Cardinality of the set of all real functions of real variable
up vote
35
down vote
favorite
How does one compute the cardinality of the set of functions $f:mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ (not necessarily continuous)?
elementary-set-theory cardinals
add a comment |
up vote
35
down vote
favorite
How does one compute the cardinality of the set of functions $f:mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ (not necessarily continuous)?
elementary-set-theory cardinals
You have used the assumption that the Cardinality of power set of R is equal to the Cardinality of functions from real to {0,1}. How to we prove that as well?
– user39246
Sep 2 '12 at 10:59
@krishnanem: Please ask new questions in a new thread, rather than as an answer to a previous question. Furthermore, this question was asked and answered several times before.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Sep 2 '12 at 11:17
@AsafKaragila: I have moved this non-answer to a comment so that krishnanem can pose it as a new question and can read your comment.
– robjohn♦
Sep 2 '12 at 20:39
@robjohn: I think Michael's comment would have been a more suitable choice over mine.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Sep 2 '12 at 21:44
@AsafKaragila: The point is to have krishnanem post the comment as a new question. Your comment solely addresses that point. Michael's also addresses the misplaced question and might encourage a reply.
– robjohn♦
Sep 3 '12 at 3:18
add a comment |
up vote
35
down vote
favorite
up vote
35
down vote
favorite
How does one compute the cardinality of the set of functions $f:mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ (not necessarily continuous)?
elementary-set-theory cardinals
How does one compute the cardinality of the set of functions $f:mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ (not necessarily continuous)?
elementary-set-theory cardinals
elementary-set-theory cardinals
edited Sep 2 '12 at 11:05
Asaf Karagila♦
301k32422752
301k32422752
asked Jan 17 '11 at 23:26
Benji
2,11631823
2,11631823
You have used the assumption that the Cardinality of power set of R is equal to the Cardinality of functions from real to {0,1}. How to we prove that as well?
– user39246
Sep 2 '12 at 10:59
@krishnanem: Please ask new questions in a new thread, rather than as an answer to a previous question. Furthermore, this question was asked and answered several times before.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Sep 2 '12 at 11:17
@AsafKaragila: I have moved this non-answer to a comment so that krishnanem can pose it as a new question and can read your comment.
– robjohn♦
Sep 2 '12 at 20:39
@robjohn: I think Michael's comment would have been a more suitable choice over mine.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Sep 2 '12 at 21:44
@AsafKaragila: The point is to have krishnanem post the comment as a new question. Your comment solely addresses that point. Michael's also addresses the misplaced question and might encourage a reply.
– robjohn♦
Sep 3 '12 at 3:18
add a comment |
You have used the assumption that the Cardinality of power set of R is equal to the Cardinality of functions from real to {0,1}. How to we prove that as well?
– user39246
Sep 2 '12 at 10:59
@krishnanem: Please ask new questions in a new thread, rather than as an answer to a previous question. Furthermore, this question was asked and answered several times before.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Sep 2 '12 at 11:17
@AsafKaragila: I have moved this non-answer to a comment so that krishnanem can pose it as a new question and can read your comment.
– robjohn♦
Sep 2 '12 at 20:39
@robjohn: I think Michael's comment would have been a more suitable choice over mine.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Sep 2 '12 at 21:44
@AsafKaragila: The point is to have krishnanem post the comment as a new question. Your comment solely addresses that point. Michael's also addresses the misplaced question and might encourage a reply.
– robjohn♦
Sep 3 '12 at 3:18
You have used the assumption that the Cardinality of power set of R is equal to the Cardinality of functions from real to {0,1}. How to we prove that as well?
– user39246
Sep 2 '12 at 10:59
You have used the assumption that the Cardinality of power set of R is equal to the Cardinality of functions from real to {0,1}. How to we prove that as well?
– user39246
Sep 2 '12 at 10:59
@krishnanem: Please ask new questions in a new thread, rather than as an answer to a previous question. Furthermore, this question was asked and answered several times before.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Sep 2 '12 at 11:17
@krishnanem: Please ask new questions in a new thread, rather than as an answer to a previous question. Furthermore, this question was asked and answered several times before.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Sep 2 '12 at 11:17
@AsafKaragila: I have moved this non-answer to a comment so that krishnanem can pose it as a new question and can read your comment.
– robjohn♦
Sep 2 '12 at 20:39
@AsafKaragila: I have moved this non-answer to a comment so that krishnanem can pose it as a new question and can read your comment.
– robjohn♦
Sep 2 '12 at 20:39
@robjohn: I think Michael's comment would have been a more suitable choice over mine.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Sep 2 '12 at 21:44
@robjohn: I think Michael's comment would have been a more suitable choice over mine.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Sep 2 '12 at 21:44
@AsafKaragila: The point is to have krishnanem post the comment as a new question. Your comment solely addresses that point. Michael's also addresses the misplaced question and might encourage a reply.
– robjohn♦
Sep 3 '12 at 3:18
@AsafKaragila: The point is to have krishnanem post the comment as a new question. Your comment solely addresses that point. Michael's also addresses the misplaced question and might encourage a reply.
– robjohn♦
Sep 3 '12 at 3:18
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
37
down vote
accepted
All you need is a few basics of cardinal arithmetic: if $kappa$ and $lambda$ are cardinals, none of them zero, and at least one of them is infinite, then $kappa+lambda = kappalambda = max{kappa,lambda}$. And cardinal exponentiation satisfies some of the same laws as regular exponentiation; in particular, $(kappa^{lambda})^{nu} = kappa^{lambdanu}$.
