![Page 1: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization
Great Theoretical Ideas In Computer ScienceSteven Rudich
CS 15-251 Spring 2004
Lecture 25 Apr 13, 2004 Carnegie Mellon University¥
![Page 2: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Early ideas from the course
InductionNumbersRepresentationFinite Counting and probability
----------
A hint of the infinite:
Infinite row of dominoes.Infinite choice trees, and infinite probability
![Page 3: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Infinite RAM ModelPlatonic Version: One memory location for each natural number 0, 1, 2, …
Aristotelian Version: Whenever you run out of memory, the computer contacts the factory. A maintenance person is flown by helicopter and attaches 100 Gig of RAM and all programs resume their computations, as if they had never been interrupted.
![Page 4: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The Ideal Computer:no bound on amount of memory
no bound on amount of time
Ideal Computer is defined as a computer with infinite RAM.
You can run a Java program and never have any overflow, or out of memory
errors.
![Page 5: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
An Ideal Computer Can Be Programmed To Print Out:
: 3.14159265358979323846264…2: 2.0000000000000000000000…e: 2.7182818284559045235336…1/3: 0.33333333333333333333….: 1.6180339887498948482045…
![Page 6: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Printing Out An Infinite Sequence..
We say program P prints out the infinite sequence s(0), s(1), s(2), …; if when P is executed on an ideal computer a sequence of symbols appears on the screen such that
- The kth symbol is s(k)- For every k2, P eventually prints the kth symbol. I.e., the delay between symbol k and symbol k+1 is not infinite.
![Page 7: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Computable Real Numbers
A real number r is computable if there is a program that prints out the decimal representation of r from left to right. Thus, each digit of r will eventually be printed as part of the output sequence.
Are all real numbers computable?
![Page 8: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Describable Numbers
A real number r is describable if it can be unambiguously denoted by a finite piece of English text.
2: “Two.”: “The area of a circle of radius one.”
![Page 9: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Is every computable real number,
also a describable real number?
Computable r: some program outputs rDescribable r: some sentence denotes r
![Page 10: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Theorem: Every computable real is also describable
Proof: Let r be a computable real that is output by a program P. The following is an unambiguous denotation:
“The real number output by the following program:” P
![Page 11: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
MORAL: A computer program can be viewed as a description of its
output.
Syntax: The text of the programSemantics: The real number output by P.
![Page 12: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Are all real numbers describable?
![Page 13: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
To INFINITY …. and Beyond!
![Page 14: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Correspondence Principle
If two finite sets can be placed into 1-1 onto correspondence, then they have the same size.
![Page 15: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Correspondence Definition
Two finite sets are defined to have the same size if and only if they can be placed into 1-1 onto correspondence.
![Page 16: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Georg Cantor (1845-1918)
![Page 17: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Cantor’s Definition (1874)
Two sets are defined to have the same size if and only if they can be placed into 1-1 onto correspondence.
![Page 18: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Cantor’s Definition (1874)
Two sets are defined to have the same cardinality if and only if they can be placed into 1-1 onto correspondence.
![Page 19: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Do and have the same cardinality?
= { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, …. }
= The even, natural numbers.
![Page 20: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
and do not have the same cardinality! is a proper subset of with
plenty left over.
The attempted correspondence f(x)=x does not take onto .
![Page 21: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
and do have the same cardinality!
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ….…0, 2, 4, 6, 8,10, ….
f(x) = 2x is 1-1 onto.
![Page 22: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Lesson:
Cantor’s definition only requires that some 1-1
correspondence between the two sets is onto, not that all
1-1 correspondences are onto.
This distinction never arises when the sets are finite.
![Page 23: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
If this makes you feel uncomfortable…..
TOUGH! It is the price that you must pay to reason
about infinity
![Page 24: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Do and have the same cardinality?
= { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, …. }
= { …, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, …. }
![Page 25: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
No way! is infinite in two ways: from 0 to
positive infinity and from 0 to negative infinity.
