Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Nathan counts the powerset
Replies: 144   Last Post: Jan 26, 1999 9:26 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 David C. Ullrich Posts: 21,553 Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Nathan counts the powerset
Posted: Dec 28, 1998 2:53 PM

In article <36873940.25248175@news.vsat.net>,
> On Thu, 24 Dec 1998 20:14:01 GMT, ullrich@math.okstate.edu wrote:
>

> >In article <368253D9.30DF6D70@ashland.baysat.net>,
> > Mike Deeth <mad@ashland.baysat.net> wrote:

> >>
> >[...]
> >> Here are ten easy questions requiring yes/no answers. I think I'll learn
alot
> >from your
> >>
> >> Part I Questions: (see table below)
> >> ===================================
> >> (1) Is there a bijection between the natural numbers and the set of natural

> >numbers?
> >
> > If it has to be yes or no the answer is no. But that's like asking
> >yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife, or yes or no, have you
> >stopped posting stupid messages on sci.math. A much better answer is to
> >say the question makes no sense. Here's why:
> >
> > We talk about a bijection between two _sets_, not a bijection
> >between two tomatoes or a bijection between a number and a porcupine.
> >When people talk about "a bijection between the natural numbers
> >and..." they really mean "a bijection between the set of natural
> >numebrs and..." - we all (usually) understand that's what's meant.
> > So the question "(1) Is there a bijection between the natural
> >numbers and the set of natural numbers?" doesn't _really_ make any
> >sets. People talk this way all the time, but if we take your
> >question and use the standard translation into precise language
> >the question becomes
> >
> >"(1') Is there a bijection between the set of natural numbers and the
> >set of natural numbers?"
> >
> >Now, the answer to _that_ question is obviously yes. But that
> >question is also obviously not what you really meant to ask,
> >so it doesn't seem too relevant.
> >

>
> >"(1') Is there a bijection between the set of natural numbers and the set of
natural numbers?"
> >
> >Now, the answer to _that_ question is obviously yes. But that question is

also obviously not what you really meant to ask, >so it doesn't seem too
relevant.
> >
>
> No! That *is* the question I intended. And it *is* extreemly
> relevant. So let me repeat the answer: "there is a bijection between
> a set of ALL natural numbers and a set of ALL natural numbers."
>
> Am I going too fast? Have I lost you? Are my ideas too complicated?
> ;-)

You should _really_ get your facts straight before making
such an ass of yourself over and over. You insist you _really_

"Is there a bijection between the set of natural numbers and the
set of natural numbers?"

??? That's an extremely stupid question (I'm still certain it's
not the question you intended.) The _identity_ function, defined
by the formula f(n) = n, is a bijection between the set of
natural numbers and the set of natural numbers.

Saying

"there is a bijection between
a set of ALL natural numbers and a set of ALL natural numbers."

sounds very very strange, because of the "a". There's only one
"set of all natural numbers".

> Is there just one set of natural numbers, or can there be more? ie. A
> complete set of *red* natural numbers and a complete set of *blue*
> natural numbers? To answer this question we need to examine Peano's 5
> axioms.
>
> 1) There is a first Natural Number.
> 2) Every Natural Number has a successor. (This is what counting is
> 3) The First Natural Number is not the successor of any other
> Natural Number. (Counting does not go in circles.)
> 4) Two natural numbers which have the same successor, ARE the same.
> (No branching.)
> 5) If you have a set of Natural Numbers, including the first number,
> and including the successor of every number already in the set, then
> you have ALL the natural numbers. (Axiom of Induction.)

Actually these are not Peano's axioms. The axioms don't
say anything about "Natural Numbers" per se, they're purely logical
axioms. Which happen to be true of the natural numbers, as well as
of various other constructs.

> Notice that none of the axioms prohibit the existance of more than one
> set of ALL Natural Numbers.

Nor does this fact imply there _is_ more than one set
of all Natural Numbers.

> Below are some examples of Natural Numbering systems conforming to
> Peano's 5 axioms. Each system looks differant but, in fact, they are
> isomorphic (mathematically identical).

You don't need to keep explaining what the word "isomorphic"
means. Yes, these systems are all isomorphic to N. SO WHAT?
The existence of several things isomorphic to N does not imply
that N itself IS more than one thing.

>
> Is the Powerset of ALL the Natural Numbers countable? In other words,
> can Peano's Naturals be put in bijection with the Powerset of Peano's
> Naturals? In fact, the Powerset of ALL the Natural Numbers satisfies
> all 5 of Peano's axioms. Therefor the Powerset of ALL Natural Numbers
> *is* the set of ALL Natural Numbers. (aka Peano's naturals) It is
> also known (obviously) that the set of ALL Natural Numbers can be in
> bijection with the set of ALL Natural Numbers. Therefor, the the
> Powerset of Peano's Naturals is denumerable (can be put into bijection
> with the Natural Numbers). Could anything be simpler than that? :-)

This is sheer nonsense. The powerset satisfies Peano's
axioms? It's nonsense formally, it's also false. It's meaningless
gibberish formally: a _set_ cannot _possibly_ satisfy those axioms,
what may orr may not satisfy the axioms is a set together with a
"successor" function defined on that set. To make sense of what
you said you need to say

"the power set of N satisfies Peano's Axioms, where we define the
successor of a set A by the formula S(A) = ____________"

How _do_ you define the "successor" of a set of natural numbers?