The cardinality of the set of all real functions is then
$$|mathbb{R}|^{|mathbb{R}|} =mathfrak{c}^{mathfrak{c}} = (2^{aleph_0})^{2^{aleph_0}} = 2^{aleph_02^{aleph_0}} = 2^{2^{aleph_0}} = 2^{mathfrak{c}}.$$
In other words, it is equal to the cardinality of the power set of $mathbb{R}$.
With a few extra facts, you can get more. In general, if $kappa$ is an infinite cardinal, and $2leqlambdaleqkappa$, then $lambda^{kappa}=2^{kappa}$. This follows because:
$$2^{kappa} leq lambda^{kappa} leq (2^{lambda})^{kappa} = 2^{lambdakappa} = 2^{kappa},$$
so you get equality throughout. The extra information you need for this is to know that if $kappa$, $lambda$, and $nu$ are nonzero cardinals, $kappaleqlambda$, then $kappa^{nu}leq lambda^{nu}$.
In particular, for any infinite cardinal $kappa$ you have $kappa^{kappa} = 2^{kappa}$.
add a comment |
up vote
29
down vote
I guess that you know that $|mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}|$ and thus $|mathbb{R}| = |2^{mathbb{N}}| = |2^{mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}}| = |2^mathbb{N}times 2^mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}|$
This means that $|P(mathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|$. Since $fcolonmathbb{R}tomathbb{R}$ is an element of $P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})$ you have that $mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}$ (all the functions from $mathbb{R}$ to itself) is of cardinality less or equal to the one of $P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})$ which in turn means that $|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}|le |P(mathbb{R})|$.
Now, since $|P(mathbb{R})| = |2^mathbb{R}|$ which is the set of all functions from $mathbb{R}$ to ${0,1}$, and clearly every function from $mathbb{R}$ into ${0,1}$ is in particular a function from $mathbb{R}$ into itself, we have:
$$|P(mathbb{R})| = |2^mathbb{R}| le |mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R})|$$
So all in all we have that $|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| = |P(mathbb{R})| = |2^mathbb{R}|$.
2
Did you mean $|P(mathbb{R})|$ at the end of your second paragraph?
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 17 '11 at 23:51
2
@AsafKaraglia: Could you please detail how and why $|mathbb{R}| = |mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}|$ and $ mathbb{R} neq mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R} $ $Longrightarrow |P(mathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|$? I made an incidental edits which I hope will help and referenced math.stackexchange.com/questions/29366/….
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 7 '13 at 1:10
1
@LePressentiment: Don't add color to my posts. Thank you.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 7 '13 at 5:36
2
@AsafKaragila: No problem at all. I'll post my edition separately below. In your previous version (rollback) above, you write that $mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}$ = all the functions from $mathbb{R}$ to itself. Should this be the set of all such functions? Also, will you please to let me know of my previous comment, preceding your comment?
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 7 '13 at 9:48
@LePressentiment: I don't know what you mean by that. $|A|=|B|$ implies that $|mathcal P(A)|=|mathcal P(B)|$. That's a simple exercise in the definition of cardinalities. And yes $A^B$ is the set of all functions from $B$ into $A$, although it is sometimes denoted by ${}^BA$.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 7 '13 at 10:02
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
This answer is based on, but differs slightly from, user Asaf Karaglia's above.
First, observe that by definition, ${text{all real functions of real variable}}:= {f: ; f: mathbb{R}tomathbb{R}} := mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}$.
The question is about $|{text{all real functions of real variable}}|$, so examine an arbitrary real function of real variable: $f,colon,mathbb{R}tomathbb{R}.$
By inspection, $f,colon,mathbb{R}tomathbb{R} := {(r, f(r)) : r in mathbb{R}} quad subseteq quad P(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R})$.
Thus, $color{green}{|mathbb{R}^{mathbb{R}}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|}$.
Before continuing, let's try to simplify $|P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|$. Observe that $|mathbb{R}| = |mathbb{R}^k| , forall , k in mathbb{N}$. Its proof by mathematical induction requires the induction hypothesis of $|mathbb{R}| = |mathbb{R}^2|$, one proof of which is : $|mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}| implies |mathbb{R}| = |2^{mathbb{N}}| = |2^{mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}}| = |2^mathbb{N}times 2^mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}|$.
Verily, $mathbb{R} neq mathbb{R}^2$. Howbeit, for infinite sets $A,B$: $|A| = |B| Longrightarrow require{cancel} cancel{Longleftarrow} |P(A)| = |P(B)|$.
(The converse is discussed here.)
Thus, $|P(mathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})| implies color{green}{|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|} = |P(mathbb{R})|$. Now scrutinise $|P(mathbb{R})|$:
● $color{#A9057D}{|P(mathbb{R})| = |2^{mathbb{R}}|}$, where $2^{mathbb{R}} := {f : ; f: mathbb{R} to {0,1}}$,
● Every $f: mathbb{R} to {0,1}$ is a particular case of a function from $mathbb{R}$ to $mathbb{R}$, thus $color{#EC5021}{2^{mathbb{R}} subsetneq mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}}$.
Altogether, $color{#A9057D}{|P(mathbb{R})| =} color{#EC5021}{|2^mathbb{R}| le} color{green}{|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|} = |P(mathbb{R})|$
$implies |P(mathbb{R})| qquad qquad quad leq |mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| leq |P(mathbb{R})| implies color{#A9057D}{underbrace{|P(mathbb{R})|}_{= |2^mathbb{R}|}} = |mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| $.
Downvoters, pursuant to my edit, please let me know of further sugggestions which would be more instructive than a mere downvote.
