Mixing
Is there any “reasonable” definition of cardinality which agrees with the standard definition on finite...
$begingroup$
Sometimes I talk about math to my friends, and some (with an engineering background) aren't used to the idea that in math, we have to define stuff. For example, they may not be used to the idea that $sum_{n=0}^{infty} a_n$ doesn't have an a priori meaning.
To get the point across, I would like to have an example to give these friends about infinite sets. Under the standard (and very natural) definition, we say that two sets have the same cardinality if they can be put into a bijection to one another. Is there any other reasonable sounding definition of cardinality which still says that (for example) ${a, b, c}$ has $3$ elements, but says that (for example) $mathbb{N}$ and $mathbb{Q}$ have different cardinalities?
soft-question set-theory
edited Jan 6 at 15:57
Noble Mushtak
15.2k1835
asked Jan 6 at 15:45
OviOvi
12.4k1038112
$endgroup$
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
Sometimes I talk about math to my friends, and some (with an engineering background) aren't used to the idea that in math, we have to define stuff. For example, they may not be used to the idea that $sum_{n=0}^{infty} a_n$ doesn't have an a priori meaning.
To get the point across, I would like to have an example to give these friends about infinite sets. Under the standard (and very natural) definition, we say that two sets have the same cardinality if they can be put into a bijection to one another. Is there any other reasonable sounding definition of cardinality which still says that (for example) ${a, b, c}$ has $3$ elements, but says that (for example) $mathbb{N}$ and $mathbb{Q}$ have different cardinalities?
soft-question set-theory
edited Jan 6 at 15:57
Noble Mushtak
15.2k1835
asked Jan 6 at 15:45
OviOvi
12.4k1038112
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
"Reasonable" is a subjective thing. What sounds reasonable to you might not to me.
$endgroup$
– Robert Israel
Jan 6 at 15:48
$begingroup$
@RobertIsrael Of course; perhaps I should've tagged it as a soft question. But I hope that approximately everyone will approximately agree on what is approximately reasonable.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jan 6 at 15:50
$begingroup$
I feel like the concept you are trying to demonstrate is much easier to do with series rather than the cardinality of sets. For example, $sum_{n=0}^infty (-1)^n$ is not a convergent sum if you define convergence as the limit of the partial sums, but does converge under the Cesaro sum, which is the limit as $ntoinfty$ of the arithmetic mean of the first $n$ partial sums. This shows how, although both of these definitions of convergence are somewhat reasonable, they lead to very different results.
$endgroup$
– Noble Mushtak
Jan 6 at 16:04
$begingroup$
@NobleMushtak Yes. But I'm also curious for myself if there are any other alternative definitions for cardinality out there.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jan 6 at 16:12
1
$begingroup$
Also, math.stackexchange.com/a/40318/622 math.stackexchange.com/a/125428/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/596028/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/168258/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/242057/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/1589887/622 and there are probably quite a few more of these roaming around here.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 6 at 22:10
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
Sometimes I talk about math to my friends, and some (with an engineering background) aren't used to the idea that in math, we have to define stuff. For example, they may not be used to the idea that $sum_{n=0}^{infty} a_n$ doesn't have an a priori meaning.
To get the point across, I would like to have an example to give these friends about infinite sets. Under the standard (and very natural) definition, we say that two sets have the same cardinality if they can be put into a bijection to one another. Is there any other reasonable sounding definition of cardinality which still says that (for example) ${a, b, c}$ has $3$ elements, but says that (for example) $mathbb{N}$ and $mathbb{Q}$ have different cardinalities?
soft-question set-theory
edited Jan 6 at 15:57
Noble Mushtak
15.2k1835
asked Jan 6 at 15:45
OviOvi
12.4k1038112
$endgroup$
Sometimes I talk about math to my friends, and some (with an engineering background) aren't used to the idea that in math, we have to define stuff. For example, they may not be used to the idea that $sum_{n=0}^{infty} a_n$ doesn't have an a priori meaning.