> Nathaniel Deeth
> Age 11
>
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

Date Subject Author
12/20/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/20/98 Ulrich Weigand
12/20/98 Bob Street
12/20/98 Ulrich Weigand
12/22/98 Bob Street
12/22/98 Ulrich Weigand
12/21/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/21/98 Ulrich Weigand
12/24/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/24/98 Dik T. Winter
12/25/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/26/98 Dik T. Winter
12/27/98 jsavard@ecn.ab.ca
12/28/98 Math Icon
12/28/98 David C. Ullrich
12/25/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/21/98 graham_fyffe@hotmail.com
12/22/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/24/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/21/98 David C. Ullrich
12/22/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/22/98 Bob Street
12/23/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/24/98 Bob Street
12/25/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/25/98 Bob Street
12/26/98 Bob Street
12/24/98 Bob Street
12/24/98 Virgil Hancher
12/25/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/27/98 jsavard@ecn.ab.ca
12/28/98 Robert Harrison
12/22/98 Bob Street
12/22/98 Ulrich Weigand
12/23/98 David C. Ullrich
12/24/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/24/98 Bob Street
12/25/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/24/98 David C. Ullrich
12/24/98 Bob Street
12/25/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/25/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/25/98 Bob Street
12/25/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/25/98 Arturo Magidin
12/26/98 Bob Street
12/27/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/27/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/28/98 Arturo Magidin
12/28/98 Bob Street
12/30/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/30/98 Bob Street
12/30/98 Matt Brubeck
12/30/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/30/98 Bob Street
12/31/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/31/98 Bob Street
12/31/98 modern life is rubbish
1/3/99 Nathaniel Deeth
1/1/99 standebj@SLU.EDU
1/3/99 Nathaniel Deeth
1/5/99 Bob Street
12/26/98 David C. Ullrich
12/27/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/28/98 Math Icon
12/28/98 David C. Ullrich
12/25/98 Robert Harrison
12/25/98 Robert Harrison
12/26/98 David C. Ullrich
12/26/98 David C. Ullrich
12/26/98 David C. Ullrich
12/26/98 Bob Street
12/27/98 jsavard@ecn.ab.ca
12/28/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/28/98 Ronald Bruck
12/28/98 feldmann4350@my-dejanews.com
12/29/98 John Savard
12/30/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/31/98 Bob Street
12/31/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/31/98 John Savard
12/31/98 Planar
1/2/99 Bob Street
1/3/99 Nathaniel Deeth
1/5/99 Bob Street
1/3/99 Nathaniel Deeth
1/26/99 Clothes Rod
12/31/98 Planar
1/3/99 Nathaniel Deeth
1/3/99 David C. Ullrich
1/4/99 Bob Street
1/4/99 John Savard
12/31/98 John Savard
1/3/99 Nathaniel Deeth
1/3/99 standebj@SLU.EDU
1/4/99 John Savard
12/31/98 Dave Seaman
1/3/99 Nathaniel Deeth
1/3/99 Ian Storey
1/4/99 Dave Seaman
12/31/98 John Savard
1/3/99 Nathaniel Deeth
1/4/99 John Savard
12/28/98 Bob Street
12/21/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/21/98 Ulrich Weigand
12/22/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/22/98 Ulrich Weigand
12/24/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/24/98 David C. Ullrich
12/28/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/28/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/28/98 David C. Ullrich
12/30/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/31/98 David C. Ullrich
1/1/99 standebj@SLU.EDU
1/3/99 Nathaniel Deeth
1/3/99 standebj@SLU.EDU
12/24/98 Ulrich Weigand
12/28/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/20/98 David C. Ullrich
12/21/98 Kirby Cook
12/21/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/21/98 John Starrett
12/21/98 Kirby Cook
12/21/98 John Savard
12/21/98 Jeremy Boden
12/21/98 John Savard
12/22/98 Nathaniel Deeth
12/22/98 Bob Street
12/22/98 John Savard
12/21/98 Barrie Snell
12/22/98 David C. Ullrich
12/23/98 Barrie Snell
12/22/98 Bob Street
12/22/98 zenevsky@wwa.com
12/23/98 Bob Street
12/22/98 John Starrett
12/22/98 Jeremy Boden
12/22/98 Jeremy Boden
12/23/98 Jeremy Boden
12/24/98 David C. Ullrich
12/24/98 John Starrett
12/30/98 Jeremy Boden
12/31/98 brian tivol