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 8 '13 at 7:35
4
Use less colors, so people with disabilities could read this without getting a headache.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 8 '13 at 8:31
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
This is irrelevent here, still it is 'relevent'. The cardinality of set of all continuous function from $mathbb{R}$ to $mathbb{R}$ $(C(mathbb{R},mathbb{R}))$ is $2 ^ mathbb{N_0} = mathfrak{c}$ because any such function is determined by its value on rationals. hence #$(C(mathbb{R},mathbb{R}))$ = # $mathbb{R}^mathbb{Q}$ which has cardinality $2^mathbb{N_0}$.
Yes, it's relevant, because it sets a lower bound on the cardinality of the question, i.e., $|mathbb{R}^{mathbb{R}}| geq |mathbb{R}| = mathfrak{c}$. Moreover, it is a nice, easy-to-understand, result :)
– loved.by.Jesus
Apr 29 '17 at 21:48
add a comment |
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',
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%2f17914%2fcardinality-of-the-set-of-all-real-functions-of-real-variable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
37
down vote
accepted
All you need is a few basics of cardinal arithmetic: if $kappa$ and $lambda$ are cardinals, none of them zero, and at least one of them is infinite, then $kappa+lambda = kappalambda = max{kappa,lambda}$. And cardinal exponentiation satisfies some of the same laws as regular exponentiation; in particular, $(kappa^{lambda})^{nu} = kappa^{lambdanu}$.
The cardinality of the set of all real functions is then
$$|mathbb{R}|^{|mathbb{R}|} =mathfrak{c}^{mathfrak{c}} = (2^{aleph_0})^{2^{aleph_0}} = 2^{aleph_02^{aleph_0}} = 2^{2^{aleph_0}} = 2^{mathfrak{c}}.$$
In other words, it is equal to the cardinality of the power set of $mathbb{R}$.
With a few extra facts, you can get more. In general, if $kappa$ is an infinite cardinal, and $2leqlambdaleqkappa$, then $lambda^{kappa}=2^{kappa}$. This follows because:
$$2^{kappa} leq lambda^{kappa} leq (2^{lambda})^{kappa} = 2^{lambdakappa} = 2^{kappa},$$
so you get equality throughout. The extra information you need for this is to know that if $kappa$, $lambda$, and $nu$ are nonzero cardinals, $kappaleqlambda$, then $kappa^{nu}leq lambda^{nu}$.
In particular, for any infinite cardinal $kappa$ you have $kappa^{kappa} = 2^{kappa}$.
add a comment |
up vote
37
down vote
accepted
All you need is a few basics of cardinal arithmetic: if $kappa$ and $lambda$ are cardinals, none of them zero, and at least one of them is infinite, then $kappa+lambda = kappalambda = max{kappa,lambda}$. And cardinal exponentiation satisfies some of the same laws as regular exponentiation; in particular, $(kappa^{lambda})^{nu} = kappa^{lambdanu}$.
The cardinality of the set of all real functions is then
$$|mathbb{R}|^{|mathbb{R}|} =mathfrak{c}^{mathfrak{c}} = (2^{aleph_0})^{2^{aleph_0}} = 2^{aleph_02^{aleph_0}} = 2^{2^{aleph_0}} = 2^{mathfrak{c}}.$$
In other words, it is equal to the cardinality of the power set of $mathbb{R}$.
With a few extra facts, you can get more. In general, if $kappa$ is an infinite cardinal, and $2leqlambdaleqkappa$, then $lambda^{kappa}=2^{kappa}$. This follows because:
$$2^{kappa} leq lambda^{kappa} leq (2^{lambda})^{kappa} = 2^{lambdakappa} = 2^{kappa},$$
so you get equality throughout. The extra information you need for this is to know that if $kappa$, $lambda$, and $nu$ are nonzero cardinals, $kappaleqlambda$, then $kappa^{nu}leq lambda^{nu}$.
In particular, for any infinite cardinal $kappa$ you have $kappa^{kappa} = 2^{kappa}$.
add a comment |
up vote
37
down vote
accepted
up vote
37
down vote
accepted
All you need is a few basics of cardinal arithmetic: if $kappa$ and $lambda$ are cardinals, none of them zero, and at least one of them is infinite, then $kappa+lambda = kappalambda = max{kappa,lambda}$. And cardinal exponentiation satisfies some of the same laws as regular exponentiation; in particular, $(kappa^{lambda})^{nu} = kappa^{lambdanu}$.
The cardinality of the set of all real functions is then
$$|mathbb{R}|^{|mathbb{R}|} =mathfrak{c}^{mathfrak{c}} = (2^{aleph_0})^{2^{aleph_0}} = 2^{aleph_02^{aleph_0}} = 2^{2^{aleph_0}} = 2^{mathfrak{c}}.$$
In other words, it is equal to the cardinality of the power set of $mathbb{R}$.
With a few extra facts, you can get more. In general, if $kappa$ is an infinite cardinal, and $2leqlambdaleqkappa$, then $lambda^{kappa}=2^{kappa}$. This follows because:
$$2^{kappa} leq lambda^{kappa} leq (2^{lambda})^{kappa} = 2^{lambdakappa} = 2^{kappa},$$
so you get equality throughout. The extra information you need for this is to know that if $kappa$, $lambda$, and $nu$ are nonzero cardinals, $kappaleqlambda$, then $kappa^{nu}leq lambda^{nu}$.
In particular, for any infinite cardinal $kappa$ you have $kappa^{kappa} = 2^{kappa}$.
All you need is a few basics of cardinal arithmetic: if $kappa$ and $lambda$ are cardinals, none of them zero, and at least one of them is infinite, then $kappa+lambda = kappalambda = max{kappa,lambda}$. And cardinal exponentiation satisfies some of the same laws as regular exponentiation; in particular, $(kappa^{lambda})^{nu} = kappa^{lambdanu}$.