Therefore, there are far more integers than
naturals.
Actually, not.
![Page 26: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
and do have the same cardinality!
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 …0, 1, -1, 2, -2, 3, -3, ….
f(x) = x/2 if x is odd -x/2 if x is even
![Page 27: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Transitivity Lemma
If f: AB 1-1 onto, and g: BC 1-1 ontoThen h(x) = g(f(x)) is 1-1 onto AC
Hence, , , and all have the same cardinality.
![Page 28: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Do and have the same cardinality?
= { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, …. }
= The Rational Numbers
![Page 29: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
No way!The rationals are
dense: between any two there is a third. You can’t list them one by
one without leaving out an infinite number of
them.
![Page 30: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Don’t jump to conclusions!
There is a clever way to list the rationals,
one at a time, without missing a
single one!
![Page 31: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
First, let’s warm up with another interesting one: can be paired
with x
![Page 32: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Theorem: and xhave the same cardinality
0 1 2 3 4 …
…
4
3
2
1
0
The point (x,y)
represents the ordered
pair (x,y)
![Page 33: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Theorem: and xhave the same cardinality
0 1 2 3 4 …
…
4
3
2
1
0 0
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
9
The point (x,y)
represents the ordered
pair (x,y)
![Page 34: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Defining 1,1 onto f: -> x
k;=0;
For sum = 0 to forever do
{For x = 0 to sum do {y := sum-x;
Let f(k):= The point (x,y); k++
}}
![Page 35: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Onto the Rationals!
![Page 36: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
The point at x,y represents x/y
![Page 37: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
The point at x,y represents x/y
3
2
0 1
![Page 38: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
1877 letter to Dedekind:
I see it, but I don't believe it!
![Page 39: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
We call a set countable if it can be placed into 1-1 onto correspondence with the natural numbers.
So far we know that N, E, Z, and Q are
countable.
![Page 40: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Do and have the same cardinality?
= { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, …. }
= The Real Numbers
![Page 41: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
No way!You will run out of
natural numbers long before you match up
every real.
![Page 42: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Don’t jump to conclusions!
You can’t be sure that there isn’t some clever correspondence that
you haven’t thought of yet.
![Page 43: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
I am sure!Cantor proved it.
He invented a very important technique
called“DIAGONALIZATION”.
![Page 44: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Theorem: The set I of reals between 0 and 1 is not
countable.Proof by contradiction:Suppose I is countable. Let f be the 1-1 onto function from to I. Make a list L as follows:
0: decimal expansion of f(0)1: decimal expansion of f(1)…k: decimal expansion of f(k)…
![Page 45: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Theorem: The set I of reals between 0 and 1 is not
countable.Proof by contradiction:Suppose I is countable. Let f be the 1-1 onto function from to I. Make a list L as follows:
0: .3333333333333333333333…1: .3141592656578395938594982..…k: .345322214243555345221123235..…
![Page 46: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
L 0 1 2 3 4 …0123…
![Page 47: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
L 0 1 2 3 4 …0 d0
1 d1
2 d2
3 d3
… …
![Page 48: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
L 0 1 2 3 4
0 d0
1 d1
2 d2
3 d3
… …
ConfuseL = . C0 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 …
![Page 49: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
L 0 1 2 3 4
0 d0
1 d1
2 d2
3 d3
… …
5, if dk=66, otherwise
Ck=
ConfuseL = . C0 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 …
![Page 50: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
L 0 1 2 3 4
0
1 d1
2 d2
3 d3
… …
5, if dk=66, otherwise
Ck=C0dd00 C1 C2 C3 C4 …
![Page 51: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
L 0 1 2 3 4
0 d0
1
2 d2
3 d3
… …
5, if dk=66, otherwise
Ck=
C0 C1dd11 C2 C3 C4 …
![Page 52: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
L 0 1 2 3 4
0 d0
1 d1
2
3 d3
… …
5, if dk=66, otherwise
Ck=
C0 C1 C2dd22 C3 C4 …
![Page 53: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
L 0 1 2 3 4
0 d0
1 d1
2
3 d3
… …
5, if dk=66, otherwise
Ck=
By design, ConfuseL can’t be on the list! ConfuseL differs from the kth element on the
list in the kth position. Contradiction of assumption that list is complete.
