PlanetMath: finite

(more info)

Math for the people, by the people.

donor list - find out how

Main Menu

sections Encyclopædia
Papers
Books
Expositions

meta Requests (236)
Orphanage
Unclass'd (1)
Unproven (540)
Corrections (47)
Classification

talkback Polls
Forums
Feedback
Bug Reports

downloads Snapshots
PM Book

information News
Docs
Wiki
ChangeLog
TODO List
Copyright
About

finite

(Definition)

A set $S$ is finite if there exists a natural number $n$ and a bijection from $S$ to $n$ Note that we are using the set theoretic definition of natural number, under which the natural number $n$ equals the set $\{0,1,2,\ldots,n-1\}$ If there exists such an $n$ then it is unique, and we call $n$ the cardinality of $S$

Equivalently, a set $S$ is finite if and only if there is no bijection between $S$ and any proper subset of $S$

"finite" is owned by djao.

(view preamble | get metadata)

See Also: infinite

Also defines:

finite set

Log in to rate this entry.
(view current ratings)

Cross-references: proper subset, cardinality, bijection, natural number
There are 984 references to this entry.

This is version 4 of finite, born on 2001-10-25, modified 2007-12-23.
Object id is 500, canonical name is Finite.
Accessed 26285 times total.

Classification:

AMS MSC:

03E10 (Mathematical logic and foundations :: Set theory :: Ordinal and cardinal numbers)

Pending Errata and Addenda

None.[ View all 4 ]

Discussion

forum policy

Tarski's definition of a finite set by smw on 2006-02-20 20:09:15

According to Suppes [p. 100], Tarski proposed a slick definition of finiteness which mentions neither the natural numbers nor bijections. Here it is (quoting Suppes):

``A is finite if and only if every non-empty family of subsets of A has a minimal element. ''

In this context, a minimal element in a family F of subsets is an element x in F such that there is no y in F such that y is a *proper* subset of x.

Granted, at first glace, this definition is not intuitively clear to most people (i.e. non set-theorists). But one can probably get used to it after a while. This is the formal definition that Suppes adopts in his text.

Here's a cool fact: Unlike Dedekind's definition (i.e. a set is finite if and only if it is not bijective to a proper subset), ``Tarski's definition does not require the axiom of choice to prove its equivalence to the ordinary numerical definition." [Suppes, p. 99]

According to Suppes, Tarski proposed this definition in his paper
``Sur les ensembles finis," published in _Fundamenta_Mathematicae_, Vol 6 (1924b), pp. 45 - 95. This would be an interesting paper to read. Not only does Tarski propose a new definition, he also gives a complete survey of all of the ``non-numerical definitions of finitude" up to that time.

Reference:

Suppes, P. _Axiomatic_Set_Theory_, Dover, New York: 1972

[ reply | up ]

Re: Tarski's definition of a finite set by ratboy on 2006-02-22 12:40:59

Interact