Does an element of a set, that can't be in a list, make that set uncountable?












2












$begingroup$


We can map the infinite subsets of $mathbb N$ to the finite subsets of $mathbb N$



The finite subset will be a prefix, of the infinite subset (that it is paired with), that has not yet been used.




$1 mapsto { color{red}{1} ,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 dots } mapsto { color{red}{1} }$



$2 mapsto { color{red}{2} ,4,6,8,10,12,14 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2} }$



$3 mapsto { color{red}{1,3} ,5,7,9,11,13,15 dots } mapsto { color{red}{1,3} }$



$4 mapsto { color{red}{1,2} ,3,7,9,19,27,31 dots } mapsto { color{red}{1,2} }$



$5 mapsto { color{red}{1,2,3} ,4,21,22,25,32 dots } mapsto { color{red}{1,2,3} }$



$6 mapsto { color{red}{2,3} ,4,6,7,8,21,55,58 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2,3} }$



$7 mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4} ,6,7,8,9,21,55,58 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4} }$



$8 mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4,6} ,7,9,21,55,58 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4,6} }$



$9 mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4,6,7} ,6,7,8,21,55,58 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4,6,7} }$



$dots$




We can then find an infinite set that is not in this list (by diagonalization).




$N mapsto { color{red}{4,5,8,9,dots} } mapsto { color{red}{4} } lor { color{red}{4,5} } lor { color{red}{4,5,8} } lor{ color{red}{4,5,8,9} } dots$




We can then pair our infinite set, that can't be in our list, with ${ color{red}{4} }$ if it is not been used or ${ color{red}{4,5} }$ or ${ color{red}{4,5,8} }$ etc... until we find some finite set that has not been used.



Since we need sets with a finite number of elements, and we have sets with an infinite number of elements to choose from, we will always find a finite prefix from each infinite set.



So, if we can find a finite set for every infinite set IN or NOT IN our list, and our set of finite sets is countable then can we still say that our set of infinite sets is uncountable based on there being an element that can't be in a list?






elementary-set-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I'm confused---what, exactly, is your question? If I understand it correctly, you are trying to determine if the set of finite subsets of $mathbb{N}$ is countable. That is, is the set $$bigcup_{n=1}^{infty} mathbb{N}^n$$ countable? If this is your question, then a countable union of countable sets is countable. Or are you asking about the set of infinite sequences with elements in $mathbb{N}$, which is uncountable by a diagonalization argument?
    $endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson
    Jan 8 at 15:36






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/2873936/…
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Jan 8 at 16:13
















2












$begingroup$


We can map the infinite subsets of $mathbb N$ to the finite subsets of $mathbb N$



The finite subset will be a prefix, of the infinite subset (that it is paired with), that has not yet been used.




$1 mapsto { color{red}{1} ,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 dots } mapsto { color{red}{1} }$



$2 mapsto { color{red}{2} ,4,6,8,10,12,14 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2} }$



$3 mapsto { color{red}{1,3} ,5,7,9,11,13,15 dots } mapsto { color{red}{1,3} }$



$4 mapsto { color{red}{1,2} ,3,7,9,19,27,31 dots } mapsto { color{red}{1,2} }$



$5 mapsto { color{red}{1,2,3} ,4,21,22,25,32 dots } mapsto { color{red}{1,2,3} }$



$6 mapsto { color{red}{2,3} ,4,6,7,8,21,55,58 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2,3} }$



$7 mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4} ,6,7,8,9,21,55,58 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4} }$



$8 mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4,6} ,7,9,21,55,58 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4,6} }$



$9 mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4,6,7} ,6,7,8,21,55,58 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4,6,7} }$



$dots$




We can then find an infinite set that is not in this list (by diagonalization).




$N mapsto { color{red}{4,5,8,9,dots} } mapsto { color{red}{4} } lor { color{red}{4,5} } lor { color{red}{4,5,8} } lor{ color{red}{4,5,8,9} } dots$




We can then pair our infinite set, that can't be in our list, with ${ color{red}{4} }$ if it is not been used or ${ color{red}{4,5} }$ or ${ color{red}{4,5,8} }$ etc... until we find some finite set that has not been used.



Since we need sets with a finite number of elements, and we have sets with an infinite number of elements to choose from, we will always find a finite prefix from each infinite set.



