypothesis is false, Erdős asked whether there is a family of analytic functions, with the cardinality of the continuum, such that each complex number has a smaller-than-continuum set of images. As Ashutosh Kumar and Saharon Shelah later proved, both positive and negative answers to this question are consistent. [6]
The answer is no, because the squares are a proper subset of the naturals: every square is a natural number but there are natural numbers, like 2, which are not squares of natural numbers. By defining the notion of the size of a set in terms of its cardinality, the issue can be settled.
There are at least two independent arguments in favor of a small set theory like PST.. One can get the impression from mathematical practice outside set theory that there are only two infinite cardinals which demonstrably are used "in classical mathematical practice outside set theory", (the cardinality of the natural numbers and the cardinality of the continuum), and therefore that "set ...