To get the point across, I would like to have an example to give these friends about infinite sets. Under the standard (and very natural) definition, we say that two sets have the same cardinality if they can be put into a bijection to one another. Is there any other reasonable sounding definition of cardinality which still says that (for example) ${a, b, c}$ has $3$ elements, but says that (for example) $mathbb{N}$ and $mathbb{Q}$ have different cardinalities?
soft-question set-theory
soft-question set-theory
edited Jan 6 at 15:57
Noble Mushtak
15.2k1835
asked Jan 6 at 15:45
OviOvi
12.4k1038112
edited Jan 6 at 15:57
Noble Mushtak
15.2k1835
asked Jan 6 at 15:45
OviOvi
12.4k1038112
edited Jan 6 at 15:57
Noble Mushtak
15.2k1835
edited Jan 6 at 15:57
Noble Mushtak
15.2k1835
edited Jan 6 at 15:57
Noble Mushtak
15.2k1835
15.2k1835
asked Jan 6 at 15:45
OviOvi
12.4k1038112
asked Jan 6 at 15:45
OviOvi
12.4k1038112
asked Jan 6 at 15:45
OviOvi
12.4k1038112
12.4k1038112
$begingroup$
"Reasonable" is a subjective thing. What sounds reasonable to you might not to me.
$endgroup$
– Robert Israel
Jan 6 at 15:48
$begingroup$
@RobertIsrael Of course; perhaps I should've tagged it as a soft question. But I hope that approximately everyone will approximately agree on what is approximately reasonable.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jan 6 at 15:50
$begingroup$
I feel like the concept you are trying to demonstrate is much easier to do with series rather than the cardinality of sets. For example, $sum_{n=0}^infty (-1)^n$ is not a convergent sum if you define convergence as the limit of the partial sums, but does converge under the Cesaro sum, which is the limit as $ntoinfty$ of the arithmetic mean of the first $n$ partial sums. This shows how, although both of these definitions of convergence are somewhat reasonable, they lead to very different results.
$endgroup$
– Noble Mushtak
Jan 6 at 16:04
$begingroup$
@NobleMushtak Yes. But I'm also curious for myself if there are any other alternative definitions for cardinality out there.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jan 6 at 16:12
1
$begingroup$
Also, math.stackexchange.com/a/40318/622 math.stackexchange.com/a/125428/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/596028/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/168258/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/242057/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/1589887/622 and there are probably quite a few more of these roaming around here.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 6 at 22:10
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
"Reasonable" is a subjective thing. What sounds reasonable to you might not to me.
$endgroup$
– Robert Israel
Jan 6 at 15:48
$begingroup$
@RobertIsrael Of course; perhaps I should've tagged it as a soft question. But I hope that approximately everyone will approximately agree on what is approximately reasonable.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jan 6 at 15:50
$begingroup$
I feel like the concept you are trying to demonstrate is much easier to do with series rather than the cardinality of sets. For example, $sum_{n=0}^infty (-1)^n$ is not a convergent sum if you define convergence as the limit of the partial sums, but does converge under the Cesaro sum, which is the limit as $ntoinfty$ of the arithmetic mean of the first $n$ partial sums. This shows how, although both of these definitions of convergence are somewhat reasonable, they lead to very different results.
$endgroup$
– Noble Mushtak
Jan 6 at 16:04
$begingroup$
@NobleMushtak Yes. But I'm also curious for myself if there are any other alternative definitions for cardinality out there.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jan 6 at 16:12
1
$begingroup$
Also, math.stackexchange.com/a/40318/622 math.stackexchange.com/a/125428/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/596028/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/168258/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/242057/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/1589887/622 and there are probably quite a few more of these roaming around here.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 6 at 22:10
$begingroup$
"Reasonable" is a subjective thing. What sounds reasonable to you might not to me.