So, if we can find a finite set for every infinite set IN or NOT IN our list, and our set of finite sets is countable then can we still say that our set of infinite sets is uncountable based on there being an element that can't be in a list?






elementary-set-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I'm confused---what, exactly, is your question? If I understand it correctly, you are trying to determine if the set of finite subsets of $mathbb{N}$ is countable. That is, is the set $$bigcup_{n=1}^{infty} mathbb{N}^n$$ countable? If this is your question, then a countable union of countable sets is countable. Or are you asking about the set of infinite sequences with elements in $mathbb{N}$, which is uncountable by a diagonalization argument?
    $endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson
    Jan 8 at 15:36






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/2873936/…
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Jan 8 at 16:13














2












2








2


0



$begingroup$


We can map the infinite subsets of $mathbb N$ to the finite subsets of $mathbb N$



The finite subset will be a prefix, of the infinite subset (that it is paired with), that has not yet been used.




$1 mapsto { color{red}{1} ,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 dots } mapsto { color{red}{1} }$



$2 mapsto { color{red}{2} ,4,6,8,10,12,14 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2} }$



$3 mapsto { color{red}{1,3} ,5,7,9,11,13,15 dots } mapsto { color{red}{1,3} }$



$4 mapsto { color{red}{1,2} ,3,7,9,19,27,31 dots } mapsto { color{red}{1,2} }$



$5 mapsto { color{red}{1,2,3} ,4,21,22,25,32 dots } mapsto { color{red}{1,2,3} }$



$6 mapsto { color{red}{2,3} ,4,6,7,8,21,55,58 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2,3} }$



$7 mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4} ,6,7,8,9,21,55,58 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4} }$



$8 mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4,6} ,7,9,21,55,58 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4,6} }$



$9 mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4,6,7} ,6,7,8,21,55,58 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4,6,7} }$



$dots$




We can then find an infinite set that is not in this list (by diagonalization).




$N mapsto { color{red}{4,5,8,9,dots} } mapsto { color{red}{4} } lor { color{red}{4,5} } lor { color{red}{4,5,8} } lor{ color{red}{4,5,8,9} } dots$




We can then pair our infinite set, that can't be in our list, with ${ color{red}{4} }$ if it is not been used or ${ color{red}{4,5} }$ or ${ color{red}{4,5,8} }$ etc... until we find some finite set that has not been used.



Since we need sets with a finite number of elements, and we have sets with an infinite number of elements to choose from, we will always find a finite prefix from each infinite set.



So, if we can find a finite set for every infinite set IN or NOT IN our list, and our set of finite sets is countable then can we still say that our set of infinite sets is uncountable based on there being an element that can't be in a list?






elementary-set-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




We can map the infinite subsets of $mathbb N$ to the finite subsets of $mathbb N$



The finite subset will be a prefix, of the infinite subset (that it is paired with), that has not yet been used.




$1 mapsto { color{red}{1} ,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 dots } mapsto { color{red}{1} }$



$2 mapsto { color{red}{2} ,4,6,8,10,12,14 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2} }$



$3 mapsto { color{red}{1,3} ,5,7,9,11,13,15 dots } mapsto { color{red}{1,3} }$



$4 mapsto { color{red}{1,2} ,3,7,9,19,27,31 dots } mapsto { color{red}{1,2} }$



$5 mapsto { color{red}{1,2,3} ,4,21,22,25,32 dots } mapsto { color{red}{1,2,3} }$



$6 mapsto { color{red}{2,3} ,4,6,7,8,21,55,58 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2,3} }$



$7 mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4} ,6,7,8,9,21,55,58 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4} }$



$8 mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4,6} ,7,9,21,55,58 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4,6} }$



$9 mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4,6,7} ,6,7,8,21,55,58 dots } mapsto { color{red}{2,3,4,6,7} }$



$dots$




We can then find an infinite set that is not in this list (by diagonalization).




$N mapsto { color{red}{4,5,8,9,dots} } mapsto { color{red}{4} } lor { color{red}{4,5} } lor { color{red}{4,5,8} } lor{ color{red}{4,5,8,9} } dots$




We can then pair our infinite set, that can't be in our list, with ${ color{red}{4} }$ if it is not been used or ${ color{red}{4,5} }$ or ${ color{red}{4,5,8} }$ etc... until we find some finite set that has not been used.



Since we need sets with a finite number of elements, and we have sets with an infinite number of elements to choose from, we will always find a finite prefix from each infinite set.



