0
$\begingroup$

Cardinality of real numbers in the interval $[0,1]$ equals to $2^{\aleph_0}$. Now, I want to show that cardinality of all real numbers is equal to cardinality of real numbers in the interval $[0,1]$.

It is obvious,

$$\operatorname{card}_{\mathbb{R}}(0,1)=\operatorname{card}_{\mathbb{R}}(1,2)=\operatorname{card}_{\mathbb{R}}(2,3)=\cdots$$

By example: For every $\alpha\in(0,1)$ and for every $\beta\in(1,2)$ we have a bijection

$$\alpha\longmapsto\beta\iff\alpha\longmapsto\alpha+1$$

Finally, we have

$$\operatorname{card}_{\mathbb{R}}(-\infty,+\infty)={\underbrace{\operatorname{card}_{\mathbb{R}}(0,-1)+\operatorname{card}_{\mathbb{R}}(-1,-2)+\operatorname{card}_{\mathbb{R}}(-2,-3)+\cdots}_{\aleph_0}}+\\+\underbrace{\cdots+\operatorname{card}_{\mathbb{R}}(0,1)+\operatorname{card}_{\mathbb{R}}(1,2)+\operatorname{card}_{\mathbb{R}}(2,3)+\cdots}_{\aleph_0}+\\ +\underbrace {{\operatorname{card}_{\mathbb Z}}(-\infty,+\infty)}_{\aleph_0}=\\=\aleph_0×2^{\aleph_0}+\aleph_0×2^{\aleph_0}+\aleph_0=2 \aleph_0×2^{\aleph_0}+\aleph_0=\aleph_0×2^{\aleph_0}+\aleph_0=2^{\aleph_0}+\aleph_0=2^{\aleph_0}$$

Is the method I use correct?

Thank you!

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Yes it is! Technically, if you want the cardinality of a large set to be the sum of the cardinalities of smaller sets, those smaller sets shouldn't overlap at all. But you can use intervals of the form $[n,n+1)$ instead of $[n,n+1]$ and solve that problem (or argue that the double-counting of integers doesn't actually cause a problem). $\endgroup$ – Greg Martin Jul 27 '19 at 6:28
  • $\begingroup$ If you deem obvious the fact that $\aleph_0\times 2^{\aleph_0}=2^{\aleph_0}$, then this looks sound. I'd say that you are basically going to extreme lengths to avoid a proof that $[a,b)\cong [a,b]$. Yet, the decomposition you are doing of $\Bbb R$ implicitly assumes that. $\endgroup$ – Gae. S. Jul 27 '19 at 6:29
  • $\begingroup$ I would shun graphic proofs. If anyone tells me anything is "obvious" I'd immediately ask him to prove it just on general principals (and I'd state that the entire result I am proving is just as obvious). Also not sure I'd buy that an infinite $\sum_{\alpha\in Set_1}|Set_2| = |Set_1||Set_2|$ and, just for general purposes, I'd ask to prove that $2^{\aleph_0} + \aleph_0 = 2^{\aleph_0}$. I'd actually think $|[a,b]|=|\mathbb R|$ is more "obvious" than many of the assumptions made. But, in all, your proof is not incorrect. $\endgroup$ – fleablood Jul 27 '19 at 15:49
  • $\begingroup$ Also, if you know that $|(0,1)|=|\mathbb R|=2^{\aleph_0}$ then why don't you just do $[0,1] = (0,1)\cup \{0,1\}$ so $|[0,1]| = 2^{\aleph_0} + 2 = 2^{\aleph_0}$. $\endgroup$ – fleablood Jul 27 '19 at 15:57
  • $\begingroup$ BTW, when was it ever proven that $\aleph_0\times 2^{\aleph_0} = 2^{\aleph_0}$? $\endgroup$ – fleablood Jul 27 '19 at 15:57
1
$\begingroup$

Another method.

$f:\Bbb R\to (0,1),$ where $f(x)=\frac {1}{2}+\frac {1}{\pi}\arctan (x),$ is a bijection.

To get a bijection $g:(0,1)\to [0,1],$ take $S=\{x_n:n\in \Bbb N\}\subset (0,1)$ with $m\ne n \implies x_m\ne x_n.$ E.g. $x_n=1/(n+1)$.

Let $g(x_1)=0$ and $g(x_2)=1.$ For $n> 2$ let $g(x_n)=x_{n-2}.$ For $x\in (0,1)\setminus S$ let $g(x)=x.$

Of course now $(g\, f):\Bbb R\to [0,1]$ is a bijection.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.