The set is defined as {$(n_1, n_2,...n_k ..) | n_k \in \mathbb{N}$}. What are some approaches to finding and proving the cardinality of this set?
-
3"big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is." – Gerry Myerson Mar 11 '14 at 05:55
-
@GerryMyerson I know it's big, now can you look at my attempt to answer? Thanks – grayQuant Mar 12 '14 at 19:10
-
To clarify: you also want $k\in\mathbb{N}$ here, I presume? (There's not much that keeps someone from talking about 'sequences' indexed by arbitrary ordinals, and since we are talking about infinite cardinalities then it's important to be sure...) – Steven Stadnicki Mar 16 '14 at 17:47
3 Answers
You have $|\mathbb{N}|$ options for as many slots, so $|\mathbb{N}|^{|\mathbb{N}|}$ different sequences.
There are several ways to prove that this is $|\mathbb{R}|$. I'll give one, but try to come up with another (hint, power sets).
Continued Fractions. Given a sequence $a_i$ we can map it to a continued fraction by $f(\{a_i\})=[0;a_1,a_2,\ldots]$. When the sequences are taken over the naturals, this is a bijection with the $(\mathbb{R}-\mathbb{Q})\cap[0,1]$. Since there are only countably many rationals, the irrationals in $[0,1]$ and $[0,1]$ itself have the same cardinality by the properties of cardinal arithmetic. It's well-known that $|[0,1]|=|\mathbb{R}|$, and several proofs are given here.

- 31,155
-
-
1
-
@ Stella Biderman I don't think we can both be right unless |R| = |N| ^ |N|. I'd be pleased if you would look at my answer and comment. – Tom Collinge Mar 13 '14 at 14:03
-
@Tom, the cardinality of the reals does equal the cardinality of ${\bf N}^{\bf N}$. – Gerry Myerson Mar 13 '14 at 23:57
-
@Gerry, thanks for the clarification. I subsequently found references that $|\mathbb{N}|^{|\mathbb{N}|}$ is uncountable but I'd appreciate a reference to a proof that $|\mathbb{N}|^{|\mathbb{N}|}$ = |R| – Tom Collinge Mar 14 '14 at 07:59
-
@GerryMyerson , not that familiar, but I used the lemma that the product of two countably infinite sets is also countably infinite. Does my proof look right, looking to make improvements. – grayQuant Mar 14 '14 at 14:53
-
-
You do not get a bijection from continued fractions: Only irrationals are obtained. This is indeed a bijection between $\mathbb N^{\mathbb N}$ and the set of irrationals in $[0,1]$. (It is in fact a homeomorphism between the two spaces.) – Andrés E. Caicedo Mar 14 '14 at 22:23
-
Ah, true. Thanks for the correction, I was thinking finite sequences were allowed as well. – Stella Biderman Mar 14 '14 at 22:24
-
We do not get a bijection if we allow finite sequences. For example, $1/2=1/(1+1/1)$. (This is the only issue with injectivity.) – Andrés E. Caicedo Mar 14 '14 at 23:00
We call the set of all infinite sequences of natural numbers $E$. Notice that for each infinite sequence in $E$, each term ($n_k$) in the sequence can be mapped to $k\in\mathbb{N}$, hence the cardinality of each infinite sequence is $\aleph_0$. Because $E$ is an infinite set of infinite sequences, the cardinality must be bigger than $\aleph_0$. In fact, $\#E$ can be expressed as $$\#E = \aleph_0^{\aleph_0}.$$ Because $\aleph_0 > 2$, we follow the law of exponents and get
$2^{\aleph_0} \leq \aleph_0^{\aleph_0} \leq \left(2^{\aleph_0}\right)^{\aleph_0} = 2^{\aleph_0 *\aleph_0} = 2^{\aleph_0}.$
Therefore the cardinality of E is: $$\#E = \aleph_0^{\aleph_0} = 2^{\aleph_0}.$$ QED
Note: The above assertion that the exponents $\aleph_0 \times \aleph_0=\aleph_0$ is to recognize the Cartesian product of two countably infinite sets are still countably infinite. The sketch of the proof is as follows: Suppose $A$ and $B$ are both countably infinite, so we can write $A$ and $B$ in list form as $$A = \{a_1, a_2, a_3, \dots \},$$ $$B = \{b_1, b_2, b_3, \dots \},$$ and form a rectangular table with elements $(a_1, b_1), (a_1, b_2), (a_1, b_3),\dots$ in the table. We can process each element in the table diagonally and see each element of $A\times B$ will be listed, therefore $A\times B$ can be expressed in list form, so $A\times B$ is also countably infinite. In other words, we have proved that $$\aleph_0 \times \aleph_0=\aleph_0.$$

- 152

- 2,619
-
Is it ok to not show to injections but arrive at the conclusion of a bijection by showing one injection and on e surjection? – grayQuant Mar 12 '14 at 19:09
-
1The set of positive integer sequences is at least as big as $\mathbb R$, since we can represent real numbers as sequences of digits. Thus $|E|=|\mathbb N|$ can't be true. Your function $F$ is not well defined, what does $F(k)={n_k}$ mean? – Christoph Mar 12 '14 at 19:13
-
-
1
-
@Christoph I see my error.. can you suggest how to find this cardinality? – grayQuant Mar 12 '14 at 20:50
-
-
1
-
1@grayQuant In response to your first question, here is the theorem that allows one to demonstrate that $# A \leq # B \leq # A \implies # A = # B$: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%E2%80%93Bernstein%E2%80%93Schroeder_theorem – Andrew Dudzik Mar 14 '14 at 20:54
An infinite sequence in N can be veiwed (is defined as) a function from N -> N (with domain all of N, i.e. a: N -> N and notate a1 = a(1), a2 = a(2), etc.).
How many different functions are there ?
Each function is a subset of N x N, i.e. an element of P(N x N), so S the set of all functions (sequences) is a subset of P(N x N) and so |S| <= |P(N x N)|.
As there is a bijection between N and N x N then there is a bijection between P(N) and P(N x N) so that |S| <= |P(N x N)| = |P(N)|.
Permutations of N are a subset of possible functions denoted as sym(N), so that |sym(N)| <= |S|. How many permutations are there ? There is a proof (below) that shows an injection from P(N) into sym(N) so that |P(N)| <= |sym(N)| <= |S| <= |P(N)|
So the answer is that |S| = |P(N)|.
Proof P(N) injects into sym(N).
Split N into two infinite subsets N1 and N2 (say even and odd). There is a bijection between them , say f: N1 -> N2.
We can define a mapping g: P(N1) -> sym(N) as follows:
For A ∈ P(N1), p ∈ sym(X) is the permutation p: N -> N as n exchanges with f(n) if n ∈ A, else n is unchanged.
Then g is an injection from P(N1) into sym(N), so that | P(N1)| ≤ |sym(X)|.
But then |N1| = |N|, so that | P(N1)| = | P(N)| and thus |P(N)| ≤ |sym(X)|.

- 7,981
- 25
- 59
-
And since |P(N)| = |R|, the final answer is that the numbr of sequences = |R| – Tom Collinge Mar 13 '14 at 13:38
-
This was helpful, I ended up taking a different approach, take a look? – grayQuant Mar 14 '14 at 14:51
-
I'm glad it helped. Where am I looking for the different approach ? – Tom Collinge Mar 14 '14 at 18:56
-
-
1@grayQuant. Thanks: it's probably OK, but I'm not very comfortable yet myself with cardinal arithmetic. – Tom Collinge Mar 14 '14 at 20:59