Is the Equality of Aleph Null and Aleph One Proven Through Factorials?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doom of Doom
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the factorial of aleph null and aleph one, questioning whether (aleph null)! equals aleph one. It explores the factorial function for aleph null through the Cartesian product of sets, illustrating that (aleph null)! can be represented as the product of countably infinite sets. A proposed method involves establishing a bijection between this product and the power set of the naturals, leading to the conclusion that the cardinality is beth one unless the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) is assumed. The conversation highlights that without CH, the factorial is shown to equal beth one rather than aleph one. This analysis emphasizes the complexities of cardinality in set theory.
Doom of Doom
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
How might one show that (aleph_null)! = aleph_1?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One might start by defining the "factorial function" for aleph_null!
 
Ok, so the person who proposed this problem to me gave me a way to understand (aleph_null)!.

So, consider two sets, A and B. Then |A|*|B|=|A x B|, where AxB is the cartesian product of A and B.

Thus, consider N_m={1,2,3,...m}, and |N_m|=m.

Then (aleph_null)! = |N_1 x N_2 x N_3 x ... |.

So how can I find a bijection from N_1 x N_2 x N_3 x ... to, say, P(N), the power set of the naturals?
 
Consider {1} x {1, 2} x {1, 2, 3} x ... as the base 1-2-3-... expansion of a number in [0, 1), then biject [0, 1) with the reals by your favorite method. You have at most a countable number of issues with rational numbers. which you can likewise deal with in your preferred method.

This shows that the set has cardinality \beth_1, not \aleph_1 unless you have the CH.
 
Or show that 1x2x3x4...is greater than or equal to 2x2x2x2x2... and less than or equal to aleph null^aleph null. Still, this only indicates the factorial is equal to beth_1 without CH, like CRGreathouse said.
 
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...
Back
Top