←back to thread

116 points baruchel | 3 comments | | HN request time: 1.209s | source
Show context
scrubs ◴[] No.44363116[source]
If I had a semester or two of free time I'd love to hit this subject again. I once told my math prof (logician) who made a comment about transfinite cardinals: careful it's powerful but it's power from the devil. I half regret that comment in retrospect.

I've never made peace with Cantor's diagonaliztion argument because listing real numbers on the right side (natural number lhs for the mapping) is giving a real number including transedentals that pre-bakes in a kind of undefined infinite.

Maybe it's the idea of a completed infinity that's my problem; maybe it's the fact I don't understand how to define (or forgot cauchy sequences in detail) an arbitrary real.

In short, if reals are a confusing you can only tie yourself up in knots using confusing.

Sigh - wish I could do better!

replies(5): >>44363548 #>>44364041 #>>44364188 #>>44365365 #>>44367737 #
bheadmaster ◴[] No.44365365[source]
> I've never made peace with Cantor's diagonaliztion argument

Maybe you'd prefer a purely set-theoretic one:

---

Let R be a set. Let S be a set of all subsets of R.

We want to prove that |S| > |R|, by proving that a bijective function from R to S cannot exist. We will do that by assuming that it can, and then deriving a contradiction.

Assume there is a bijective function f : R -> S. Define D = { r ∈ R | r ∉ f(r) }. Since f is a bijection, there exists some r₀ ∈ R such that f(r₀) = D.

However, by the definition of D, we have:

- If r₀ ∈ D, then r₀ ∉ f(r₀) = D, which is a contradiction.

- If r₀ ∉ D, then r₀ ∈ f(r₀) = D, which is also a contradiction.

Therefore, our assumption that there exists a bijective function f : R -> S must be false.

Therefore, |S| > |R|.

replies(1): >>44367625 #
1. LegionMammal978 ◴[] No.44367625[source]
If it's the idea of completed infinity that's the objection, then it's the first step, constructing the powerset, that would be problematic. Various forms of finitism would not accept that one can 'take all the subsets, finite or infinite, and quantify over them' and obtain a meaningful result past the formal level.
replies(1): >>44369404 #
2. drdeca ◴[] No.44369404[source]
They should still then accept that there is no surjection from a set to a set that is a set of all subsets of that set (because of there being no such set).
replies(1): >>44373006 #
3. LegionMammal978 ◴[] No.44373006[source]
There would be no such surjection, but there would also be no such |S| to talk about in the conclusion.