Proof of |2^N x 2^N| = |2^N| with N the natural numbers

In summary, the conversation is about a student's attempt to prove a statement using Cantor's Theorem and the concept of bijection. However, the student's approach is not relevant and does not provide a proper explanation. The expert suggests using the concept of disjoint union and provides a possible proof for the statement. The conversation ends with the expert summarizing the main points and the need for further proofs.
  • #1
tomkoolen
40
1
Hello,

At my exam I had to proof the title of this topic. I now know that it can easily be done by making a bijection between the two, but I still want to know why I didn't receive any points for my answer, or better stated, if there is still a way to proof the statement from my work.

My work:
2^N > N (Cantor)
2^N x 2^N > N x N
Knowing that |N x N| = |N| it follows that |2^N x 2^N| = |2^N|.

I know that I didn't really give an explanation in that last step, but I still want to know if and how it's correct.
Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I don't see how this resembles a proof at all. You start by using Cantor ##|2^\mathbb{N}| > |\mathbb{N}|##, which is not relevant at all here. Then you give another irrelevant inequality, and finally you just state the result. You would not get any points for that if I were the grader.
 
  • #3
I understand Cantor is not the way to go here but we were allowed to regard |N x N| = |N| as proven. I just want to know if there is any way to link the two?
 
  • #4
For any infinite set ##X##, we have ##|X\times X| = |X|##. In particular, this is true for ##X= 2^{\mathbb{N}}##. I don't see how ##|\mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}| = |\mathbb{N}|## is really relevant here.
 
  • #5
However, you can work with the disjoint union ##\mathbb{N} + \mathbb{N} := (\mathbb{N}\times \{0\})\cup (\mathbb{N}\times \{1\})##. We have ##|\mathbb{N}+\mathbb{N}| = |\mathbb{N}|## (this requires a proof). We can then say:
[tex]|2^\mathbb{N}\times 2^\mathbb{N} | = |2^{\mathbb{N}+\mathbb{N}}| = |2^{\mathbb{N}}|[/tex]
But both of the two equalities also require a proof.
 

Related to Proof of |2^N x 2^N| = |2^N| with N the natural numbers

1. What does "Proof of |2^N x 2^N| = |2^N| with N the natural numbers" mean?

The statement means that the cardinality (number of elements) of the set of all possible combinations of 2 to the power of N multiplied by 2 to the power of N is equal to the cardinality of the set of all possible combinations of 2 to the power of N, where N is any natural number.

2. Can you explain the concept of cardinality in this context?

Cardinality is a mathematical concept that refers to the number of elements in a set. It is represented by the symbol "| |" and is used to compare the sizes of different sets. In this case, the statement is comparing the cardinality of two sets and showing that they are equal.

3. How can you prove the equality of the two sets in this statement?

The proof involves showing that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the two sets. This means that for every element in one set, there is a unique corresponding element in the other set. This can be shown by constructing a function that maps the elements of one set to the other, and vice versa.

4. Why is this statement important in mathematics?

This statement is important because it demonstrates the concept of infinite sets and their cardinality. It also shows that even though the set of all possible combinations of 2 to the power of N multiplied by itself has more elements than the set of all possible combinations of 2 to the power of N, they still have the same cardinality. This has implications in various mathematical fields such as set theory, combinatorics, and number theory.

5. Can you provide an example to illustrate this statement?

Yes, let's take N=2. This means that we are looking at the set of all possible combinations of 2 to the power of 2 (4) multiplied by 2 to the power of 2 (4), which gives us a set of 16 elements. Now, if we look at the set of all possible combinations of 2 to the power of 2 (4), it also has 16 elements. This shows that the two sets have the same cardinality, proving the statement to be true for this particular case.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
860
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
918
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top