Why $mathbb Z_+^omeganeqcup_n=1^inftymathbb Z_+^n$?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
On the one hand we know that an infinite product of countable sets is uncountable, so $mathbb Z_+timesmathbb Z_+timesldots=mathbb Z_+^omega$ is uncountable.
On the other hand, the finite product of countable sets is countable and the countable union of countable sets is countable, so $displaystylecup_n=1^inftymathbb Z_+^n$, where $mathbb Z_+^n=mathbb Z_+timesldotstimesmathbb Z_+$ ($n-$times), is countable.
So this is my question: why $mathbb Z_+^omeganeqcup_n=1^inftymathbb Z_+^n$?
It seems to me that, since the union's index runs to infinity, these sets should be the same.
general-topology
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
On the one hand we know that an infinite product of countable sets is uncountable, so $mathbb Z_+timesmathbb Z_+timesldots=mathbb Z_+^omega$ is uncountable.
On the other hand, the finite product of countable sets is countable and the countable union of countable sets is countable, so $displaystylecup_n=1^inftymathbb Z_+^n$, where $mathbb Z_+^n=mathbb Z_+timesldotstimesmathbb Z_+$ ($n-$times), is countable.
So this is my question: why $mathbb Z_+^omeganeqcup_n=1^inftymathbb Z_+^n$?
It seems to me that, since the union's index runs to infinity, these sets should be the same.
general-topology
1
It's like there are uncountably many decimal expansions, but only countably many with a finite number of digits.
â Lord Shark the Unknown
Sep 1 at 9:20
@LordSharktheUnknown So there is a difference between $cup_n=1^infty$ and $lim_mrightarrowinftycup_n=1^m$?
â user208059
Sep 1 at 9:30
1
Yes, the first means something.
â Lord Shark the Unknown
Sep 1 at 9:34
@LordSharktheUnknown I thought that it was mean something (the first thing). I think I got it. Thanks a lot.
â user208059
Sep 1 at 9:39
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
On the one hand we know that an infinite product of countable sets is uncountable, so $mathbb Z_+timesmathbb Z_+timesldots=mathbb Z_+^omega$ is uncountable.
On the other hand, the finite product of countable sets is countable and the countable union of countable sets is countable, so $displaystylecup_n=1^inftymathbb Z_+^n$, where $mathbb Z_+^n=mathbb Z_+timesldotstimesmathbb Z_+$ ($n-$times), is countable.
So this is my question: why $mathbb Z_+^omeganeqcup_n=1^inftymathbb Z_+^n$?
It seems to me that, since the union's index runs to infinity, these sets should be the same.
general-topology
On the one hand we know that an infinite product of countable sets is uncountable, so $mathbb Z_+timesmathbb Z_+timesldots=mathbb Z_+^omega$ is uncountable.
On the other hand, the finite product of countable sets is countable and the countable union of countable sets is countable, so $displaystylecup_n=1^inftymathbb Z_+^n$, where $mathbb Z_+^n=mathbb Z_+timesldotstimesmathbb Z_+$ ($n-$times), is countable.
So this is my question: why $mathbb Z_+^omeganeqcup_n=1^inftymathbb Z_+^n$?
It seems to me that, since the union's index runs to infinity, these sets should be the same.
general-topology
general-topology
asked Sep 1 at 9:17
user208059
213
213
1
It's like there are uncountably many decimal expansions, but only countably many with a finite number of digits.
â Lord Shark the Unknown
Sep 1 at 9:20
@LordSharktheUnknown So there is a difference between $cup_n=1^infty$ and $lim_mrightarrowinftycup_n=1^m$?
â user208059
Sep 1 at 9:30
1
Yes, the first means something.
â Lord Shark the Unknown
Sep 1 at 9:34
@LordSharktheUnknown I thought that it was mean something (the first thing). I think I got it. Thanks a lot.
â user208059
Sep 1 at 9:39
add a comment |Â
1
It's like there are uncountably many decimal expansions, but only countably many with a finite number of digits.
â Lord Shark the Unknown
Sep 1 at 9:20
@LordSharktheUnknown So there is a difference between $cup_n=1^infty$ and $lim_mrightarrowinftycup_n=1^m$?
â user208059
Sep 1 at 9:30
1
Yes, the first means something.
â Lord Shark the Unknown
Sep 1 at 9:34
@LordSharktheUnknown I thought that it was mean something (the first thing). I think I got it. Thanks a lot.
â user208059
Sep 1 at 9:39
1
1
It's like there are uncountably many decimal expansions, but only countably many with a finite number of digits.
â Lord Shark the Unknown
Sep 1 at 9:20
It's like there are uncountably many decimal expansions, but only countably many with a finite number of digits.
