Content deleted Content added
→See also: I think it's reasonable to add CH here |
m →Uncountable set: fmt., punct. |
||
Line 32:
| ...
|}
Next, a sequence ''s'' is constructed by choosing the 1st digit as [[Ones' complement|complementary]] to the 1st digit of ''s''<sub>''1''</sub> (swapping '''0'''s for '''1'''s and vice versa), the 2nd digit as complementary to the 2nd digit of ''s''<sub>''2''</sub>, the 3rd digit as complementary to the 3rd digit of ''s''<sub>''3''</sub>, and generally for every ''n'', the ''n''
:{|
|-
Line 55:
| ''s'' || = || (<u>'''1'''</u>, || <u>'''0'''</u>, || <u>'''1'''</u>, || <u>'''1'''</u>, || <u>'''1'''</u>, || <u>'''0'''</u>, || <u>'''1'''</u>, || ...)
|}
By construction, ''s'' is a member of ''T'' that differs from each ''s''<sub>''n''</sub>, since their ''n''
Hence, ''s'' cannot occur in the enumeration.
Line 67:
The uncountability of the [[real number]]s was already established by [[Cantor's first uncountability proof]], but it also follows from the above result. To prove this, an [[injective function|injection]] will be constructed from the set ''T'' of infinite binary strings to the set '''R''' of real numbers. Since ''T'' is uncountable, the [[Image (mathematics)|image]] of this function, which is a subset of '''R''', is uncountable. Therefore, '''R''' is uncountable. Also, by using a method of construction devised by Cantor, a [[bijection]] will be constructed between ''T'' and '''R'''. Therefore, ''T'' and '''R''' have the same cardinality, which is called the "[[cardinality of the continuum]]" and is usually denoted by <math>\mathfrak{c}</math> or <math>2^{\aleph_0}</math>.
An injection from ''T'' to '''R'''
Constructing a bijection between ''T'' and '''R''' is slightly more complicated.
Instead of mapping 0111... to the decimal 0.0111..., it can be mapped to the [[radix|base]]
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
! Construction of a bijection between ''T'' and '''R'''
|- style="text-align: left; vertical-align: top"
| {{multiple image|total_width=200|image1=Linear transformation svg.svg|width1=106|height1=159|caption1=The function ''h'': (0,1) → (−π/2, π/2)|image2=Tangent one period.svg|width2=338|height2=580|caption2=The function tan: (−π/2, π/2) → '''R'''}}
This construction uses a method devised by Cantor that was published in 1878. He used it to construct a bijection between the [[closed interval]] [0, 1] and the [[irrational number|irrational]]s in the [[open interval]] (0, 1). He first removed a [[countably infinite]] subset from each of these sets so that there is a bijection between the remaining uncountable sets. Since there is a bijection between the countably infinite subsets that have been removed, combining the two bijections produces a bijection between the original sets.<ref>See page 254 of {{Citation|author=Georg Cantor|title=Ein Beitrag zur Mannigfaltigkeitslehre|url=http://www.digizeitschriften.de/dms/img/?PID=GDZPPN002156806|volume=84|pages=242–258|journal=Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik|year=1878}}. This proof is discussed in {{Citation|author=Joseph Dauben|title=Georg Cantor: His Mathematics and Philosophy of the Infinite|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=1979|isbn=0-674-34871-0}}, pp. 61–62, 65. On page 65, Dauben proves a result that is stronger than Cantor's. He lets "''φ<sub>ν</sub>'' denote any sequence of rationals in [0, 1]." Cantor lets ''φ<sub>ν</sub>'' denote a sequence [[Enumeration|enumerating]] the rationals in [0, 1], which is the kind of sequence needed for his construction of a bijection between [0, 1] and the irrationals in (0, 1).</ref>
Line 90 ⟶ 89:
A generalized form of the diagonal argument was used by Cantor to prove [[Cantor's theorem]]: for every [[Set (mathematics)|set]] ''S'', the [[power set]] of ''S''—that is, the set of all [[subset]]s of ''S'' (here written as '''''P'''''(''S''))—cannot be in [[bijection]] with ''S'' itself. This proof proceeds as follows:
Let ''f'' be any [[Function (mathematics)|function]] from ''S'' to '''''P'''''(''S'').
For every ''s'' in ''S'', either ''s'' is in ''T'' or not. If ''s'' is in ''T'', then by definition of ''T'', ''s'' is not in ''f''(''s''), so ''T'' is not equal to ''f''(''s''). On the other hand,
▲:<math>T = \{ s \in S : s \not\in f(s) \}</math>.
▲For every ''s'' in ''S'', either ''s'' is in ''T'' or not. If ''s'' is in ''T'', then by definition of ''T'', ''s'' is not in ''f''(''s''), so ''T'' is not equal to ''f''(''s''). On the other hand, if ''s'' is not in ''T'', then by definition of ''T'', ''s'' is in ''f''(''s''), so again ''T'' is not equal to ''f''(''s''); cf. picture.
For a more complete account of this proof, see [[Cantor's theorem]].
|