Infinity And Diagonalization

Attribution
• These slides were prepared for the New Jersey
Governor’s School course “The Math Behind
the Machine” taught in the summer of 2011
by Grant Schoenebeck
• Large parts of these slides were copied or
modified from the previous years’ courses
given by Troy Lee in 2010 and Ryan and
Virginia Williams in 2009.
 Questions?
Questions about infinity
• Is infinity one number?
• If you add one to infinity, you get infinity:
– What if you square infinity?
– What if you index infinity by itself?
 The Ideal Computer
• An Ideal Computer is defined as a computer
with infinite memory.
– Unlimited memory
– Unlimited time
– can run a Java program and never have any
overflow or out of memory errors.
 Ideal Computers and Computable
Numbers
An Ideal Computer Can Be Programmed To Print Out:
• : 3.14159265358979323846264…
• 2: 2.0000000000000000000000…
• e: 2.7182818284559045235336…
• 1/3: 0.33333333333333333333….
 Computable Real Numbers
• A real number r is computable if there is a
program that prints out the decimal
representation of r from left to right. Any
particular digit of r will eventually be printed
as part of the output sequence.

Are all real numbers

computable?
 Describable Numbers
• A real number r is describable if it can be
unambiguously denoted by a finite piece of
English text.

• 2: “Two.”
• : “The area of a circle of radius one.”
 Is every computable real number,
also a describable real number?

Computable r: some program outputs r

Describable r: some sentence denotes r
Are all real numbers
describable?
To INFINITY ….
and Beyond!
 Bijections

Let S and T be sets.

A function f from S to T is a bijection if:

f is “one to one”: x ≠ y implies f(x) ≠ f(y)

f is “onto”: for every t in T, there is an s in S such that

f(s) = t

Intuitively: The elements of S can all be paired up with

the elements of T
 f
S T

Note: if there is a bijection from S to T

then there is a bijection from T to S!
So it makes sense to say “bijection between A and B”
 Correspondence Definition

• Two finite sets S and T are

defined to have the
same size if and only if there is
a bijection from S to T.
Georg Cantor (1845-1918)
 Cantor’s Definition (1874)

• Two infinite sets are defined to

have the same size
• if and only if there is a bijection
between them.
 Cantor’s Definition (1874)

• Two infinite sets are defined to

have the same cardinality
• if and only if there is a bijection
between them.
Do N and E have the same cardinality?

• N = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, … }

E = { 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, … }

 E and N do not have the same
cardinality!
E is a proper subset of N with
plenty left over.

That is, f(x)=x does not work as a

bijection from N to E
E and N do have the same
cardinality!

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, …
f |
0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, …

f(x) = 2x is a bijection
from N to E!
Lessons:
Just because some bijection doesn’t
work, that doesn’t mean another
bijection won’t work!

Infinity is a mighty big place.

It allows the even numbers to have
room to accommodate all the
natural numbers
 If this makes you feel
uncomfortable…

TOUGH!

It is the price that you must pay to

reason about infinity
Do N and Z have the same cardinality?

N = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, …. }

Z = { …, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, …. }
 No way! Z is infinite in two
ways: from 0 to positive infinity
and from 0 to negative infinity.

Therefore, there are far more

integers than naturals.

Actually,
no…
N and Z do have the same
cardinality!

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 …
0, 1, -1, 2, -2, 3, -3, ….

f(x) = x/2 if x is odd

-x/2 if x is even
 Transitivity Lemma

• If f: AB and g: BC are bijections,

• Then
h(x) = g(f(x)) is a bijection from AC

• It follows that N, E, and Z

• all have the same cardinality.
Do N and Q have the same cardinality?

N = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, …. }

Q = The Rational Numbers

(All possible fractions!)
 No way!
The rationals are dense:
between any two there is a
third. You can’t list them one
by one without leaving out an
infinite number of them.
Don’t jump to conclusions!
There is a clever way to list
the rationals, one at a
time, without missing a
single one!
First, let’s warm up
with another
interesting one:
N can be paired with
NxN
Theorem: N and N x N have the same
… cardinality
4

3
The point (x,y)
2 represents the
ordered pair (x,y)
1

0 1 2 3 4 …
Theorem: N and N x N have the same
… cardinality
4

3 6
The point (x,y)
3 7
2 represents the
ordered pair (x,y)
4 8
1 1

0 0 5
2 9
0 1 2 3 4 …
On to the Rationals!
The point at x,y represents x/y
 1 2
0 3

The point at x,y represents x/y

 1877 letter to Dedekind:
•
I see it, but I don't believe it!
We call a set countable if
it has a bijection with the
natural numbers.

So far we know that N, E,

Z, and Q are countable.
Do N and R have the same cardinality?

N = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, …. }

R = The Real Numbers

 No way!
You will run out of natural
numbers long before you
match up every real.
Don’t jump to conclusions!