C0 C1 C2dd22 C3 C4 …
![Page 54: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
The set of reals is uncountable!
![Page 55: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Hold it!Why can’t the same argument be used to
show that is uncountable?
![Page 56: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
The argument works the same for until
the punchline. CONFUSEL is not
necessarily rational, so there is no
contradiction from the fact that it is
missing.
![Page 57: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Standard Notation
= Any finite alphabetExample: {a,b,c,d,e,…,z}
= All finite strings of symbols from including the empty string
![Page 58: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Theorem: Every infinite subset S of * is countable
Proof: Sort S by first by length and then alphabetically. Map the first word to 0, the second to 1, and so on….
![Page 59: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Stringing Symbols Together = The symbols on a standard keyboardThe set of all possible Java programs is a subset of
The set of all possible finite pieces of English text is a subset of
![Page 60: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Thus:
The set of all possible Java programs is
countable.
The set of all possible finite length pieces of
English text is countable.
![Page 61: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
There are countably many Java program and
uncountably many reals.
HENCE:
MOST REALS ARE NOT COMPUTABLE.
![Page 62: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
There are countably many descriptions and
uncountably many reals.
Hence:
MOST REAL NUMBERS ARE NOT
DESCRIBEABLE!
![Page 63: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Oh, Bonzo!
![Page 64: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Is there a real number that can be described, but not computed?
![Page 65: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
We know there are at least 2 infinities. Are there more?
![Page 66: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Power Set
The power set of S is the set of all subsets of S. The power set is denoted (S).
Proposition: If S is finite, the power set of S has cardinality 2|S|
![Page 67: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Theorem: S can’t be put into 1-1 correspondence with (S)
Suppose f:S->(S) is 1-1 and ONTO.
A
B
C
S
{B}
{A}
{C}
(S)(S)
{A,B}{B,C} {A,C}
{A,B,C}
![Page 68: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Theorem: S can’t be put into 1-1 correspondence with (S)Suppose f:S->(S) is 1-1 and ONTO.
Let CONFUSE = { x | x Let CONFUSE = { x | x S, x S, x f(x) } f(x) }There is some y such that There is some y such that
f(y)=CONFUSEf(y)=CONFUSE
A
B
C
S
{B}
{A}{
C}
(S)(S)
{A,B}
{B,C}
{A,C}
{A,B,C}
Is y in CONFUSE?Is y in CONFUSE?YES: Definition of CONFUSE implies noYES: Definition of CONFUSE implies noNO: Definition of CONFUSE implies yesNO: Definition of CONFUSE implies yes
![Page 69: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
This proves that there are at least a countable
number of infinities.
The first infinity is called:
0
![Page 70: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
0, 1,2,…
Are there any more
infinities?
![Page 71: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
0, 1,2,…
Let S = {k | k 2 }(S) is provably larger than any of them.
![Page 72: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
In fact, the same argument can be used to show that no single infinity is
big enough to count the number of
infinities!
![Page 73: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
0, 1,2,…Cantor wanted to
show that the number of reals was
1
![Page 74: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Cantor called his conjecture that 1 was the number of reals the
“Continuum Hypothesis.” However, he was unable to prove it. This helped fuel his
depression.
![Page 75: Cantor’s Legacy: Infinity And Diagonalization](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568160e2550346895dd0128b/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
The Continuum Hypothesis can’t be proved or disproved from the standard
axioms of set theory! This has been
proved!