Does there exist an infinite set of cardinality such that it can never be reached by taking power sets of a set with cardinality aleph-null. Please prove your answer, or include a link to a proof. I apologize for any excessively loose terminology, I am new to this subject of different infinities.
-
Do you know about taking powersets? – May 23 '14 at 01:11
-
So many duplicates, I don't know which one to choose from! :( – Asaf Karagila May 23 '14 at 01:13
-
There is no limit. Given any collection of sets, the power set of its union is a set of size strictly larger than that of all sets in the collection. Of course, we can always say that the class of all ordinals is the limit, or something silly like that. – Andrés E. Caicedo May 23 '14 at 01:13
-
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/linked/5378 – Asaf Karagila May 23 '14 at 01:14
-
@AndresCaicedo: that argument does not exactly hold when it comes to natural numbers and the successor function: certainly the successor of a number is greater than itself, and yet infinity is still the limit approached. – Platonix May 23 '14 at 01:18
-
@vadim123: I looked over that question, there was interesting information, but not the answer to my question. – Platonix May 23 '14 at 01:21
-
@AsafKaragila: I've looked over multiple questions and not found the answer to my exact question (though many related questions). If you have a more specific link, I would appreciate it. – Platonix May 23 '14 at 01:23
-
@Platonix Not sure what argument you are referring to. What I wrote is correct. – Andrés E. Caicedo May 23 '14 at 01:54
-
@AndresCaicedo What you say is true, but does not answer my question, I realize you can take the power set as many times as you like, but you can also take the successor of a natural number till the cows come home, it doesn't change the fact that the natural numbers have a limit of infinity. So do the varies levels of infinity have a limit point? – Platonix May 23 '14 at 02:00
-
@Platonix Ah, so you did not understand what I said. OK, then. – Andrés E. Caicedo May 23 '14 at 02:01
-
@AndresCaicedo Very likely: I am new to this subject, is there an easy explanation or link you can give me to help me understand what you are saying? – Platonix May 23 '14 at 02:05
-
Here. – Andrés E. Caicedo May 23 '14 at 02:06
-
@Conifold: Do not change the title so drastically. You changed the question completely by doing so. – Andrés E. Caicedo May 23 '14 at 02:47
-
Hey, so depending on the context, this is not as simple of a question as everyone seems to be arguing it is, just answered by different sizes of infinity. This reminds me of the more complicated concept of inaccessible and limit cardinals. – jxnh May 23 '14 at 02:53
-
OK, this is substantially different than what you asked about first, and I've voted to reopen. The answer is yes. The smallest such cardinal is $\beth_\omega$, this is the size of the set that results from taking the union of the set ${\mathbb N,\mathcal P(\mathbb N),\mathcal P^2(\mathbb N),\dots}$. If your question is about something different than this interpretation, please further clarify. – Andrés E. Caicedo May 24 '14 at 22:44
-
@AndresCaicedo YES!!! I'm glad I finally managed to ask my question properly! Do you have a link to a proof that these cardinals exist? – Platonix May 25 '14 at 01:18
-
(I have posted a request on meta for the question to be re-opened.) – Andrés E. Caicedo May 25 '14 at 02:12
-
I voted to reopen, but the new question is also a duplicate. http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/666469/are-there-any-infinites-not-from-a-powerset-of-the-natural-numbers – Asaf Karagila May 25 '14 at 03:24
-
There are possibly better phrased duplicates, but the one above kinda works. – Asaf Karagila May 25 '14 at 03:32
1 Answers
The answer to the question in the title is no: There is no highest cardinality: Given any set, its power set is always larger. In fact, given any collection $I$ of sets, if we take their union and then the power set of the result, we get a set of cardinality larger than that of any set in $I$.
The answer to the question in the body is yes: We need a definition. The hierarchy of beth ($\beth$) numbers is defined by transfinite recursion: First, $\beth_0=\aleph_0$ is the size of the natural numbers. Given $\beth_\alpha$, we define $\beth_{\alpha+1}$ as the size of its power set. Finally, given a limit ordinal $\lambda$, we define $\beth_\lambda$ as the supremum of the $\beth_\beta$ for $\beta<\alpha$, that is, as the size of the union of the set $\{\beth_\beta\mid \beta<\alpha\}$. (Here I am identifying cardinals with sets of ordinals, so for any cardinal $\kappa$, the set $\kappa$ itself has indeed cardinality $\kappa$.) For example, $\omega=\omega_0$ is the smallest (infinite) limit ordinal, and $\beth_\omega=\sup\{\beth_n\mid n\in\mathbb N\}=\bigcup_n\beth_n$.
In terms of this hierarchy, a set has size that cannot be reached by taking repeated power sets of $\mathbb N$ iff its cardinality is $\beth_\omega$ or larger: A set has size not reachable by taking repeated power sets of $\mathbb N$ iff its size is larger than $\beth_0=|\mathbb N|$, $\beth_1=|\mathcal P(\mathbb N)|$, $\beth_2=|\mathcal P(\mathcal P(\mathbb N))|$, etc, that is, iff its size is at least the supremum of the $\beth_n$ (which is precisely what $\beth_\omega$ is). Of course, any larger cardinality (such as $\beth_\omega^+$, $\beth_{\omega+1}$, etc.) is not reached either.
The proof that sets of this size exist requires a modicum of attention: By the axiom of replacement, we can show that the set $\{\beth_n\mid n\in\mathbb N\}$ exists, since this is the image of $\mathbb N$ under the definable map $n\mapsto|\mathcal P^n(\mathbb N)|$. The union axiom ensures now that $\bigcup_n \beth_n$ exists, and this is exactly $\beth_\omega$. The use of replacement is essential, since $V_{\omega+\omega}$ is a model of the theory $\mathsf{ZC}$, Zermelo-Fraenkel without replacement, and in this model any set has size bounded by some iterated power set $\mathcal P^n(\mathbb N)$.
Just about any standard text in set theory should have a proof of this result. I suggest Moschovakis's Notes on set theory. The book also discusses the cumulative hierarchy of the $V_\alpha$, to which the set $V_{\omega+\omega}$ of the previous paragraph belongs. This hierarchy is defined by setting $V_0=\emptyset$, $V_{\alpha+1}=\mathcal P(V_\alpha)$ for all ordinals $\alpha$, and $V_\lambda=\bigcup_{\beta<\lambda}V_\beta$ for all limit ordinals $\lambda$.
Of course, we could change the question and allow instead transfinite iterations of the power set function, so we look not just at $\mathbb N,\mathcal P(\mathbb N),\dots,\mathcal P^n(\mathbb N),\dots$, but we continue the sequence by looking at $\mathcal P^\omega(\mathbb N)=\bigcup_n\mathcal P^n(\mathbb N), \mathcal P^{\omega+1}(\mathbb N)=\mathcal P(\mathcal P^\omega(\mathbb N)),\dots,\mathcal P^\alpha(\mathbb N),\dots$ where the sequence extends over all ordinals $\alpha$. Now the answer to the question is again no: Note that $|\mathcal P^\alpha(\mathbb N)|=\beth_\alpha$. Any set has size bounded by some $\beth_\alpha$. Again, any standard text should explain why this is the case.

- 79,201