You are here
Home ›Cantor's diagonal argument
Primary tabs
Cantor’s diagonal argument
One of the starting points in Cantor’s development of set theory was his discovery that there are different degrees of infinity. The rational numbers, for example, are countably infinite; it is possible to enumerate all the rational numbers by means of an infinite list. By contrast, the real numbers are uncountable. it is impossible to enumerate them by means of an infinite list. These discoveries underlie the idea of cardinality, which is expressed by saying that two sets have the same cardinality if there exists a bijective correspondence between them.
In essence, Cantor discovered two theorems: first, that the set of real numbers has the same cardinality as the power set of the naturals; and second, that a set and its power set have a different cardinality (see Cantor’s theorem). The proof of the second result is based on the celebrated diagonalization argument.
Cantor showed that for every given infinite sequence of real numbers it is possible to construct a real number that is not on that list. Consequently, it is impossible to enumerate the real numbers; they are uncountable. No generality is lost if we suppose that all the numbers on the list are between and . Certainly, if this subset of the real numbers in uncountable, then the full set is uncountable as well.
Let us write our sequence as a table of decimal expansions:
where
and the expansion avoids an infinite trailing string of the digit .
For each we choose a digit that is different from and not equal to , and consider the real number with decimal expansion
By construction, this number is different from every member of the given sequence. After all, for every , the number differs from the number in the decimal digit. The claim is proven.
Mathematics Subject Classification
03E10 Ordinal and cardinal numbers- Forums
- Planetary Bugs
- HS/Secondary
- University/Tertiary
- Graduate/Advanced
- Industry/Practice
- Research Topics
- LaTeX help
- Math Comptetitions
- Math History
- Math Humor
- PlanetMath Comments
- PlanetMath System Updates and News
- PlanetMath help
- PlanetMath.ORG
- Strategic Communications Development
- The Math Pub
- Testing messages (ignore)
- Other useful stuff
Recent Activity
new question: Sorry to steal a few minutes of your time for this question, but i honestly don't know what else to do. by Whrazithar
new question: equality of the determinants of submatrices of an orthogonal matrix by ismayli
Jun 11
new correction: Typo by suitangi
Jun 2
new question: Creating another set with same cardinality. by hkkass
Jun 1
new image: ProblemOneRevised by unlord
new Education: Chapter II by rspuzio
May 31
new collection: The Calculus by Davis and Brenke by rspuzio
new question: Proofs by weixifan
new question: Summation Integration Question by trevor.nickle
May 27
new correction: typo+finite measure hypothesis by Filipe



Comments
oops
In my correction, I said
X is n (a natural number) such that n \in X only if n \not\in N_x
This should be
X is n (a natural number) such that n \in X only if n \not\in N_n
sorry.
-apk
Re: oops
Ah, I see the usage now. I'll file a more complete entry on the 'morrow. =)
Cantor Diagonal
If "between" means "strictly between" then you want to add "make at least one ci not zero" . For example you might choose c1 first and make it not zero.
Cantor’s diagonal argument
In the same manner, write a full list of rational numbers. How can you proof that the missing numbers Cantor constructs are all irrationals? Can you proof that, for every n, you can’t find at least one rational x, missing from the sequence?