The cardinality of the set of all real functions is then
$$|mathbb{R}|^{|mathbb{R}|} =mathfrak{c}^{mathfrak{c}} = (2^{aleph_0})^{2^{aleph_0}} = 2^{aleph_02^{aleph_0}} = 2^{2^{aleph_0}} = 2^{mathfrak{c}}.$$
In other words, it is equal to the cardinality of the power set of $mathbb{R}$.
With a few extra facts, you can get more. In general, if $kappa$ is an infinite cardinal, and $2leqlambdaleqkappa$, then $lambda^{kappa}=2^{kappa}$. This follows because:
$$2^{kappa} leq lambda^{kappa} leq (2^{lambda})^{kappa} = 2^{lambdakappa} = 2^{kappa},$$
so you get equality throughout. The extra information you need for this is to know that if $kappa$, $lambda$, and $nu$ are nonzero cardinals, $kappaleqlambda$, then $kappa^{nu}leq lambda^{nu}$.
In particular, for any infinite cardinal $kappa$ you have $kappa^{kappa} = 2^{kappa}$.
edited Jan 17 '11 at 23:43
answered Jan 17 '11 at 23:32
Arturo Magidin
260k32581902
260k32581902
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
29
down vote
I guess that you know that $|mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}|$ and thus $|mathbb{R}| = |2^{mathbb{N}}| = |2^{mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}}| = |2^mathbb{N}times 2^mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}|$
This means that $|P(mathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|$. Since $fcolonmathbb{R}tomathbb{R}$ is an element of $P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})$ you have that $mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}$ (all the functions from $mathbb{R}$ to itself) is of cardinality less or equal to the one of $P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})$ which in turn means that $|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}|le |P(mathbb{R})|$.
Now, since $|P(mathbb{R})| = |2^mathbb{R}|$ which is the set of all functions from $mathbb{R}$ to ${0,1}$, and clearly every function from $mathbb{R}$ into ${0,1}$ is in particular a function from $mathbb{R}$ into itself, we have:
$$|P(mathbb{R})| = |2^mathbb{R}| le |mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R})|$$
So all in all we have that $|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| = |P(mathbb{R})| = |2^mathbb{R}|$.
2
Did you mean $|P(mathbb{R})|$ at the end of your second paragraph?
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 17 '11 at 23:51
2
@AsafKaraglia: Could you please detail how and why $|mathbb{R}| = |mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}|$ and $ mathbb{R} neq mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R} $ $Longrightarrow |P(mathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|$? I made an incidental edits which I hope will help and referenced math.stackexchange.com/questions/29366/….
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 7 '13 at 1:10
1
@LePressentiment: Don't add color to my posts. Thank you.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 7 '13 at 5:36
2
@AsafKaragila: No problem at all. I'll post my edition separately below. In your previous version (rollback) above, you write that $mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}$ = all the functions from $mathbb{R}$ to itself. Should this be the set of all such functions? Also, will you please to let me know of my previous comment, preceding your comment?
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 7 '13 at 9:48
@LePressentiment: I don't know what you mean by that. $|A|=|B|$ implies that $|mathcal P(A)|=|mathcal P(B)|$. That's a simple exercise in the definition of cardinalities. And yes $A^B$ is the set of all functions from $B$ into $A$, although it is sometimes denoted by ${}^BA$.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 7 '13 at 10:02
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
29
down vote
I guess that you know that $|mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}|$ and thus $|mathbb{R}| = |2^{mathbb{N}}| = |2^{mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}}| = |2^mathbb{N}times 2^mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}|$
This means that $|P(mathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|$. Since $fcolonmathbb{R}tomathbb{R}$ is an element of $P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})$ you have that $mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}$ (all the functions from $mathbb{R}$ to itself) is of cardinality less or equal to the one of $P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})$ which in turn means that $|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}|le |P(mathbb{R})|$.
Now, since $|P(mathbb{R})| = |2^mathbb{R}|$ which is the set of all functions from $mathbb{R}$ to ${0,1}$, and clearly every function from $mathbb{R}$ into ${0,1}$ is in particular a function from $mathbb{R}$ into itself, we have:
$$|P(mathbb{R})| = |2^mathbb{R}| le |mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R})|$$
So all in all we have that $|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| = |P(mathbb{R})| = |2^mathbb{R}|$.
2
Did you mean $|P(mathbb{R})|$ at the end of your second paragraph?
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 17 '11 at 23:51
2
@AsafKaraglia: Could you please detail how and why $|mathbb{R}| = |mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}|$ and $ mathbb{R} neq mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R} $ $Longrightarrow |P(mathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|$? I made an incidental edits which I hope will help and referenced math.stackexchange.com/questions/29366/….
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 7 '13 at 1:10
1
@LePressentiment: Don't add color to my posts. Thank you.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 7 '13 at 5:36
2
@AsafKaragila: No problem at all. I'll post my edition separately below. In your previous version (rollback) above, you write that $mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}$ = all the functions from $mathbb{R}$ to itself. Should this be the set of all such functions? Also, will you please to let me know of my previous comment, preceding your comment?
