-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 70
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Cantor's theorem and diagonal argument #1185
Conversation
I am tempted to suggest moving Cantor's theorem to |
I am not quite sure if I follow you here. In Über eine elementare Frage der Mannigfaltigskeitslehre, Cantor proves that there cannot be a bijection from X to 2^X. He uses what is now known as a general technique called the diagonal argument. I have trouble seeing why "Cantor's diagonal argument" should only refer to a specific instance of that argument. Which sources say that? |
@EgbertRijke While I cannot read German, the following two English translations of "Über eine elementare Frage der Mannigfaltigskeitslehre"
demonstrate Cantor's argument as follows. They consider given a set This is also what Wikipedia refers to as Cantor's diagonal argument In Wikipedia's article on Cantor's theorem, the theorem is described as a generalization of Cantor's diagonal argument that apply to arbitrary Interestingly, Wikipedia's article on Cantor's theorem only cites Über eine elementare Frage der Mannigfaltigskeitslehre, in which the proof given in the Wikipedia article doesn't seem to appear. Again, I cannot read German so I may be wrong on this. Still, we can observe two decidedly distinct flavors of argument. One, referred to as "Cantor's diagonal argument" considers infinite sequences of elements from a set with at least two elements, while "Cantor's theorem" considers the powerset of an arbitrary set. |
If I have convinced you, I am more than happy to formalize a new file on Cantor's diagonal argument. Or, if you know German and can tell me that Cantor indeed demonstrates that no function |
I think I simply did not know that "Cantor's diagonal argument" is used to a specific instance of the diagonal argument. I thought it referred to the style of argument, of which Cantor has given the first (few?) examples, so it feels counterintuitive that it only refers to an instance. I agree that "Cantor's theorem" states that there is no surjection from any set to its power set. (There are constructively a few different ways to state this, eg with X -> Prop and X -> 2, but in all cases we should call them Cantor's theorem). Note that we also have a file on Lawvere's fixed point theorem, which generalizes Cantor's diagonal argument (or perhaps in wikipedia's reading, Cantor's theorem). I looked up how Jech refers to it in his Set Theory textbook, and he simply speaks of "diagonalization" for the method, and he attributes the theorems that |
Right. What set me down this path was a bit of a rabbit hole while I was preparing for class today which I will spare you the details of. 😅 Anyways, then I think we agree. I'll try and explain the terminology and add the necessary citations. In the meantime, I'll mark this PR as a draft. |
Great! To be clear, I don't think the PR needs much more work. It is fine as it is and I'm glad you're taking this on. I just needed to know what was behind this pull request, as it looked a bit strange at first glance. |
Alright, I've added the file with what I perceive to be a faithful formalization of Cantor's original diagonal argument. @EgbertRijke |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a very nice pull request, clearly a lot of work has gone into making all these improvements and including all the references. A big thanks!
You can enable auto-merge whenever you're done with this PR |
Thanks! |
From what I could gather from online sources, what is referred to as "Cantor's diagonal argument" in the library is actually a generalization of the diagonal argument that is known as "Cantor's theorem", and it seems "Cantor's diagonal argument" should be reserved for the uncountability of sequences in types equipped with two distinct elements.
This PR also makes a series of miscellaneous corrections:
#concept
invocation for logical equivalencescountable-sets
that were actually about the maybe monadIn addition, this PR adds
#concept
invocations with Wikidata identifiers