Sequence and natural numbers

Multi tool use
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Why the domain of sequences has been chosen to be the set of natural numbers, and not for example the set of real numbers ?
Are there advantages from the fact that $mathbbN$ is a countable set ?
sequences-and-series
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Why the domain of sequences has been chosen to be the set of natural numbers, and not for example the set of real numbers ?
Are there advantages from the fact that $mathbbN$ is a countable set ?
sequences-and-series
1
I would say: it is more the other way around. If $f:Ito X$ is a function and $I$ is infinite and countable and equipped with a well-order then it can be looked at as a sequence.
– drhab
Sep 10 at 8:33
1
There is also the notion of a "net" (basically a sequence with some arbitrary ordered set as domain).
– Janik
Sep 10 at 8:36
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Why the domain of sequences has been chosen to be the set of natural numbers, and not for example the set of real numbers ?
Are there advantages from the fact that $mathbbN$ is a countable set ?
sequences-and-series
Why the domain of sequences has been chosen to be the set of natural numbers, and not for example the set of real numbers ?
Are there advantages from the fact that $mathbbN$ is a countable set ?
sequences-and-series
sequences-and-series
asked Sep 10 at 8:30
Koinos
757
757
1
I would say: it is more the other way around. If $f:Ito X$ is a function and $I$ is infinite and countable and equipped with a well-order then it can be looked at as a sequence.
– drhab
Sep 10 at 8:33
1
There is also the notion of a "net" (basically a sequence with some arbitrary ordered set as domain).
– Janik
Sep 10 at 8:36
add a comment |Â
1
I would say: it is more the other way around. If $f:Ito X$ is a function and $I$ is infinite and countable and equipped with a well-order then it can be looked at as a sequence.
– drhab
Sep 10 at 8:33
1
There is also the notion of a "net" (basically a sequence with some arbitrary ordered set as domain).
– Janik
Sep 10 at 8:36
1
1
I would say: it is more the other way around. If $f:Ito X$ is a function and $I$ is infinite and countable and equipped with a well-order then it can be looked at as a sequence.
– drhab
Sep 10 at 8:33
I would say: it is more the other way around. If $f:Ito X$ is a function and $I$ is infinite and countable and equipped with a well-order then it can be looked at as a sequence.
– drhab
Sep 10 at 8:33
1
1
There is also the notion of a "net" (basically a sequence with some arbitrary ordered set as domain).
– Janik
Sep 10 at 8:36
There is also the notion of a "net" (basically a sequence with some arbitrary ordered set as domain).
– Janik
Sep 10 at 8:36
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
The short answer is: because that's the way sequences are defined. But, in fact, the general concept of sequence is: a sequence is a function whose domain is an ordered set $(S,preccurlyeq)$ which, as an ordered set, is isomorphic to $(mathbbN,leqslant)$. So, the basic idea is that we can talk about the first element of the sequence, the second element of the sequence, and so on.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The name says it, in a sequence a term has a next term. In an uncountable universe, there are no next.
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
The short answer is: because that's the way sequences are defined. But, in fact, the general concept of sequence is: a sequence is a function whose domain is an ordered set $(S,preccurlyeq)$ which, as an ordered set, is isomorphic to $(mathbbN,leqslant)$. So, the basic idea is that we can talk about the first element of the sequence, the second element of the sequence, and so on.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
The short answer is: because that's the way sequences are defined. But, in fact, the general concept of sequence is: a sequence is a function whose domain is an ordered set $(S,preccurlyeq)$ which, as an ordered set, is isomorphic to $(mathbbN,leqslant)$. So, the basic idea is that we can talk about the first element of the sequence, the second element of the sequence, and so on.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
The short answer is: because that's the way sequences are defined. But, in fact, the general concept of sequence is: a sequence is a function whose domain is an ordered set $(S,preccurlyeq)$ which, as an ordered set, is isomorphic to $(mathbbN,leqslant)$. So, the basic idea is that we can talk about the first element of the sequence, the second element of the sequence, and so on.
The short answer is: because that's the way sequences are defined. But, in fact, the general concept of sequence is: a sequence is a function whose domain is an ordered set $(S,preccurlyeq)$ which, as an ordered set, is isomorphic to $(mathbbN,leqslant)$. So, the basic idea is that we can talk about the first element of the sequence, the second element of the sequence, and so on.
answered Sep 10 at 8:35


José Carlos Santos
124k17101186
124k17101186
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The name says it, in a sequence a term has a next term. In an uncountable universe, there are no next.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The name says it, in a sequence a term has a next term. In an uncountable universe, there are no next.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The name says it, in a sequence a term has a next term. In an uncountable universe, there are no next.
The name says it, in a sequence a term has a next term. In an uncountable universe, there are no next.
answered Sep 10 at 8:41
Yves Daoust
115k667210
115k667210
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2911671%2fsequence-and-natural-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
I would say: it is more the other way around. If $f:Ito X$ is a function and $I$ is infinite and countable and equipped with a well-order then it can be looked at as a sequence.
– drhab
Sep 10 at 8:33
1
There is also the notion of a "net" (basically a sequence with some arbitrary ordered set as domain).
– Janik
Sep 10 at 8:36