So, if we can find a finite set for every infinite set IN or NOT IN our list, and our set of finite sets is countable then can we still say that our set of infinite sets is uncountable based on there being an element that can't be in a list?






elementary-set-theory




elementary-set-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 8 at 15:36







Ivan Hieno

















asked Jan 8 at 15:30









Ivan HienoIvan Hieno

16510




16510












  • $begingroup$
    I'm confused---what, exactly, is your question? If I understand it correctly, you are trying to determine if the set of finite subsets of $mathbb{N}$ is countable. That is, is the set $$bigcup_{n=1}^{infty} mathbb{N}^n$$ countable? If this is your question, then a countable union of countable sets is countable. Or are you asking about the set of infinite sequences with elements in $mathbb{N}$, which is uncountable by a diagonalization argument?
    $endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson
    Jan 8 at 15:36






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/2873936/…
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Jan 8 at 16:13


















  • $begingroup$
    I'm confused---what, exactly, is your question? If I understand it correctly, you are trying to determine if the set of finite subsets of $mathbb{N}$ is countable. That is, is the set $$bigcup_{n=1}^{infty} mathbb{N}^n$$ countable? If this is your question, then a countable union of countable sets is countable. Or are you asking about the set of infinite sequences with elements in $mathbb{N}$, which is uncountable by a diagonalization argument?
    $endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson
    Jan 8 at 15:36






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/2873936/…
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Jan 8 at 16:13
















$begingroup$
I'm confused---what, exactly, is your question? If I understand it correctly, you are trying to determine if the set of finite subsets of $mathbb{N}$ is countable. That is, is the set $$bigcup_{n=1}^{infty} mathbb{N}^n$$ countable? If this is your question, then a countable union of countable sets is countable. Or are you asking about the set of infinite sequences with elements in $mathbb{N}$, which is uncountable by a diagonalization argument?
$endgroup$
– Xander Henderson
Jan 8 at 15:36




$begingroup$
I'm confused---what, exactly, is your question? If I understand it correctly, you are trying to determine if the set of finite subsets of $mathbb{N}$ is countable. That is, is the set $$bigcup_{n=1}^{infty} mathbb{N}^n$$ countable? If this is your question, then a countable union of countable sets is countable. Or are you asking about the set of infinite sequences with elements in $mathbb{N}$, which is uncountable by a diagonalization argument?
$endgroup$
– Xander Henderson
Jan 8 at 15:36




1




1




$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2873936/…
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 8 at 16:13




$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2873936/…
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 8 at 16:13










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

Your question is moot, since the motivating "fact" is false.




The culprit is your implicit claim in the sentence




until we find some finite set that has not been used.




How do we know such a thing exists at all?



For example, let $(F_i)_{iinmathbb{N}}$ enumerate the finite sets, and let $X_i=F_icup (max(F_i),infty)$ (I'm just taking the unions above in order to make each of my $X_i$s infinite). Note that $F_i$ is a prefix of $X_i$. I can map each $X_i$ to $F_i$, and this seems to work ... but now I've used up every finite set, and when I come to my next infinite set - say, the set of evens - I'm stuck.



Now you might argue that I built my map stupidly above, but the point is that the onus is on you to prove that there is a non-stupid way to "continue building forever." And indeed, one of the consequences of Cantor's theorem is that there isn't.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Incidentally, a similar instance of the "I don't know where exactly you'll run out of room, but you will eventually" is Fodor's lemma, but that's much more complicated.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Jan 8 at 16:12





















5












$begingroup$

Even though that specific infinite subset isn't in our list, we can still have all its finite prefixes in our list of finite subsets.



For instance, say the 10th infinite subset in your list is ${4, ldots}$. Then the 20th is ${4, 5, ldots}$. Then the 30th is ${4, 5, 8, ldots}$. And so on. None of them have to be your infinite set, all of them can be different from your infinite set early enough to allow your set to be the result of the diagonalization. But all of your set's prefixes are in our list of finite subsets.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3066311%2fdoes-an-element-of-a-set-that-cant-be-in-a-list-make-that-set-uncountable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    5












    $begingroup$

    Your question is moot, since the motivating "fact" is false.




    The culprit is your implicit claim in the sentence




    until we find some finite set that has not been used.




    How do we know such a thing exists at all?



