#continuum hypothesis

[facts-i-just-made-up]

Any interesting facts about the continuum hypothesis ?

There are no interesting facts about the continuum hypothesis. This fact is, however, interesting, so the only interesting fact about the hypothesis is untrue, thus it is true, and interesting, so it's not.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Set Theory

The philosophy of set theory explores the foundational aspects of set theory, a branch of mathematical logic that deals with the concept of a "set," which is essentially a collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right. Set theory forms the basis for much of modern mathematics and has significant implications for logic, philosophy, and the foundations of mathematics.

Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Set Theory:

Definition of Set Theory:

Basic Concepts: Set theory studies sets, which are collections of objects, called elements or members. These objects can be anything—numbers, symbols, other sets, etc. A set is usually denoted by curly brackets, such as {a, b, c}, where "a," "b," and "c" are elements of the set.

Types of Sets: Sets can be finite, with a limited number of elements, or infinite. They can also be empty (the empty set, denoted by ∅), or they can contain other sets as elements (e.g., {{a}, {b, c}}).

Philosophical Foundations:

Naive vs. Axiomatic Set Theory:

Naive Set Theory: In its original form, set theory was developed naively, where sets were treated intuitively without strict formalization. However, this led to paradoxes, such as Russell's paradox, where the set of all sets that do not contain themselves both must and must not contain itself.

Axiomatic Set Theory: In response to these paradoxes, mathematicians developed axiomatic set theory, notably the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF) and Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC). These formal systems use a set of axioms to avoid paradoxes and provide a rigorous foundation for set theory.

Set Theory and the Foundations of Mathematics:

Role in Mathematics: Set theory serves as the foundational framework for nearly all of modern mathematics. Concepts like numbers, functions, and spaces are all defined in terms of sets, making set theory the language in which most of mathematics is expressed.

Mathematical Platonism: The philosophy of set theory often intersects with debates in mathematical Platonism, which posits that mathematical objects, including sets, exist independently of human thought. Set theory, from this perspective, uncovers truths about a realm of abstract entities.

Philosophical Issues and Paradoxes:

Russell's Paradox: This paradox highlights the problems of naive set theory by considering the set of all sets that do not contain themselves. If such a set exists, it both must and must not contain itself, leading to a contradiction. This paradox motivated the development of axiomatic systems.

Continuum Hypothesis: One of the most famous problems in set theory is the Continuum Hypothesis, which concerns the possible sizes of infinite sets, particularly whether there is a set size between that of the integers and the real numbers. The hypothesis is independent of the ZFC axioms, meaning it can neither be proven nor disproven within this system.

Axioms of Set Theory:

Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms (ZF): These axioms form the basis of modern set theory, providing a formal foundation that avoids the paradoxes of naive set theory. The axioms include principles like the Axiom of Extensionality (two sets are equal if they have the same elements) and the Axiom of Regularity (no set is a member of itself).

Axiom of Choice (AC): This controversial axiom asserts that for any set of non-empty sets, there exists a function (a choice function) that selects exactly one element from each set. While widely accepted, it has led to some counterintuitive results, like the Banach-Tarski Paradox, which shows that a sphere can be divided and reassembled into two identical spheres.

Infinity in Set Theory:

Finite vs. Infinite Sets: Set theory formally distinguishes between finite and infinite sets. The concept of infinity in set theory is rich and multifaceted, involving various sizes or "cardinalities" of infinite sets.

Cantor’s Theorem: Georg Cantor, the founder of set theory, demonstrated that not all infinities are equal. For example, the set of real numbers (the continuum) has a greater cardinality than the set of natural numbers, even though both are infinite.

Philosophical Debates:

Set-Theoretic Pluralism: Some philosophers advocate for pluralism in set theory, where multiple, possibly conflicting, set theories are considered valid. This contrasts with the traditional view that there is a single, correct set theory.

Constructivism vs. Platonism: In the philosophy of mathematics, constructivists argue that mathematical objects, including sets, only exist insofar as they can be explicitly constructed, while Platonists hold that sets exist independently of our knowledge or constructions.

Applications Beyond Mathematics:

Set Theory in Logic: Set theory is foundational not only to mathematics but also to formal logic, where it provides a framework for understanding and manipulating logical structures.

Philosophy of Language: In philosophy of language, set theory underlies the formal semantics of natural languages, helping to model meaning and reference in precise terms.

The philosophy of set theory is a rich field that explores the foundational principles underlying modern mathematics and logic. It engages with deep philosophical questions about the nature of mathematical objects, the concept of infinity, and the limits of formal systems. Through its rigorous structure, set theory not only provides the bedrock for much of mathematics but also offers insights into the nature of abstraction, existence, and truth in the mathematical realm.

