Republic of Mathematics blog

Astonishing consequences of naive thinking about sets: Cantor's diagonal argument

Posted by: Gary Ernest Davis on: October 4, 2010

I have mentioned in several posts now that many people do not think it is problematic to bundle all the counting numbers together in a set: the set of all natural numbers, denoted \mathbb{N}.

Another apparently harmless naive thought about set formation is that one can always construct the set of all subsets of a given set. For a setA the set of all subsets of A is denoted by \mathcal{P}(A). For simple sets such as A=\{ 0,1\} \textrm{ or } A=\{ 0,1,2\} we can easily visualize \mathcal{P}(A) and the relations between its elements – i.e. the subsets of A:

where \emptyset denotes the empty set, and rising lines indicate the set below is a subset of the set above.

Perhaps someone might balk at reflecting on a set consisting of all subsets of the natural numbers, yet there is a simple device to make this construction seem plausible.

The set \mathcal{P}(A) of all subsets of a set A is in one-to-one correspondence with the set of all functions from the set A into the two element set \textbf{\underline{2}}:=\{ 0,1\}.

This correspondence is established as follows: for each subset B\subseteq A define a function f:A \to \textbf{\underline{2}} by f(x)=1 \textrm{ if } x\in B \textrm{ and } f(x)=0 \textrm{ if } x\notin B; conversely, for each functionf:A\to \textbf{\underline{2}} define a subset B\subseteq A of A by B=\{x\in A: f(x)=1\}.

So to think about all subsets of the set \mathbb{N} of natural numbers, it is equivalent, to think about all functions f:\mathbb{N}\to \textbf{\underline{2}}.

Such functions give a value of 0\textrm{ or } 1 for each natural number, and so correspond to sequences \epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3,\ldots, where each \epsilon_n is either 0 \textrm{ or } 1.

Georg Cantor established the following extremely simple,  yet devastating, result: for any set A for which the set \mathcal{P}(A) of all subsets of A exists, there cannot be a one-to-one correspondence between A and \mathcal{P}(A).

The argument is incredibly simple as it is elegant.

A one-to-one correspondence between A and \mathcal{P}(A) is established by a function F:A \to \mathcal{P}(A) that is invertible.  Cantor shows that no function F:A \to \mathcal{P}(A) is invertible. Here’s how he does it: let F:A \to \mathcal{P}(A) be a function. Define the subset B \textrm{ of } A by B=\{ x \in A: x\notin F(x)\}. Then, for every x \in A, x \in F(x) exactly when x \notin B. Because either x \in F(x) \textrm{ or } x \notin F(x) for every x \in A it follows that F(x) \neq B for all x \in A, and therefore the function F is not invertible.

This is Cantor’s famous diagonal argument. Quite simple and relatively uncontroversial. Yet is has a devastating and astonishing consequence.

Given that, naively, we can always form the set of all subsets \mathcal{P}(A) of a set A, we see that the set \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N}) of all subsets of natural numbers cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with \mathbb{N} itself. Because the mapping n \to \{n\} from \mathbb{N} \textrm{ into } \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N}) is one-to-one, but not invertible, the set \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N}) has greater cardinality than that of \mathbb{N}. That is, the set of all subsets of natural numbers is a set of greater order of infinity than the set of natural numbers itself.

What now stops us from forming the set \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})) which, by Cantor’s argument, has a higher order of infinity again, and so on, and so on(ad infinitum and beyond …) ? This is a glimpse of Cantor’s paradise from which, David Hilbert averred, no one shall expel us.

1 Response to "Astonishing consequences of naive thinking about sets: Cantor's diagonal argument"

Leave a Reply