MHB Intuitive Proof: $\omega \times \omega$ is Countable

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the set $\omega \times \omega$ is countable by establishing a bijection with $\omega$. The intuitive proof involves defining a function that maps pairs of natural numbers to single natural numbers, demonstrating both injectivity and surjectivity. The function $J(m,n) = T(m+n) + n$ is shown to be one-to-one and onto, confirming that every pair of natural numbers corresponds uniquely to a natural number. The participants also explore the relationship between this proof and other methods of demonstrating the countability of $\omega \times \omega$. This establishes a clear understanding of the countability of the Cartesian product of natural numbers.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Proposition:
The set $\omega \times \omega$ is equinumerous with $\omega$, i.e. the set $\omega \times \omega$ is countable.

"Intuitive Proof"

$$\mathbb{N}^2=\{ (n,m): n,m \in \mathbb{N} \}$$

View attachment 3825

$$1 \mapsto a_{11}$$
$$2 \mapsto a_{12}$$
$$3 \mapsto a_{31}$$
$$4 \mapsto a_{22}$$
$$5 \mapsto a_{13}$$
$$6 \mapsto a_{14}$$
$$7 \mapsto a_{23}$$
$$\ \ \ \ \cdots \cdots \\ \ \ \ \ \cdots \cdots \\ \ \ \ \ \cdots \cdots$$Could you explain me the intuitive proof? (Thinking)
 

Attachments

  • set_theory.png
    set_theory.png
    7.3 KB · Views: 99
Physics news on Phys.org
This process gives every pair of natural numbers a single natural number and vice versa: e.g., (1, 3) corresponds to 5. This correspondence is a bijection.
 
So do we know that it is an injection because we pair each natural number to a diferent pair of natural numbers?
Also do we know that it is a surjection because there are both infinitely many natural numbers and pairs of natural numbers, so for each pair there will be a single element that we can correspond to the pair? (Thinking)
 
Yes, pretty much.
 
Then it is given the following proof:

We define recursively the function $T: \omega \to \omega$ as follows:

$T(0)=0 \ \ \ \ \ T(n+1)=T(n)+n=1$

which has the following properties:

  • it is strictly increasing
  • it is 1-1
  • show that $(\forall y \in \omega) (\exists x \in \omega) (T(x) \leq y<T(x+1))$
We define the function $J(m,n)=T(m+n)+n (\langle m,n \rangle=m,n)$.

We will show that $J$ is 1-1 and surjective, i.e. $J: \omega \times \omega \overset{\text{surjective}}{\longrightarrow} \omega$.
  • $J$ is 1-1.

    Let $\langle m,n \rangle \neq \langle k,l \rangle , m,n,k,l \in \omega$.

    First case: $m+n=n+k$

    If we had $J(m,n)=J(k,l)$ then $T(m+n)+n=T(k+l)+l \rightarrow n=l$ and since $m+n=k+l$ we have that $m=k$ that implies that $\langle m,n \rangle= \langle k, l \rangle$, contradiction.
    Thus $J(m,n) \neq J(k,l)$.Second case: $m+n \neq k+l$

    We suppose without loss of generality that $m+n<k+l$. Then $m+n+1 \leq k+l$ and so $T(m+n+1) \leq T(k+l)$.

    We have that $J(m,n)=T(m+n)+n<T(m+n)+n+1=T(m+n+1) \leq T(k+l)<T(k+l)+l=J(k,l)$

    Thus, $J(m,n) \neq J(k,l)$.
  • Show that $J$ is surjective.
Is this proof related to the other proof? Do we have the same correspondance?
 
Last edited:
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top