3
$\begingroup$

Is it acceptable to write "$X$ is an infinite set" as "$|X| = \infty$"?

By "acceptable" I mean that I can use it in a research paper or in a textbook, and a reasonable person won't be against it. Possible arguments against it:

  1. $\infty$ is not actually a value, so it doesn't fit into a standard set-size notation.
  2. $|\mathbb R| = \infty$ and $|\mathbb N| = \infty$, so one may think that $|\mathbb R| = |\mathbb N|$.

(I looked for duplicates with some variations of the title, and found none)

$\endgroup$
7
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I would strongly recommend against it. Either write it in words, or write $|X|\ge\aleph_0$, $|X|\ge\omega$, or the like. $\endgroup$ Feb 14 at 23:01
  • $\begingroup$ While I haven't published any papers or books, I would think it depends on the context. If you're writing about, say, set theory, where precise cardinalities are often a subject of study, using this notation would be very jarring. But, if you're writing about some field where this sort of question doesn't come up, I wouldn't have a problem with it. $\endgroup$
    – Sambo
    Feb 14 at 23:37
  • $\begingroup$ "$X$ is an infinite set" is unambiguous. Your other option raises questions ("What does "$|\cdot$|" mean for an arbitrary set?" for one.) Why raise unnecessary questions? $\endgroup$ Feb 14 at 23:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JonathanZsupportsMonicaC "$\vert\cdot\vert$" is meaningful for arbitrary sets, I don't think that's an issue here. $\endgroup$ Feb 15 at 0:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JonathanZsupportsMonicaC By definition "$\vert A\vert$" is the smallest ordinal in bijection with $A$. If we want to think of $\vert\cdot\vert$ as a function-like thing, it's an example of a class function: technically not a function but rather a formula with two free variables $\varphi(x,y)$ such that $\mathsf{ZFC}$ proves "For all $x$ there is exactly one $y$ with $\varphi(x,y)$" (or "Every set has a unique cardinality"); in this context its domain and codomain are each $V$, the universe of all sets. (That said, if we drop choice there is a more technical definition of cardinality.) $\endgroup$ Feb 15 at 2:35
2
$\begingroup$

$\infty$ is a bit ambiguous/misplaced in the context of set cardinality, something like an Aleph Number (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number) might be more appropriate, i.e. $|X| \ge \aleph_0$, which states "X has the cardinality of at least the smallest possible infinite set".

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I consider myself reasonable :-), and I'm going to say "Don't do this". If all you really want to do is distinguish finite from infinite, then all you'll do with the $|X| \ge \aleph_0$ notation is show that you've taken some set theory. My guideline is "If you're not going to use $\aleph_1$, then why mention $\aleph_0$?". $\endgroup$ Feb 15 at 6:14
2
$\begingroup$

I'm personally strongly against this - we have more exact notation for describing infinite sets, so why not use it?

That said, I have seen this notation used when describing objects which are subsets of some fixed countable set (e.g. sets of natural numbers). Here there's really no possible confusion. However, I still consider this bad practice.

$\endgroup$

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.