,
,
,
, ,
, , ,
,
,
Cardinal arithmetic is an arithmetic with cardinals, which generalizes the ordinary arithmetic of natural numbers to non-finite numbers.
The idea is that on finite sets, whose cardinalities are natural numbers, the usual operations of arithmetic – addition, multiplication and exponentiation – are represented on finite sets by basic operations of set theory, namely forming disjoint union of sets, forming Cartesian product of sets and forming function sets of sets.
$\phantom{A}$natural numbers$\phantom{A}$ | $\phantom{A}$finite sets$\phantom{A}$ |
---|---|
$\phantom{A}$addition$\phantom{A}$ | $\phantom{A}$disjoint union$\phantom{A}$ |
$\phantom{A}$multiplication$\phantom{A}$ | $\phantom{A}$Cartesian product$\phantom{A}$ |
$\phantom{A}$exponentiation$\phantom{A}$ | $\phantom{A}$function sets$\phantom{A}$ |
(Here passing from the left to the right column is an example of categorification, while passing from right to left is an example decategorification.)
But the operations on sets on the right directly generalize from finite sets to general sets, hence from sets whose cardinality is a natural number to infinite cardinals. Therefore cardinal arithmetic is also called a transfinite arithmetic.
For $S$ a set, write ${|S|}$ for its cardinality. Then the standard operations in the category Set induce arithmetic operations on cardinal numbers:
For $S_1$ and $S_2$ two sets, the sum of their cardinalities is the cardinality of their disjoint union, the coproduct in $Set$:
More generally, given any family $(S_i)_{i: I}$ of sets indexed by a set $I$, the sum of their cardinalities is the cardinality of their disjoint union:
Likewise, the product of their cardinalities is the cardinality of their cartesian product, the product in $Set$:
More generally again, given any family $(S_i)_{i: I}$ of sets indexed by a set $I$, the product of their cardinalities is the cardinality of their cartesian product:
Also, the exponential of one cardinality raised to the power of the other is the cardinality of their function set, the exponential object in $Set$:
In particular, we have $2^{|S|}$, which (assuming the law of excluded middle) is the cardinality of the power set $P(S)$. In constructive (but not predicative) mathematics, the cardinality of the power set is $\Omega^{|S|}$, where $\Omega$ is the cardinality of the set of truth values.
The usual way to define an ordering on cardinal numbers is that ${|S_1|} \leq {|S_2|}$ if there exists an injection from $S_1$ to $S_2$:
Classically, this is almost equivalent to the existence of a surjection $S_2 \to S_1$, except when $S_1$ is empty. Even restricting to inhabited sets, these are not equivalent conditions in constructive mathematics, so one may instead define that ${|S_1|} \leq {|S_2|}$ if there exists a subset $X$ of $S_2$ and a surjection $X \to S_1$. Another alternative is to require that $S_1$ (or $X$) be a decidable subset of $S_2$. All of these definitions are equivalent using excluded middle.
This order relation is antisymmetric (and therefore a partial order) by the Cantor–Schroeder–Bernstein theorem (proved by Cantor using the well-ordering theorem, then proved by Schroeder and Bernstein without it). That is, if $S_1 \hookrightarrow S_2$ and $S_2 \hookrightarrow S_1$ exist, then a bijection $S_1 \cong S_2$ exists. This theorem is not constructively valid, however.
The well-ordered cardinals are well-ordered by the ordering $\lt$ on ordinal numbers. Assuming the axiom of choice, this agrees with the previous order in the sense that $\kappa \leq \lambda$ iff $\kappa \lt \lambda$ or $\kappa = \lambda$. Another definition is to define that $\kappa \lt \lambda$ if $\kappa^+ \leq \lambda$, using the successor operation below.
The successor of a well-ordered cardinal $\kappa$ is the smallest well-ordered cardinal larger than $\kappa$. Note that (except for finite cardinals), this is different from $\kappa$'s successor as an ordinal number. We can also take successors of arbitrary cardinals using the operation of Hartog's number, although this won't quite have the properties that we want of a successor without the axiom of choice.
It is traditional to write ℵ${}_0$ for the first infinite cardinal (the cardinality of the natural numbers), $\aleph_1$ for the next (the first uncountable cardinality), and so on. In this way every cardinal (assuming choice) is labeled $\aleph_\mu$ for a unique ordinal number $\mu$, with $(\aleph_\mu))^+ = \aleph_{\mu^+}$.
For every cardinal $\pi$, we have $2^\pi \gt \pi$ (this is sometimes called Cantor's theorem). The question of whether $2^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_{1}$ (or more generally whether $2^{\aleph_\mu} = \aleph_{\mu^+}$) is called Cantor’s continuum problem; the assertion that this is the case is called the (generalized) continuum hypothesis. It is known that the continuum hypothesis is undecidable in ZFC.
For every infinite cardinal $\pi$ we have (using the axiom of choice) $\pi + \pi = \pi$ and $\pi \cdot \pi = \pi$, so addition and multiplication are idempotent.
Since $\pi \leq \pi + \pi = 2 \cdot \pi \leq \pi \cdot \pi$, it suffices to prove $\pi \cdot \pi \leq \pi$. Establishing this is closely analogous to establishing one of the standard bijections $\mathbb{N} \cong \mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N}$ – not the one that enumerates along successive diagonals $x + y = k$ which are spheres in an $L^1$ metric (and which involves additive structure), but one which enumerates along successive spheres in an $L^\infty$ metric (which involves only order structure).
With this hint in mind, regard $\pi$ as the least ordinal in its cardinality class (using the well-ordering theorem), and suppose $\pi$ is a minimal counterexample to the statement. Thus ${|\alpha|}^2 = {|\alpha|}$ for all ordinals $\alpha \lt \pi$. Consider $\pi^3 = \pi \times \pi \times \pi$ in lexicographic order. This is a well-ordered set, as is the subset
under the order inherited from $\pi^3$. Clearly $S \cong \pi^2$ as sets. Under the supposition ${|\pi|} \lt {|\pi|}^2$, the ordinal $\pi$ is isomorphic to one of the initial segments
of $S$, say $S(\alpha, \beta, \gamma)$. But then (regarding $\alpha$ as an ordinal less than $\pi$)
which gives a contradiction.
Conversely, if (relative to ZF or any other standard set theory) we assume that any infinite set can be put in bijection with its cartesian square, then every set can be well-ordered, a result originally due to Tarski. Details may be found at Hartogs number.
If one of two non-zero cardinals $\kappa, \lambda$ is infinite, then
Clearly, $\kappa \leq \kappa + \lambda$ and $\lambda \leq \kappa + \lambda$, so $\max \{\kappa, \lambda\} \leq \kappa + \lambda$, and similarly for multiplication instead of addition, assuming the cardinals are non-zero. Letting $\mu = \max \{\kappa, \lambda\}$, we also have
and similarly for addition instead of multiplication.
Traditional lecture notes include
Alexandru Baltag, Axiomatix set theory lecture 8: Cardinal arithmetic (pdf)
Cardinal arithmetic (pdf)
See also
The point of view of categorification is amplified in
Last revised on August 9, 2018 at 11:09:01. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.