You can’t be sure that there

isn’t some clever
correspondence that you
haven’t thought of yet.
 I am sure!
Cantor proved it.
He invented a very
important technique called
“DIAGONALIZATION”
Theorem: The set I of reals between 0
and 1 is not countable.
• Proof by contradiction:
• Suppose I is countable.
• Let f be the bijection from N to I. Make a
list L as follows:

• 0: decimal expansion of f(0)

1: decimal expansion of f(1)
• …
• k: decimal expansion of f(k)
• …
Theorem: The set I of reals between 0
and 1 is not countable.
Proof by contradiction:
Suppose I is countable.
Let f be the bijection from N to I. Make a list L
as follows:
(This must be a complete list of I)
0: .3333333333333333333333…
1: .3141592656578395938594982..
…
k: .345322214243555345221123235..
…
L 0 1 2 3 4 …

0 3 3 3 3 3 3

1 3 1 4 5 9 2

2 …

…
L 0 1 2 3 4 …

0 d0
1 d1
2 d2
3 d3
… …
L 0 1 2 3 4

0 d0

1 d1

2 d2

3 d3

… …

ConfuseL = . C0 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 …
L 0 1 2 3 4 1, if dk=2
Ck=
2, otherwise
0 d0

1 d1
Claim:
2 d2 ConfuseL is
not in the list L!
3 d3

… …

ConfuseL = . C0 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 …
L 0 1 2 3 4 1, if dk=2
Ck=
2, otherwise
0
C0d0 C1 C2 C3 C4 …
1 d1
Claim:
2 d2 ConfuseL is
not in the list L!
3 d3

… …
L 0 1 2 3 4 1, if dk=2
Ck=
2, otherwise
0 d0

1 C0 C1d1 C2 C3 C4 …
Claim:
2 d2 ConfuseL is
not in the list L!
3 d3

… …
L 0 1 2 3 4 1, if dk=2
Ck=
2, otherwise
0 d0

1 d1
Claim:
2 C0 C1 C2d2 C3 C4 … ConfuseL is
not in the list L!
3 d3

… …
L 0 1 2 3 4 1, if dk=2
Ck=
2, otherwise
0 d0

1 d1
Claim:
2 C0 C1 C2d2 C3 C4 … ConfuseL is
not in the list L!
3 d3

… …

ConfuseL differs from the kth element of L in

the kth position. This contradicts our
assumption that list L has all reals in I.
The set of reals is
uncountable!
 Hold it!
Why can’t the same
argument be used to show
that Q is uncountable?
 The argument works the
same for Q until the very
end. ConfuseL is not
necessarily a rational
number, so there is no
contradiction from the
fact that it is missing from
list L.
 Standard Notation
Σ = Any finite alphabet
Example: {a,b,c,d,e,…,z}

Σ* = All finite strings of symbols

from S including the empty
string e
Theorem: Every infinite subset S of Σ*
is countable

• Proof: Sort S by first by length and then

alphabetically. Map the first word to 0, the
second to 1, and so on….
 Stringing Symbols Together
Σ = The symbols on a standard
keyboard
The set of all possible Java
programs is a subset of Σ*

The set of all possible finite pieces

of English text is a subset of Σ*
 Thus:

The set of all possible

Java programs is
countable.

The set of all possible

finite length pieces of
English text is countable.
There are countably many
Java programs and
uncountably many reals.

HENCE:

MOST REALS ARE NOT

COMPUTABLE.
 There are countably many
descriptions and uncountably
many reals.

Hence:
MOST REAL NUMBERS ARE
NOT DESCRIBABLE IN
ENGLISH!
Is there a real number
that can be described,
but not computed by
any program?
We know there are
at least 2 infinities.
Are there more?
 Power Set
• The power set of S is the set of all subsets of S.

• The power set is denoted P(S).

• Proposition: If S is finite, the power set of S

has cardinality 2|S|
 Theorem: S can’t be put into 1-1
correspondence with P(S)
S
P(S)
A 

{A}
{B}
{C}
B {A,B}
{B,C}
{A,C}
C
{A,B,C}

• Suppose f:S->P(S) is 1-1 and ONTO.

 Theorem: S can’t be put into 1-1
correspondence with P(S)
S P(S)
• Suppose f:S->P(S) is 1-1 and ONTO.
A 
{A {
} B
B { }
C {A,B}
}
{B, {A,C
C C} }

{A,B,
C}

Let CONFUSE = { x ∈ S, x  f(x) }

There is some y such that f(y)=CONFUSE
Is y in CONFUSE?
YES: Definition of CONFUSE implies no
NO: Definition of CONFUSE implies yes
This proves that there
are at least a countable
number of infinities.

The first infinity is

called:

0
0, 1,2,…

Are there any

more
infinities?
0, 1,2,…

Let S = {k | k ∈ N }
P(S) is provably larger
than any of them.
 In fact, the same
argument can be
used to show that
no single infinity is
big enough to count
the number of
infinities!
0, 1,2,…
Cantor wanted to show
that the number of

reals was 1
 Cantor called his
conjecture that 1 was
the number of reals the
“Continuum Hypothesis.”
However, he was unable
to prove it. This helped
fuel his depression.
 The Continuum
Hypothesis can’t be
proved or disproved
from the standard
axioms of set theory!
This has been proved!
In fact it was proved here in New
Jersey, by professors at the
Institute for Advanced Study!