Why $mathbb Z_+^omeganeqcup_n=1^inftymathbb Z_+^n$?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash 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.










share|cite|improve this question

















  • 1




    It's like there are uncountably many decimal expansions, but only countably many with a finite number of digits.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Sep 1 at 9:20










  • @LordSharktheUnknown So there is a difference between $cup_n=1^infty$ and $lim_mrightarrowinftycup_n=1^m$?
    – user208059
    Sep 1 at 9:30






  • 1




    Yes, the first means something.
    – 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.
    – user208059
    Sep 1 at 9:39














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.










share|cite|improve this question

















  • 1




    It's like there are uncountably many decimal expansions, but only countably many with a finite number of digits.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Sep 1 at 9:20










  • @LordSharktheUnknown So there is a difference between $cup_n=1^infty$ and $lim_mrightarrowinftycup_n=1^m$?
    – user208059
    Sep 1 at 9:30






  • 1




    Yes, the first means something.
    – 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.
    – user208059
    Sep 1 at 9:39












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.










share|cite|improve this question













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






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










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.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Sep 1 at 9:20










  • @LordSharktheUnknown So there is a difference between $cup_n=1^infty$ and $lim_mrightarrowinftycup_n=1^m$?
    – user208059
    Sep 1 at 9:30






  • 1




    Yes, the first means something.
    – 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.
    – user208059
    Sep 1 at 9:39












  • 1




    It's like there are uncountably many decimal expansions, but only countably many with a finite number of digits.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Sep 1 at 9:20










  • @LordSharktheUnknown So there is a difference between $cup_n=1^infty$ and $lim_mrightarrowinftycup_n=1^m$?
    – user208059
    Sep 1 at 9:30






  • 1




    Yes, the first means something.
    – 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.
    – 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.
– 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.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Sep 1 at 9:20












@LordSharktheUnknown So there is a difference between $cup_n=1^infty$ and $lim_mrightarrowinftycup_n=1^m$?
– user208059
Sep 1 at 9:30




@LordSharktheUnknown So there is a difference between $cup_n=1^infty$ and $lim_mrightarrowinftycup_n=1^m$?
– user208059
Sep 1 at 9:30




1




1




Yes, the first means something.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Sep 1 at 9:34




Yes, the first means something.
– 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.
– 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.
– user208059
Sep 1 at 9:39










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 $x in B$).






share|cite|improve this answer




















    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    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






























    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 $x in B$).






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      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 $x in B$).






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        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 $x in B$).






        share|cite|improve this answer












        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 $x in B$).







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Sep 1 at 11:30









        Henno Brandsma

        93.3k342101




        93.3k342101



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            Mutual Information Always Non-negative

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?