    For example, let $(F_i)_{iinmathbb{N}}$ enumerate the finite sets, and let $X_i=F_icup (max(F_i),infty)$ (I'm just taking the unions above in order to make each of my $X_i$s infinite). Note that $F_i$ is a prefix of $X_i$. I can map each $X_i$ to $F_i$, and this seems to work ... but now I've used up every finite set, and when I come to my next infinite set - say, the set of evens - I'm stuck.



    Now you might argue that I built my map stupidly above, but the point is that the onus is on you to prove that there is a non-stupid way to "continue building forever." And indeed, one of the consequences of Cantor's theorem is that there isn't.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Incidentally, a similar instance of the "I don't know where exactly you'll run out of room, but you will eventually" is Fodor's lemma, but that's much more complicated.
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Schweber
      Jan 8 at 16:12


















    5












    $begingroup$

    Your question is moot, since the motivating "fact" is false.




    The culprit is your implicit claim in the sentence




    until we find some finite set that has not been used.




    How do we know such a thing exists at all?



    For example, let $(F_i)_{iinmathbb{N}}$ enumerate the finite sets, and let $X_i=F_icup (max(F_i),infty)$ (I'm just taking the unions above in order to make each of my $X_i$s infinite). Note that $F_i$ is a prefix of $X_i$. I can map each $X_i$ to $F_i$, and this seems to work ... but now I've used up every finite set, and when I come to my next infinite set - say, the set of evens - I'm stuck.



    Now you might argue that I built my map stupidly above, but the point is that the onus is on you to prove that there is a non-stupid way to "continue building forever." And indeed, one of the consequences of Cantor's theorem is that there isn't.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Incidentally, a similar instance of the "I don't know where exactly you'll run out of room, but you will eventually" is Fodor's lemma, but that's much more complicated.
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Schweber
      Jan 8 at 16:12
















    5












    5








    5





    $begingroup$

    Your question is moot, since the motivating "fact" is false.




    The culprit is your implicit claim in the sentence




    until we find some finite set that has not been used.




    How do we know such a thing exists at all?



    For example, let $(F_i)_{iinmathbb{N}}$ enumerate the finite sets, and let $X_i=F_icup (max(F_i),infty)$ (I'm just taking the unions above in order to make each of my $X_i$s infinite). Note that $F_i$ is a prefix of $X_i$. I can map each $X_i$ to $F_i$, and this seems to work ... but now I've used up every finite set, and when I come to my next infinite set - say, the set of evens - I'm stuck.



    Now you might argue that I built my map stupidly above, but the point is that the onus is on you to prove that there is a non-stupid way to "continue building forever." And indeed, one of the consequences of Cantor's theorem is that there isn't.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Your question is moot, since the motivating "fact" is false.




    The culprit is your implicit claim in the sentence




    until we find some finite set that has not been used.




    How do we know such a thing exists at all?



    For example, let $(F_i)_{iinmathbb{N}}$ enumerate the finite sets, and let $X_i=F_icup (max(F_i),infty)$ (I'm just taking the unions above in order to make each of my $X_i$s infinite). Note that $F_i$ is a prefix of $X_i$. I can map each $X_i$ to $F_i$, and this seems to work ... but now I've used up every finite set, and when I come to my next infinite set - say, the set of evens - I'm stuck.



    Now you might argue that I built my map stupidly above, but the point is that the onus is on you to prove that there is a non-stupid way to "continue building forever." And indeed, one of the consequences of Cantor's theorem is that there isn't.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Jan 8 at 16:08

























    answered Jan 8 at 16:02









    Noah SchweberNoah Schweber

    123k10150286




    123k10150286








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Incidentally, a similar instance of the "I don't know where exactly you'll run out of room, but you will eventually" is Fodor's lemma, but that's much more complicated.
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Schweber
      Jan 8 at 16:12
















    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Incidentally, a similar instance of the "I don't know where exactly you'll run out of room, but you will eventually" is Fodor's lemma, but that's much more complicated.
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Schweber
      Jan 8 at 16:12










    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Incidentally, a similar instance of the "I don't know where exactly you'll run out of room, but you will eventually" is Fodor's lemma, but that's much more complicated.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Jan 8 at 16:12






    $begingroup$
    Incidentally, a similar instance of the "I don't know where exactly you'll run out of room, but you will eventually" is Fodor's lemma, but that's much more complicated.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Jan 8 at 16:12













    5












    $begingroup$

    Even though that specific infinite subset isn't in our list, we can still have all its finite prefixes in our list of finite subsets.