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 7 '13 at 9:48
@LePressentiment: I don't know what you mean by that. $|A|=|B|$ implies that $|mathcal P(A)|=|mathcal P(B)|$. That's a simple exercise in the definition of cardinalities. And yes $A^B$ is the set of all functions from $B$ into $A$, although it is sometimes denoted by ${}^BA$.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 7 '13 at 10:02
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
29
down vote
up vote
29
down vote
I guess that you know that $|mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}|$ and thus $|mathbb{R}| = |2^{mathbb{N}}| = |2^{mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}}| = |2^mathbb{N}times 2^mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}|$
This means that $|P(mathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|$. Since $fcolonmathbb{R}tomathbb{R}$ is an element of $P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})$ you have that $mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}$ (all the functions from $mathbb{R}$ to itself) is of cardinality less or equal to the one of $P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})$ which in turn means that $|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}|le |P(mathbb{R})|$.
Now, since $|P(mathbb{R})| = |2^mathbb{R}|$ which is the set of all functions from $mathbb{R}$ to ${0,1}$, and clearly every function from $mathbb{R}$ into ${0,1}$ is in particular a function from $mathbb{R}$ into itself, we have:
$$|P(mathbb{R})| = |2^mathbb{R}| le |mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R})|$$
So all in all we have that $|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| = |P(mathbb{R})| = |2^mathbb{R}|$.
I guess that you know that $|mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}|$ and thus $|mathbb{R}| = |2^{mathbb{N}}| = |2^{mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}}| = |2^mathbb{N}times 2^mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}|$
This means that $|P(mathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|$. Since $fcolonmathbb{R}tomathbb{R}$ is an element of $P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})$ you have that $mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}$ (all the functions from $mathbb{R}$ to itself) is of cardinality less or equal to the one of $P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})$ which in turn means that $|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}|le |P(mathbb{R})|$.
Now, since $|P(mathbb{R})| = |2^mathbb{R}|$ which is the set of all functions from $mathbb{R}$ to ${0,1}$, and clearly every function from $mathbb{R}$ into ${0,1}$ is in particular a function from $mathbb{R}$ into itself, we have:
$$|P(mathbb{R})| = |2^mathbb{R}| le |mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R})|$$
So all in all we have that $|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| = |P(mathbb{R})| = |2^mathbb{R}|$.
edited Nov 7 '13 at 5:35
answered Jan 17 '11 at 23:45
Asaf Karagila♦
301k32422752
301k32422752
2
Did you mean $|P(mathbb{R})|$ at the end of your second paragraph?
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 17 '11 at 23:51
2
@AsafKaraglia: Could you please detail how and why $|mathbb{R}| = |mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}|$ and $ mathbb{R} neq mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R} $ $Longrightarrow |P(mathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|$? I made an incidental edits which I hope will help and referenced math.stackexchange.com/questions/29366/….
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 7 '13 at 1:10
1
@LePressentiment: Don't add color to my posts. Thank you.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 7 '13 at 5:36
2
@AsafKaragila: No problem at all. I'll post my edition separately below. In your previous version (rollback) above, you write that $mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}$ = all the functions from $mathbb{R}$ to itself. Should this be the set of all such functions? Also, will you please to let me know of my previous comment, preceding your comment?
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 7 '13 at 9:48
@LePressentiment: I don't know what you mean by that. $|A|=|B|$ implies that $|mathcal P(A)|=|mathcal P(B)|$. That's a simple exercise in the definition of cardinalities. And yes $A^B$ is the set of all functions from $B$ into $A$, although it is sometimes denoted by ${}^BA$.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 7 '13 at 10:02
|
show 2 more comments
2
Did you mean $|P(mathbb{R})|$ at the end of your second paragraph?
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 17 '11 at 23:51
2
@AsafKaraglia: Could you please detail how and why $|mathbb{R}| = |mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}|$ and $ mathbb{R} neq mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R} $ $Longrightarrow |P(mathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|$? I made an incidental edits which I hope will help and referenced math.stackexchange.com/questions/29366/….
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 7 '13 at 1:10
1
@LePressentiment: Don't add color to my posts. Thank you.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 7 '13 at 5:36
2
@AsafKaragila: No problem at all. I'll post my edition separately below. In your previous version (rollback) above, you write that $mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}$ = all the functions from $mathbb{R}$ to itself. Should this be the set of all such functions? Also, will you please to let me know of my previous comment, preceding your comment?
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 7 '13 at 9:48
@LePressentiment: I don't know what you mean by that. $|A|=|B|$ implies that $|mathcal P(A)|=|mathcal P(B)|$. That's a simple exercise in the definition of cardinalities. And yes $A^B$ is the set of all functions from $B$ into $A$, although it is sometimes denoted by ${}^BA$.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 7 '13 at 10:02
2
2
Did you mean $|P(mathbb{R})|$ at the end of your second paragraph?
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 17 '11 at 23:51
Did you mean $|P(mathbb{R})|$ at the end of your second paragraph?
– Arturo Magidin
Jan 17 '11 at 23:51
2
2
@AsafKaraglia: Could you please detail how and why $|mathbb{R}| = |mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}|$ and $ mathbb{R} neq mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R} $ $Longrightarrow |P(mathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|$? I made an incidental edits which I hope will help and referenced math.stackexchange.com/questions/29366/….
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 7 '13 at 1:10
@AsafKaraglia: Could you please detail how and why $|mathbb{R}| = |mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}|$ and $ mathbb{R} neq mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R} $ $Longrightarrow |P(mathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|$? I made an incidental edits which I hope will help and referenced math.stackexchange.com/questions/29366/….
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 7 '13 at 1:10
1
1
@LePressentiment: Don't add color to my posts. Thank you.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 7 '13 at 5:36
@LePressentiment: Don't add color to my posts. Thank you.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 7 '13 at 5:36
2
2
@AsafKaragila: No problem at all. I'll post my edition separately below. In your previous version (rollback) above, you write that $mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}$ = all the functions from $mathbb{R}$ to itself. Should this be the set of all such functions? Also, will you please to let me know of my previous comment, preceding your comment?
