Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 13, 2024, 5:35 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The nature of number
#77
The nature of number
HAY ADMINS, HOW DO I HTML TABLE? PLZ HALP OR FIX

(October 12, 2012 at 11:30 pm)jonb Wrote: Bigger?
If it could be engineered so the sets were of equal size, I think we maybe looking at different types of sets. But that would depend on what is meant by bigger could you explain?
"Bigger" = Greater cardinality. In Cantor's diagonalization proof, we see that we can have two infinite sets A and B such than the first can be mapped onto the second (covering everything) but the second cannot be mapped onto the first: the first set is "bigger" in a sense similar to how we can draw from a container containing 8 balls to replace a missing container containing 6 balls, but this doesn't work if we reverse the roles. If we assume the axiom of choice, then by that assumption, given any random pair of infinite sets A and B, there exists an onto function from A to B or from B to A (both may exist, but at least one does). And once we can have this, it takes just a bit more work to show (I can run through it if you like, but I need to finish up this post) that you can make a strict order relation (either |A| <, =, or > |B|; no matter what, their cardinalities can be measured against one another).
And in the default approach to sets--it's just a boring old set, a box with prima facie bland, featureless objects in it. As far as the semantics go, it's a set before we start talking about the shapes or structures the objects form. Let's take two sets that have the same cardinality and show how we can pretend one is the other.
How to pretend the integers are the same thing as the rationals:
Are you familiar with the bijection between the rationals and the integers? Well, we're mapping 0 to 0, and we're going to map the positive integers onto the positive rationals (and use this to define our map between both flavors of negative number).
All rational numbers have some unique 'fully reduced' form m/n, where m and n are coprime (no common factors) integers. So we make ourselves a grid. The entry in the nth row and mth column is "the nth natural number coprime to m", divided by m. Here's the first 49 squares:
Pardon my formatting, I don't know how to make a nice, regularly spaced table in bbcode.
Code:
<table border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"><tr><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>...</td></tr>
<tr><td>1/2</td><td>3/2</td><td>5/2</td><td>7/2</td><td>9/2</td><td>11/2</td><td>13/2</td><td>...</td></tr>
<tr><td>1/3</td><td>2/3</td><td>4/3</td><td>5/3</td><td>7/3</td><td>8/3</td><td>10/3</td><td>...</td></tr>
<tr><td>1/4</td><td>3/4</td><td>5/4</td><td>7/4</td><td>9/4</td><td>11/4</td><td>13/4</td><td>...</td></tr>
<tr><td>1/5</td><td>2/5</td><td>3/5</td><td>4/5</td><td>6/5</td><td>7/5</td><td>8/5</td><td>...</td></tr>
<tr><td>1/6</td><td>5/6</td><td>7/6</td><td>11/6</td><td>13/6</td><td>17/6</td><td>19/6</td><td>...</td></tr>
<tr><td>1/7</td><td>2/7</td><td>3/7</td><td>4/7</td><td>5/7</td><td>6/7</td><td>8/7</td><td>...</td></tr></table>
And we throw the natural numbers at them in a zigzag pattern like so... (the natural number occupying the nth row and mth column of this is mapped to the rational number occupying the same position in the table above)

1 2 6 7 15 16 28 ...
3 5 8 14 17 27 30 ...
4 9 13 18 26 31 43 ...
10 12 19 25 32 42 49 ...
11 20 24 33 41 50 62 ...
21 23 34 40 51 61 72 ...
22 35 39 52 60 73 85 ...

Some bits of the zigzag go outside the 7x7 snapshot I just dumped here--you can see the full course of the pattern up to 28 though--but I'm sure you can see what's going on.
So I have an infinite grid of natural numbers and an infinite grid of positive rationals. Every number of each type is given one and only one place in their respective grid, so I can freely exchange all my natural numbers for rational numbers by swapping them out for the # that takes their place in the other grid (note that this means the '2' in the natural numbers isn't the same as the '2' in the rational numbers; and in fact, all natural numbers besides -1, 0, 1 are going to be mapped to something completely different). So now we're ready to take some rational numbers and pretend they're natural numbers...

(It's getting late, I need sleep, and I'm working all day tomorrow. Will finish later...)
So these philosophers were all like, "That Kant apply universally!" And then these mathematicians were all like, "Oh yes it Kan!"
Reply