    For instance, say the 10th infinite subset in your list is ${4, ldots}$. Then the 20th is ${4, 5, ldots}$. Then the 30th is ${4, 5, 8, ldots}$. And so on. None of them have to be your infinite set, all of them can be different from your infinite set early enough to allow your set to be the result of the diagonalization. But all of your set's prefixes are in our list of finite subsets.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      5












      $begingroup$

      Even though that specific infinite subset isn't in our list, we can still have all its finite prefixes in our list of finite subsets.



      For instance, say the 10th infinite subset in your list is ${4, ldots}$. Then the 20th is ${4, 5, ldots}$. Then the 30th is ${4, 5, 8, ldots}$. And so on. None of them have to be your infinite set, all of them can be different from your infinite set early enough to allow your set to be the result of the diagonalization. But all of your set's prefixes are in our list of finite subsets.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        5












        5








        5





        $begingroup$

        Even though that specific infinite subset isn't in our list, we can still have all its finite prefixes in our list of finite subsets.



        For instance, say the 10th infinite subset in your list is ${4, ldots}$. Then the 20th is ${4, 5, ldots}$. Then the 30th is ${4, 5, 8, ldots}$. And so on. None of them have to be your infinite set, all of them can be different from your infinite set early enough to allow your set to be the result of the diagonalization. But all of your set's prefixes are in our list of finite subsets.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Even though that specific infinite subset isn't in our list, we can still have all its finite prefixes in our list of finite subsets.



        For instance, say the 10th infinite subset in your list is ${4, ldots}$. Then the 20th is ${4, 5, ldots}$. Then the 30th is ${4, 5, 8, ldots}$. And so on. None of them have to be your infinite set, all of them can be different from your infinite set early enough to allow your set to be the result of the diagonalization. But all of your set's prefixes are in our list of finite subsets.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Jan 8 at 16:10

























        answered Jan 8 at 15:37









        ArthurArthur

        113k7115197




        113k7115197






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3066311%2fdoes-an-element-of-a-set-that-cant-be-in-a-list-make-that-set-uncountable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Can a sorcerer learn a 5th-level spell early by creating spell slots using the Font of Magic feature?

            Image
            28 6 $begingroup$ Per the Font of Magic feature, sorcerer can use Flexible Casting to create 5th-level spell slots at level 7, even though they are not typically available until level 9. You can transform unexpended sorcery points into one spell slot as a bonus action on your turn. The Creating Spell Slots table shows the cost of creating a spell slot of [5th level is 7] If such a sorcerer levels up while still having this 5th-level spell slot, can they choose a 5th-level spell as the spell they gain upon levelling up? The Spellcasting feature states: Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the sorcerer spells you know and replace it with another spell from the sorcerer spell list, which also must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
            Read more

            Does disintegrating a polymorphed enemy still kill it after the 2018 errata?

            Image
            up vote 13 down vote favorite 1 After the 2018 errata, the disintegrate spell description now reads: A creature targeted by this spell must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the target takes 10d6 + 40 force damage. The target is disintegrated if this damage leaves it with 0 hit points. If you were to polymorph an enemy into a rat and then disintegrate it, would the enemy be disintegrated or would it just return to its original form? I know that for Druids, it’s not an instant kill anymore, but is this the case for polymorph as well? dnd-5e spells polymorph errata share | improve this question edited 18 hours ago
            Read more

            A Topological Invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$

            Image
            3 3 $begingroup$ Recently, I saw a construction of topological invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$ with $ngeq 2$ : $$ N=frac{1}{24pi^2}int_{S^3} d^3x epsilon^{ijk} Tr[(U^{-1}partial_{x_i}U)(U^{-1}partial_{x_j}U)(U^{-1}partial_{x_k}U)] , $$ where $Uin U(n)$ depends on $boldsymbol{x}=(x_1,x_2,x_3)in S^3$ , $epsilon^{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol, $i,j,k=1,2,3$ , and the duplicated indexes are summed over. It is claimed that $N$ is an integer, but why? Update 02/02/2019 I think I got an argument for $n=2$ . In this case, $U=e^{i varphi} q$ with $qin SU(2)$ . Due to the trace and the Levi-Civita symbol in $N$ , $varphi$ does not contribute to $N$ . As $Tr[q^{dagger}partial_i q]=0$ and $(q^{dagger}partial_i q)^{dagger}=-q^{dagger}partial_i q$ , $q^{dagger}partial_i q$ in geneeral has the form $q^{dagger}partia
            Read more