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 7 '13 at 9:48
@AsafKaragila: No problem at all. I'll post my edition separately below. In your previous version (rollback) above, you write that $mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}$ = all the functions from $mathbb{R}$ to itself. Should this be the set of all such functions? Also, will you please to let me know of my previous comment, preceding your comment?
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 7 '13 at 9:48
@LePressentiment: I don't know what you mean by that. $|A|=|B|$ implies that $|mathcal P(A)|=|mathcal P(B)|$. That's a simple exercise in the definition of cardinalities. And yes $A^B$ is the set of all functions from $B$ into $A$, although it is sometimes denoted by ${}^BA$.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 7 '13 at 10:02
@LePressentiment: I don't know what you mean by that. $|A|=|B|$ implies that $|mathcal P(A)|=|mathcal P(B)|$. That's a simple exercise in the definition of cardinalities. And yes $A^B$ is the set of all functions from $B$ into $A$, although it is sometimes denoted by ${}^BA$.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 7 '13 at 10:02
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
This answer is based on, but differs slightly from, user Asaf Karaglia's above.
First, observe that by definition, ${text{all real functions of real variable}}:= {f: ; f: mathbb{R}tomathbb{R}} := mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}$.
The question is about $|{text{all real functions of real variable}}|$, so examine an arbitrary real function of real variable: $f,colon,mathbb{R}tomathbb{R}.$
By inspection, $f,colon,mathbb{R}tomathbb{R} := {(r, f(r)) : r in mathbb{R}} quad subseteq quad P(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R})$.
Thus, $color{green}{|mathbb{R}^{mathbb{R}}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|}$.
Before continuing, let's try to simplify $|P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|$. Observe that $|mathbb{R}| = |mathbb{R}^k| , forall , k in mathbb{N}$. Its proof by mathematical induction requires the induction hypothesis of $|mathbb{R}| = |mathbb{R}^2|$, one proof of which is : $|mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}| implies |mathbb{R}| = |2^{mathbb{N}}| = |2^{mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}}| = |2^mathbb{N}times 2^mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}|$.
Verily, $mathbb{R} neq mathbb{R}^2$. Howbeit, for infinite sets $A,B$: $|A| = |B| Longrightarrow require{cancel} cancel{Longleftarrow} |P(A)| = |P(B)|$.
(The converse is discussed here.)
Thus, $|P(mathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})| implies color{green}{|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|} = |P(mathbb{R})|$. Now scrutinise $|P(mathbb{R})|$:
● $color{#A9057D}{|P(mathbb{R})| = |2^{mathbb{R}}|}$, where $2^{mathbb{R}} := {f : ; f: mathbb{R} to {0,1}}$,
● Every $f: mathbb{R} to {0,1}$ is a particular case of a function from $mathbb{R}$ to $mathbb{R}$, thus $color{#EC5021}{2^{mathbb{R}} subsetneq mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}}$.
Altogether, $color{#A9057D}{|P(mathbb{R})| =} color{#EC5021}{|2^mathbb{R}| le} color{green}{|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|} = |P(mathbb{R})|$
$implies |P(mathbb{R})| qquad qquad quad leq |mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| leq |P(mathbb{R})| implies color{#A9057D}{underbrace{|P(mathbb{R})|}_{= |2^mathbb{R}|}} = |mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| $.
Downvoters, pursuant to my edit, please let me know of further sugggestions which would be more instructive than a mere downvote.
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 8 '13 at 7:35
4
Use less colors, so people with disabilities could read this without getting a headache.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 8 '13 at 8:31
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
This answer is based on, but differs slightly from, user Asaf Karaglia's above.
First, observe that by definition, ${text{all real functions of real variable}}:= {f: ; f: mathbb{R}tomathbb{R}} := mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}$.
The question is about $|{text{all real functions of real variable}}|$, so examine an arbitrary real function of real variable: $f,colon,mathbb{R}tomathbb{R}.$
By inspection, $f,colon,mathbb{R}tomathbb{R} := {(r, f(r)) : r in mathbb{R}} quad subseteq quad P(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R})$.
Thus, $color{green}{|mathbb{R}^{mathbb{R}}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|}$.
Before continuing, let's try to simplify $|P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|$. Observe that $|mathbb{R}| = |mathbb{R}^k| , forall , k in mathbb{N}$. Its proof by mathematical induction requires the induction hypothesis of $|mathbb{R}| = |mathbb{R}^2|$, one proof of which is : $|mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}| implies |mathbb{R}| = |2^{mathbb{N}}| = |2^{mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}}| = |2^mathbb{N}times 2^mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}|$.
Verily, $mathbb{R} neq mathbb{R}^2$. Howbeit, for infinite sets $A,B$: $|A| = |B| Longrightarrow require{cancel} cancel{Longleftarrow} |P(A)| = |P(B)|$.
(The converse is discussed here.)
Thus, $|P(mathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})| implies color{green}{|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|} = |P(mathbb{R})|$. Now scrutinise $|P(mathbb{R})|$:
● $color{#A9057D}{|P(mathbb{R})| = |2^{mathbb{R}}|}$, where $2^{mathbb{R}} := {f : ; f: mathbb{R} to {0,1}}$,
● Every $f: mathbb{R} to {0,1}$ is a particular case of a function from $mathbb{R}$ to $mathbb{R}$, thus $color{#EC5021}{2^{mathbb{R}} subsetneq mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}}$.