$endgroup$
– Robert Israel
Jan 6 at 15:48
$begingroup$
"Reasonable" is a subjective thing. What sounds reasonable to you might not to me.
$endgroup$
– Robert Israel
Jan 6 at 15:48
$begingroup$
@RobertIsrael Of course; perhaps I should've tagged it as a soft question. But I hope that approximately everyone will approximately agree on what is approximately reasonable.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jan 6 at 15:50
$begingroup$
@RobertIsrael Of course; perhaps I should've tagged it as a soft question. But I hope that approximately everyone will approximately agree on what is approximately reasonable.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jan 6 at 15:50
$begingroup$
I feel like the concept you are trying to demonstrate is much easier to do with series rather than the cardinality of sets. For example, $sum_{n=0}^infty (-1)^n$ is not a convergent sum if you define convergence as the limit of the partial sums, but does converge under the Cesaro sum, which is the limit as $ntoinfty$ of the arithmetic mean of the first $n$ partial sums. This shows how, although both of these definitions of convergence are somewhat reasonable, they lead to very different results.
$endgroup$
– Noble Mushtak
Jan 6 at 16:04
$begingroup$
I feel like the concept you are trying to demonstrate is much easier to do with series rather than the cardinality of sets. For example, $sum_{n=0}^infty (-1)^n$ is not a convergent sum if you define convergence as the limit of the partial sums, but does converge under the Cesaro sum, which is the limit as $ntoinfty$ of the arithmetic mean of the first $n$ partial sums. This shows how, although both of these definitions of convergence are somewhat reasonable, they lead to very different results.
$endgroup$
– Noble Mushtak
Jan 6 at 16:04
$begingroup$
@NobleMushtak Yes. But I'm also curious for myself if there are any other alternative definitions for cardinality out there.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jan 6 at 16:12
$begingroup$
@NobleMushtak Yes. But I'm also curious for myself if there are any other alternative definitions for cardinality out there.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jan 6 at 16:12
1
1
$begingroup$
Also, math.stackexchange.com/a/40318/622 math.stackexchange.com/a/125428/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/596028/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/168258/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/242057/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/1589887/622 and there are probably quite a few more of these roaming around here.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 6 at 22:10
$begingroup$
Also, math.stackexchange.com/a/40318/622 math.stackexchange.com/a/125428/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/596028/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/168258/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/242057/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/1589887/622 and there are probably quite a few more of these roaming around here.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 6 at 22:10
|
show 7 more comments
0
active
oldest
votes
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3064017%2fis-there-any-reasonable-definition-of-cardinality-which-agrees-with-the-standa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3064017%2fis-there-any-reasonable-definition-of-cardinality-which-agrees-with-the-standa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
$begingroup$
"Reasonable" is a subjective thing. What sounds reasonable to you might not to me.
$endgroup$
– Robert Israel
Jan 6 at 15:48
$begingroup$
@RobertIsrael Of course; perhaps I should've tagged it as a soft question. But I hope that approximately everyone will approximately agree on what is approximately reasonable.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jan 6 at 15:50
$begingroup$
I feel like the concept you are trying to demonstrate is much easier to do with series rather than the cardinality of sets. For example, $sum_{n=0}^infty (-1)^n$ is not a convergent sum if you define convergence as the limit of the partial sums, but does converge under the Cesaro sum, which is the limit as $ntoinfty$ of the arithmetic mean of the first $n$ partial sums. This shows how, although both of these definitions of convergence are somewhat reasonable, they lead to very different results.
$endgroup$
– Noble Mushtak
Jan 6 at 16:04
$begingroup$
@NobleMushtak Yes. But I'm also curious for myself if there are any other alternative definitions for cardinality out there.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jan 6 at 16:12
1
$begingroup$
Also, math.stackexchange.com/a/40318/622 math.stackexchange.com/a/125428/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/596028/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/168258/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/242057/622 math.stackexchange.com/q/1589887/622 and there are probably quite a few more of these roaming around here.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 6 at 22:10