[futurebird]

What if the Library of Babel contained books, not just texts.

I love the Library of Babel-- but it's important to remember that it contains all *texts* (up to a certain length) this is not the same as containing all *books* -- books are objects, they can be different shapes and sizes, made of different materials, bound with different bindings-- books have highlighting and margin notes from previous readers, old lending cards with the names of readers and dates.

Books can have illustrations. But we could make a Babel style indexing system for possible print images. Then represent the images as their index number. Now we have illustrations. We could have codes for size, color, cover material, paper weight, illustrations, margin notes, the style of handwriting of the margin notes. It would be a complex system and the final index numbers would need to be much longer. Possibly impractically long. But, a finite thing can be impractically large.

Here is a related question. How many distinct (as in you can distinguish between them yourself) objects can fit in a breadbox?

(Not all at once. I'm asking how many "different" things are small enough to be placed in a breadbox. This is either permutations or philosophy. )

How many distinct (as in you can distinguish between them yourself) objects can fit in a breadbox?

A very large finite number.

A countably infinite number.

An uncountably infinite number.

It's unresolvable between finite and countably infinite.

It's unresolvable between countably and uncountably infinite.

It's unresolvable between all three.

I have no idea.

Voting ended onJul 8, 2023

[justsomeantifas]

someone talking shit on the hyperreals talking about disregarding the continuum hypothesis being nonsense but it’s literally been proven that you can disregard the continuum hypothesis... it can be true or not true depending on what you’re doing and no contradiction arises:

“Gödel showed that no contradiction would arise if the continuum hypothesis were added to conventional Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. However, using a technique called forcing, Paul Cohen (1963, 1964) proved that no contradiction would arise if the negation of the continuum hypothesis was added to set theory. Together, Gödel's and Cohen's results established that the validity of the continuum hypothesis depends on the version of set theory being used, and is therefore undecidable (assuming the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms together with the axiom of choice).“ x

basically get shrek’d

[futurebird]

Urge to make dadaist fake mano-sphere content rising…

That aleph 1/2 grindset. For the men who don't conform to the continuum hypothesis.

[nothingisnotonfire]

What Comes Next? (Continuum Hypothesis Style)

*King George voice* They say The theorems of Godel and Cohen have led you astray Insane Your forcing concept Makes me seem incomplete and so lame I’m so blue I thought my creators arranged it when I was first made Math was mine to subdue But even despite our estrangement, I’ve got a small query for you: What comes next? It’s been proved Your dependence, it has been removed True or false Both I allow Do you know which one they will say now? Theorem rise, ideas fall They have proved we don’t relate at all All alone No ZFC When the people don’t believe you Remember I’m incomplete Lalaladadadadadadaeiyadadadadadadeiyada You’re on your own…

[tunnels-end]

How does the generalized continuum hypothesis imply the axiom of fucking choice?

[aforestofbones]

There are various types of sets:

Finite - You can reasonably (relatively speaking) just view all the elements of the set.

Countably infinite: You can find some way to pair them with natural numbers (0, 1, 2...) and list all of them in a way such that if you had an infinite timespan, you could count all the elements in the set.

Uncountable: Isomorphic to the Reals, uncountable sets were proved by the beautiful diagonal argument by Cantor, briefly summarized here:

Assume e:N\{0} -> (0,1) is bijective (that is, assume (0,1) is countable. I'm not going to prove it, but (0,1) is isomorphic to the reals and N\{0} is isomorphic to N)

and suppose this list is complete:

e(1) = 0.10989178198587196515... e(2) = 0.23567735737325574572... e(3) = 0.68796387689379686752... e(4) = 0.51656746887341678936... e(5) = 0.87834689346363663463... i.e Every natural number pairs to a unique decimal expansion in (0,1). Now lets let c = 0.24864... That is, take the first decimal of e(1) and add one the second decimal of e(2) and add one continuing this for the whole list since the ith decimal of c differs from all e(i) at the ith position, c cannot be on the list.

But the list was assumed to be complete, and therefore R is uncountable (We can't even enumerate (0,1)!) since when we add c to the list, we can construct a d that is not on the list, and so on. The list is never complete.

Cantor hypothesized that there does not exist a set whose cardinality is between N and R. This is called the Continuum Hypothesis

In other words, you're either finite/countably infinite, or uncountable. He tried to prove this for a long time, to no avail. This was well before Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, which axiomatized it.

Kurt Gödel, in 1940 showed that even with the axiom of choice, CH can not be disproved. In 1963, Cohen showed that with ZFC, it can't be proven either. Thus CH is independent from ZFC (much like the Axiom of Choice)

It remains an active area of research.