Altogether, $color{#A9057D}{|P(mathbb{R})| =} color{#EC5021}{|2^mathbb{R}| le} color{green}{|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|} = |P(mathbb{R})|$
$implies |P(mathbb{R})| qquad qquad quad leq |mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| leq |P(mathbb{R})| implies color{#A9057D}{underbrace{|P(mathbb{R})|}_{= |2^mathbb{R}|}} = |mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| $.
Downvoters, pursuant to my edit, please let me know of further sugggestions which would be more instructive than a mere downvote.
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 8 '13 at 7:35
4
Use less colors, so people with disabilities could read this without getting a headache.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 8 '13 at 8:31
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
This answer is based on, but differs slightly from, user Asaf Karaglia's above.
First, observe that by definition, ${text{all real functions of real variable}}:= {f: ; f: mathbb{R}tomathbb{R}} := mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}$.
The question is about $|{text{all real functions of real variable}}|$, so examine an arbitrary real function of real variable: $f,colon,mathbb{R}tomathbb{R}.$
By inspection, $f,colon,mathbb{R}tomathbb{R} := {(r, f(r)) : r in mathbb{R}} quad subseteq quad P(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R})$.
Thus, $color{green}{|mathbb{R}^{mathbb{R}}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|}$.
Before continuing, let's try to simplify $|P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|$. Observe that $|mathbb{R}| = |mathbb{R}^k| , forall , k in mathbb{N}$. Its proof by mathematical induction requires the induction hypothesis of $|mathbb{R}| = |mathbb{R}^2|$, one proof of which is : $|mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}| implies |mathbb{R}| = |2^{mathbb{N}}| = |2^{mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}}| = |2^mathbb{N}times 2^mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}|$.
Verily, $mathbb{R} neq mathbb{R}^2$. Howbeit, for infinite sets $A,B$: $|A| = |B| Longrightarrow require{cancel} cancel{Longleftarrow} |P(A)| = |P(B)|$.
(The converse is discussed here.)
Thus, $|P(mathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})| implies color{green}{|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|} = |P(mathbb{R})|$. Now scrutinise $|P(mathbb{R})|$:
● $color{#A9057D}{|P(mathbb{R})| = |2^{mathbb{R}}|}$, where $2^{mathbb{R}} := {f : ; f: mathbb{R} to {0,1}}$,
● Every $f: mathbb{R} to {0,1}$ is a particular case of a function from $mathbb{R}$ to $mathbb{R}$, thus $color{#EC5021}{2^{mathbb{R}} subsetneq mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}}$.
Altogether, $color{#A9057D}{|P(mathbb{R})| =} color{#EC5021}{|2^mathbb{R}| le} color{green}{|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|} = |P(mathbb{R})|$
$implies |P(mathbb{R})| qquad qquad quad leq |mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| leq |P(mathbb{R})| implies color{#A9057D}{underbrace{|P(mathbb{R})|}_{= |2^mathbb{R}|}} = |mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| $.
This answer is based on, but differs slightly from, user Asaf Karaglia's above.
First, observe that by definition, ${text{all real functions of real variable}}:= {f: ; f: mathbb{R}tomathbb{R}} := mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}$.
The question is about $|{text{all real functions of real variable}}|$, so examine an arbitrary real function of real variable: $f,colon,mathbb{R}tomathbb{R}.$
By inspection, $f,colon,mathbb{R}tomathbb{R} := {(r, f(r)) : r in mathbb{R}} quad subseteq quad P(mathbb{R} times mathbb{R})$.
Thus, $color{green}{|mathbb{R}^{mathbb{R}}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|}$.
Before continuing, let's try to simplify $|P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|$. Observe that $|mathbb{R}| = |mathbb{R}^k| , forall , k in mathbb{N}$. Its proof by mathematical induction requires the induction hypothesis of $|mathbb{R}| = |mathbb{R}^2|$, one proof of which is : $|mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}| implies |mathbb{R}| = |2^{mathbb{N}}| = |2^{mathbb{N}timesmathbb{N}}| = |2^mathbb{N}times 2^mathbb{N}| = |mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R}|$.
Verily, $mathbb{R} neq mathbb{R}^2$. Howbeit, for infinite sets $A,B$: $|A| = |B| Longrightarrow require{cancel} cancel{Longleftarrow} |P(A)| = |P(B)|$.
(The converse is discussed here.)
Thus, $|P(mathbb{R})| = |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})| implies color{green}{|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|} = |P(mathbb{R})|$. Now scrutinise $|P(mathbb{R})|$:
● $color{#A9057D}{|P(mathbb{R})| = |2^{mathbb{R}}|}$, where $2^{mathbb{R}} := {f : ; f: mathbb{R} to {0,1}}$,
● Every $f: mathbb{R} to {0,1}$ is a particular case of a function from $mathbb{R}$ to $mathbb{R}$, thus $color{#EC5021}{2^{mathbb{R}} subsetneq mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}}$.
Altogether, $color{#A9057D}{|P(mathbb{R})| =} color{#EC5021}{|2^mathbb{R}| le} color{green}{|mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| le |P(mathbb{R}timesmathbb{R})|} = |P(mathbb{R})|$
$implies |P(mathbb{R})| qquad qquad quad leq |mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| leq |P(mathbb{R})| implies color{#A9057D}{underbrace{|P(mathbb{R})|}_{= |2^mathbb{R}|}} = |mathbb{R}^mathbb{R}| $.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:19
Community♦
1
1
answered Nov 7 '13 at 9:49
Greek - Area 51 Proposal
3,135668103
3,135668103
Downvoters, pursuant to my edit, please let me know of further sugggestions which would be more instructive than a mere downvote.
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 8 '13 at 7:35
4
Use less colors, so people with disabilities could read this without getting a headache.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 8 '13 at 8:31
add a comment |
Downvoters, pursuant to my edit, please let me know of further sugggestions which would be more instructive than a mere downvote.