â Lord Shark the Unknown
Sep 1 at 9:20
@LordSharktheUnknown So there is a difference between $cup_n=1^infty$ and $lim_mrightarrowinftycup_n=1^m$?
â user208059
Sep 1 at 9:30
@LordSharktheUnknown So there is a difference between $cup_n=1^infty$ and $lim_mrightarrowinftycup_n=1^m$?
â user208059
Sep 1 at 9:30
1
1
Yes, the first means something.
â Lord Shark the Unknown
Sep 1 at 9:34
Yes, the first means something.
â Lord Shark the Unknown
Sep 1 at 9:34
@LordSharktheUnknown I thought that it was mean something (the first thing). I think I got it. Thanks a lot.
â user208059
Sep 1 at 9:39
@LordSharktheUnknown I thought that it was mean something (the first thing). I think I got it. Thanks a lot.
â user208059
Sep 1 at 9:39
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
There not even of the same type: $cup_n=1^infty mathbbZ^n_+$ is a set of vectors that all have finite length: each $x$ in the union must be in some $mathbbZ^n_+$ and is thus of the form $(a_1,ldots, a_n)$ for that $n$. A vector has a unique length so it is in exactly one such set. While an $x in mathbbZ_+^infty$ is by definition a sequence (countably infinite vector) of the form $(a_1, a_2 ,a_3, ldots)$. So a member of the right hand side is never in the left hand side or vice versa. So certainly no equality of sets (where $A = B$ for sets $A,B$ by definition means that $x in A$ iff $x in B$).
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
There not even of the same type: $cup_n=1^infty mathbbZ^n_+$ is a set of vectors that all have finite length: each $x$ in the union must be in some $mathbbZ^n_+$ and is thus of the form $(a_1,ldots, a_n)$ for that $n$. A vector has a unique length so it is in exactly one such set. While an $x in mathbbZ_+^infty$ is by definition a sequence (countably infinite vector) of the form $(a_1, a_2 ,a_3, ldots)$. So a member of the right hand side is never in the left hand side or vice versa. So certainly no equality of sets (where $A = B$ for sets $A,B$ by definition means that $x in A$ iff $x in B$).
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
There not even of the same type: $cup_n=1^infty mathbbZ^n_+$ is a set of vectors that all have finite length: each $x$ in the union must be in some $mathbbZ^n_+$ and is thus of the form $(a_1,ldots, a_n)$ for that $n$. A vector has a unique length so it is in exactly one such set. While an $x in mathbbZ_+^infty$ is by definition a sequence (countably infinite vector) of the form $(a_1, a_2 ,a_3, ldots)$. So a member of the right hand side is never in the left hand side or vice versa. So certainly no equality of sets (where $A = B$ for sets $A,B$ by definition means that $x in A$ iff $x in B$).
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
There not even of the same type: $cup_n=1^infty mathbbZ^n_+$ is a set of vectors that all have finite length: each $x$ in the union must be in some $mathbbZ^n_+$ and is thus of the form $(a_1,ldots, a_n)$ for that $n$. A vector has a unique length so it is in exactly one such set. While an $x in mathbbZ_+^infty$ is by definition a sequence (countably infinite vector) of the form $(a_1, a_2 ,a_3, ldots)$. So a member of the right hand side is never in the left hand side or vice versa. So certainly no equality of sets (where $A = B$ for sets $A,B$ by definition means that $x in A$ iff $x in B$).
There not even of the same type: $cup_n=1^infty mathbbZ^n_+$ is a set of vectors that all have finite length: each $x$ in the union must be in some $mathbbZ^n_+$ and is thus of the form $(a_1,ldots, a_n)$ for that $n$. A vector has a unique length so it is in exactly one such set. While an $x in mathbbZ_+^infty$ is by definition a sequence (countably infinite vector) of the form $(a_1, a_2 ,a_3, ldots)$. So a member of the right hand side is never in the left hand side or vice versa. So certainly no equality of sets (where $A = B$ for sets $A,B$ by definition means that $x in A$ iff $x in B$).
answered Sep 1 at 11:30
Henno Brandsma
93.3k342101
93.3k342101
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%2f2901512%2fwhy-mathbb-z-omega-neq-cup-n-1-infty-mathbb-z-n%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
It's like there are uncountably many decimal expansions, but only countably many with a finite number of digits.
â Lord Shark the Unknown
Sep 1 at 9:20
@LordSharktheUnknown So there is a difference between $cup_n=1^infty$ and $lim_mrightarrowinftycup_n=1^m$?
â user208059
Sep 1 at 9:30
1
Yes, the first means something.
â Lord Shark the Unknown
Sep 1 at 9:34
@LordSharktheUnknown I thought that it was mean something (the first thing). I think I got it. Thanks a lot.
â user208059
Sep 1 at 9:39