Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Last revision Both sides next revision
diagonal_construction [2016/01/13 10:28]
nikolaj
diagonal_construction [2016/04/05 00:43]
nikolaj
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 ==== Discussion ==== ==== Discussion ====
 +We take an arbitrary set $C$ and argue about all the functions $f:C\to \mathcal {\mathcal P}(C)$ from $C$ to the powerset ${\mathcal P}(C)$. ​
 +For any such $f$, we define $ D_f$ as the subset of $C$ containing the elements $x\in C$ for which $ x \notin f(x) $.
 +
 +So for example we might consider ​
 +
 +$C=\{0,​1\}$ ​
 +
 +so that 
 +
 +${\mathcal P}(C)=\{\{\},​\{0\},​\{1\},​\{0,​1\}\}$ ​
 +
 +and if we were to consider the function $f$ that maps $0$ to $f(0)=\{0,​1\}$ and $1$ to $f(1)=\{0\}$,​ then as $0\in \{0,1\}$ but $1\notin \{0\}$, we are left with $D_f=\{1\}$.
 +
 The point of $ D_f \subseteq C $ defined as above is this: Given any set $C$, if one attempted to use its elements to index its subsets, i.e. via a function $f:C\to \mathcal P(C)$, then the "​flipped diagonal subset"​ $ D_f \in {\mathcal P}$ will always be found to be missed. The point of $ D_f \subseteq C $ defined as above is this: Given any set $C$, if one attempted to use its elements to index its subsets, i.e. via a function $f:C\to \mathcal P(C)$, then the "​flipped diagonal subset"​ $ D_f \in {\mathcal P}$ will always be found to be missed.
  
-//Proof of the above and also proof of Cantor'​s theorem//: For all $x,X$, we eighter have $x\in X$ or $x\notin X$. Hence, for all $x,X,Y$, we have +//Proof of the above and also proof of Cantor'​s theorem//: For all $x,X$, we eighter have $x\in X$ or $x\notin X$. If $X=Y$then $x\in X$ has the same truth value as $x\in Y$. 
 +So for all $x,X,Y$, we have 
  
 $(X=Y) \Rightarrow \neg(x\in X\land x\notin Y),$ $(X=Y) \Rightarrow \neg(x\in X\land x\notin Y),$
Line 17: Line 31:
 $(x\in X\land x\notin Y) \Rightarrow \neg(X=Y).$ ​ $(x\in X\land x\notin Y) \Rightarrow \neg(X=Y).$ ​
  
-Specifically, for any $x\in D_f$ and using $X=D_f$ and $Y=f(x)$, the left hand side reads $x\in D_f\land x\notin f(x)$and so $\neg(f(x)=D_f)$, which means $\nexists x\ (f(x)=D_f)$. ​But since $D_f\subseteq C$, i.e. $D_f \in  \mathcal P(C) =\text{codom}(f)$,​ we see that no such $f$ is a surjection, let alone a bijection. So the cardinality of any set is less than that of its power set. $\Box$+This holds always. 
 +Now, specifically, for any $x\in D_f$ and using $X=D_f$ and $Y=f(x)$, the left hand side reads $x\in D_f\land x\notin f(x)$ (which by definition of $D_f$ is the same as just $x\in D_f$) and the right hand side reads $\neg(f(x)=D_f)$. The same happens for $x\in C$ but not in $D_f and where we then switch $X$ and $Y$. This means $\nexists x\ (f(x)=D_f)$. ​ 
 +Since $D_f\subseteq C$, i.e. $D_f \in  \mathcal P(C) =\text{codom}(f)$,​ we see that no such $f$ is a surjection, let alone a bijection. So the cardinality of any set is less than that of its power set. $\Box$
  
 If, in a similar spirit, $C,f$ are taken to be a sequence and an enumeration of sequences, then we see that there is at least once sequence which escapes enumeration. This further translates to the uncountability of real numbers. ​ If, in a similar spirit, $C,f$ are taken to be a sequence and an enumeration of sequences, then we see that there is at least once sequence which escapes enumeration. This further translates to the uncountability of real numbers. ​
Link to graph
Log In
Improvements of the human condition