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 8 '13 at 7:35
4
Use less colors, so people with disabilities could read this without getting a headache.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 8 '13 at 8:31
Downvoters, pursuant to my edit, please let me know of further sugggestions which would be more instructive than a mere downvote.
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 8 '13 at 7:35
Downvoters, pursuant to my edit, please let me know of further sugggestions which would be more instructive than a mere downvote.
– Greek - Area 51 Proposal
Nov 8 '13 at 7:35
4
4
Use less colors, so people with disabilities could read this without getting a headache.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 8 '13 at 8:31
Use less colors, so people with disabilities could read this without getting a headache.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Nov 8 '13 at 8:31
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
This is irrelevent here, still it is 'relevent'. The cardinality of set of all continuous function from $mathbb{R}$ to $mathbb{R}$ $(C(mathbb{R},mathbb{R}))$ is $2 ^ mathbb{N_0} = mathfrak{c}$ because any such function is determined by its value on rationals. hence #$(C(mathbb{R},mathbb{R}))$ = # $mathbb{R}^mathbb{Q}$ which has cardinality $2^mathbb{N_0}$.
Yes, it's relevant, because it sets a lower bound on the cardinality of the question, i.e., $|mathbb{R}^{mathbb{R}}| geq |mathbb{R}| = mathfrak{c}$. Moreover, it is a nice, easy-to-understand, result :)
– loved.by.Jesus
Apr 29 '17 at 21:48
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
This is irrelevent here, still it is 'relevent'. The cardinality of set of all continuous function from $mathbb{R}$ to $mathbb{R}$ $(C(mathbb{R},mathbb{R}))$ is $2 ^ mathbb{N_0} = mathfrak{c}$ because any such function is determined by its value on rationals. hence #$(C(mathbb{R},mathbb{R}))$ = # $mathbb{R}^mathbb{Q}$ which has cardinality $2^mathbb{N_0}$.
Yes, it's relevant, because it sets a lower bound on the cardinality of the question, i.e., $|mathbb{R}^{mathbb{R}}| geq |mathbb{R}| = mathfrak{c}$. Moreover, it is a nice, easy-to-understand, result :)
– loved.by.Jesus
Apr 29 '17 at 21:48
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
This is irrelevent here, still it is 'relevent'. The cardinality of set of all continuous function from $mathbb{R}$ to $mathbb{R}$ $(C(mathbb{R},mathbb{R}))$ is $2 ^ mathbb{N_0} = mathfrak{c}$ because any such function is determined by its value on rationals. hence #$(C(mathbb{R},mathbb{R}))$ = # $mathbb{R}^mathbb{Q}$ which has cardinality $2^mathbb{N_0}$.
This is irrelevent here, still it is 'relevent'. The cardinality of set of all continuous function from $mathbb{R}$ to $mathbb{R}$ $(C(mathbb{R},mathbb{R}))$ is $2 ^ mathbb{N_0} = mathfrak{c}$ because any such function is determined by its value on rationals. hence #$(C(mathbb{R},mathbb{R}))$ = # $mathbb{R}^mathbb{Q}$ which has cardinality $2^mathbb{N_0}$.
edited Apr 29 '17 at 22:03
loved.by.Jesus
1319
1319
answered Nov 7 '13 at 6:14
GA316
2,6501132
2,6501132
Yes, it's relevant, because it sets a lower bound on the cardinality of the question, i.e., $|mathbb{R}^{mathbb{R}}| geq |mathbb{R}| = mathfrak{c}$. Moreover, it is a nice, easy-to-understand, result :)
– loved.by.Jesus
Apr 29 '17 at 21:48
add a comment |
Yes, it's relevant, because it sets a lower bound on the cardinality of the question, i.e., $|mathbb{R}^{mathbb{R}}| geq |mathbb{R}| = mathfrak{c}$. Moreover, it is a nice, easy-to-understand, result :)
– loved.by.Jesus
Apr 29 '17 at 21:48
Yes, it's relevant, because it sets a lower bound on the cardinality of the question, i.e., $|mathbb{R}^{mathbb{R}}| geq |mathbb{R}| = mathfrak{c}$. Moreover, it is a nice, easy-to-understand, result :)
– loved.by.Jesus
Apr 29 '17 at 21:48
Yes, it's relevant, because it sets a lower bound on the cardinality of the question, i.e., $|mathbb{R}^{mathbb{R}}| geq |mathbb{R}| = mathfrak{c}$. Moreover, it is a nice, easy-to-understand, result :)
– loved.by.Jesus
Apr 29 '17 at 21:48
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
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%2f17914%2fcardinality-of-the-set-of-all-real-functions-of-real-variable%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
You have used the assumption that the Cardinality of power set of R is equal to the Cardinality of functions from real to {0,1}. How to we prove that as well?
– user39246
Sep 2 '12 at 10:59
@krishnanem: Please ask new questions in a new thread, rather than as an answer to a previous question. Furthermore, this question was asked and answered several times before.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Sep 2 '12 at 11:17
@AsafKaragila: I have moved this non-answer to a comment so that krishnanem can pose it as a new question and can read your comment.
– robjohn♦
Sep 2 '12 at 20:39
@robjohn: I think Michael's comment would have been a more suitable choice over mine.
– Asaf Karagila♦
Sep 2 '12 at 21:44
@AsafKaragila: The point is to have krishnanem post the comment as a new question. Your comment solely addresses that point. Michael's also addresses the misplaced question and might encourage a reply.
– robjohn♦
Sep 3 '12 at 3:18