Messages In This Thread
The nature of number - by jonb - July 10, 2012 at 8:02 am
RE: The nature of number - by Cato - July 10, 2012 at 12:17 pm
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - July 10, 2012 at 12:58 pm
RE: The nature of number - by Tobie - July 10, 2012 at 1:57 pm
RE: The nature of number - by Whateverist - August 24, 2012 at 10:49 am
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - July 10, 2012 at 2:06 pm
RE: The nature of number - by Cato - July 10, 2012 at 2:20 pm
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - July 10, 2012 at 6:25 pm
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - July 10, 2012 at 8:17 pm
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - July 12, 2012 at 6:15 am
RE: The nature of number - by Whateverist - August 26, 2012 at 10:11 am
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - July 12, 2012 at 6:02 am
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - July 12, 2012 at 8:10 am
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - July 12, 2012 at 3:02 pm
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - July 16, 2012 at 8:30 am
RE: The nature of number - by CliveStaples - July 16, 2012 at 2:14 pm
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - July 16, 2012 at 2:37 pm
RE: The nature of number - by CliveStaples - July 16, 2012 at 6:47 pm
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - July 16, 2012 at 7:00 pm
RE: The nature of number - by CliveStaples - July 16, 2012 at 7:17 pm
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - July 16, 2012 at 7:23 pm
RE: The nature of number - by CliveStaples - July 17, 2012 at 1:24 am
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - July 17, 2012 at 1:41 am
RE: The nature of number - by CliveStaples - July 17, 2012 at 1:51 am
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - July 17, 2012 at 3:14 am
RE: The nature of number - by CliveStaples - July 17, 2012 at 10:49 am
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - July 17, 2012 at 6:39 am
RE: The nature of number - by Angrboda - July 16, 2012 at 2:06 pm
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - July 16, 2012 at 6:15 pm
RE: The nature of number - by Angrboda - July 16, 2012 at 8:07 pm
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - July 17, 2012 at 7:56 pm
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - July 18, 2012 at 9:59 am
RE: The nature of number - by Angrboda - July 17, 2012 at 11:25 pm
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - July 18, 2012 at 10:40 am
RE: The nature of number - by Cato - July 18, 2012 at 12:59 am
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - July 18, 2012 at 1:21 am
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - July 18, 2012 at 6:13 am
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - July 18, 2012 at 10:05 am
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - July 19, 2012 at 11:44 am
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - July 28, 2012 at 3:22 am
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - July 28, 2012 at 8:17 am
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - July 28, 2012 at 12:52 pm
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - July 29, 2012 at 4:04 am
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - July 29, 2012 at 4:18 pm
RE: The nature of number - by CliveStaples - July 29, 2012 at 8:54 pm
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - July 29, 2012 at 9:17 pm
RE: The nature of number - by CliveStaples - July 30, 2012 at 2:39 am
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - July 30, 2012 at 5:33 am
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - August 1, 2012 at 11:26 am
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - August 1, 2012 at 4:53 pm
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - August 8, 2012 at 8:41 am
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - August 8, 2012 at 11:41 am
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - August 8, 2012 at 11:50 am
RE: The nature of number - by CliveStaples - August 9, 2012 at 8:23 am
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - August 24, 2012 at 7:43 am
The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - August 24, 2012 at 12:51 pm
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - August 26, 2012 at 4:30 pm
The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - August 26, 2012 at 5:13 pm
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - August 26, 2012 at 5:27 pm
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - September 3, 2012 at 10:47 am
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - September 3, 2012 at 6:52 pm
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - September 3, 2012 at 7:20 pm
The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - September 5, 2012 at 5:47 am
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - September 5, 2012 at 6:00 am
The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - September 5, 2012 at 6:19 am
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - September 5, 2012 at 6:29 am
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - September 7, 2012 at 12:12 am
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - September 7, 2012 at 1:31 am
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - September 11, 2012 at 2:32 pm
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - September 11, 2012 at 11:11 pm
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - September 12, 2012 at 4:19 am
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - October 4, 2012 at 7:56 am
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - October 5, 2012 at 5:26 am
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - October 10, 2012 at 6:07 am
The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - October 12, 2012 at 11:22 pm
RE: The nature of number - by CliveStaples - October 17, 2012 at 7:01 pm
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - October 18, 2012 at 1:31 am
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - October 12, 2012 at 11:30 pm
The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - October 13, 2012 at 3:27 am
The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - October 13, 2012 at 7:54 am
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - October 13, 2012 at 11:22 am
RE: The nature of number - by Categories+Sheaves - October 22, 2012 at 3:21 pm
RE: The nature of number - by jonb - October 28, 2012 at 11:02 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Is zero a natural number? Jehanne 81 7447 July 16, 2023 at 7:29 am
Last Post: Angrboda
  Euclid proved that there are an infinite number of prime numbers. Jehanne 7 941 March 14, 2021 at 8:26 am
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Graham's Number GrandizerII 15 1922 February 18, 2018 at 4:58 pm
Last Post: GrandizerII
  This number is illegal in the USA Aractus 13 4718 May 7, 2016 at 10:51 pm
Last Post: J a c k
  The Magical Number 9 Rhondazvous 25 5085 December 30, 2015 at 4:47 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Tricky Number Sequence Puzzle GrandizerII 16 6033 January 20, 2015 at 2:35 am
Last Post: Whateverist
  Number crunching curios pocaracas 24 9343 January 4, 2014 at 2:14 am
Last Post: Belac Enrobso
  Golden Ratio In Nature, Quran And Position Of The Kaba ciko83 120 38911 April 7, 2013 at 8:22 am
Last Post: Kayenneh
  number puzzle 1-8 aufis 5 12963 April 24, 2010 at 6:44 am
Last Post: aufis



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)