Missing step in standard proof of |P(N)|=|R|

In summary, the bijection between ##\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})## and ##\{0,1\}^\mathbb{N}## is created by taking an element and creating a subset of ##\mathbb{N}## using the rule that ##n\in A## if and only if ##x_n=1##.
  • #1
nomadreid
Gold Member
1,670
204
There are several ways to show the one-to-one correspondence between P(N) (= the power set of the natural numbers) and the set of the reals (or, equivalently, the set of reals in the interval [0,1).) Continued fractions, and all that. However, one argument is the following (sorry, this argument is from memory, and so I looked for a source; I don't know if the following is a valid source to cite, but if not, please ignore: http://scientiststhesis.tumblr.com/post/52431140481/powersets-infinities-and-the-diagonal-argument): one uses the binary expansion of a real number between 0 and 1 to encode a subset of N (via: construct set S such that: if nth place in expansion =0, then n not in S; nth place in expansion =1, then n is in S.) However, this encoding actually only makes a correspondence between ordered subsets of N and [0,1). Since there are many elements in the set of ordered subsets of N for every element in P(N), this only proves that |P(N)| ≤ |R|. So, how does one then make the correspondence between the set of ordered subsets of N and P(N)?
(The source cited above starts with the classical diagonal argument about |N|≤|R| before stating the above attempt at |P(N)| = |R|.)
Thanks for any feedback.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The link you provided seems to make a bijection between ##\mathbb{R}## and ##\{0,1\}^\mathbb{N}## (= the set of all functions ##\mathbb{N}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}##, or equivalently, the set of all infinite binary sequences).

You are correct that you still have to make a bijection between ##\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})## and ##\{0,1\}^\mathbb{N}##. The idea is to take an element
[tex](x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,...)\in \{0,1\}^\mathbb{N}[/tex]
So we have a sequence of zeroes and ones. We now construct a subset ##A## of ##\mathbb{N}## using the rule that ##n\in A## if and only if ##x_n=1##.

For example,
[tex](1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,...)[/tex]
gives us ##\{1,2\}##. While
[tex](1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,...)[/tex]
gives us the odd numbers.

I leave it to you to verify this is a bijection.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #3
Thanks, micromass. Everything is clear now.
 

Related to Missing step in standard proof of |P(N)|=|R|

1. What is the standard proof for showing that the cardinality of the power set of the natural numbers is equal to the cardinality of the real numbers?

The standard proof for this statement involves constructing a bijection between the power set of the natural numbers and the set of real numbers using Cantor's diagonalization argument.

2. Can you explain Cantor's diagonalization argument in simple terms?

Cantor's diagonalization argument is a mathematical proof technique used to show that two sets have the same cardinality. It involves constructing a new element by taking the diagonal elements of an infinite table and showing that this new element is not in the original set, thus proving that the two sets have different cardinalities.

3. What do you mean by "missing step" in the standard proof of |P(N)|=|R|?

By "missing step," we are referring to the fact that the standard proof does not explicitly state how to construct the bijection between the power set of the natural numbers and the set of real numbers. This has led to some debate and discussion among mathematicians about the validity of the proof.

4. Are there any alternative proofs for |P(N)|=|R|?

Yes, there are alternative proofs for this statement, including the use of the Continuum Hypothesis or the use of the Schroeder-Bernstein theorem. However, these proofs also have their own limitations and controversies.

5. What impact does the missing step have on the validity of the proof?

The missing step in the standard proof of |P(N)|=|R| has sparked discussions and debates among mathematicians about the completeness and rigor of the proof. Some argue that the proof is not complete without explicitly stating the bijection, while others argue that the proof is still valid and can be filled in by various methods. Ultimately, the missing step does not invalidate the proof, but it does raise interesting questions about the foundations of mathematics and the nature of proofs.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
516
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
423
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
530
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
584
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
16
Views
2K
Back
Top