The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

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

Topic: Intuitive criterion for set size.
Replies: 1   Last Post: Jan 12, 2013 4:32 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Butch Malahide

Posts: 894
Registered: 6/29/05
Re: Intuitive criterion for set size.
Posted: Jan 12, 2013 4:32 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Jan 12, 2:08 am, Zuhair <> wrote:
> For any two sets A,B:
> [1] A is bigger than B iff  |A| > |B| Or A,B are sets of naturals and
> there exist a set C of naturals such that for every element n of C: |
> A(n)| > |B(n)| and |A(n+1)| - |B(n+1)| > |A(n)| -|B(n)|.
> where X(n) = {y| y in X & y <' n};
> <' stands for natural strict smaller than relation;
> | | stands for cardinality defined after Cantor's.

According to this definition, if A and B are *any* sets of naturals,
then A is bigger than B (and B is bigger than A). Perhaps, by "a set C
of naturals", you meant "a nonempty set C of naturals"?

By the way, your condition
"|A(n+1)| - |B(n+1)| > |A(n)| -|B(n)|"
is equivalent to the simpler statement
"n is an element of A but not an element of B".
By saying that this condition holds for every element n of C, you are
in effect saying that C is a subset of A and is disjoint from B, i.e.,
C is a subset of the set difference A\B.

> [2] A is smaller than B iff B is bigger than A.
> [3] A is equinumerous to B iff ~ A bigger than B & ~ A smaller than B.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.