The actual infinity in Cantors set theory

The actual infinity in Cantors theory of sets( G.Mpantes )

. George Mpantes

www. mpantes gr

.
The actual infinity Aristotle-Cantor

, potential infinity .

The origins of Cantors infinity, aleph null, the diagonal argument

The natural infinity

, continuum

The mathematical infinity

A first classification of sets
Three notable examples of countable sets
The 1-1 correspondence, equivalent sets, cardinality

The theory of transfinite numbers

Existence and construction, existence proofs

The theory of Cantor, introduces us to the mathematical study of infinity .

The definition of the Cantor set is :
Definition 1 .
A set is a gathering together into a whole of definite distinct objects of our
perception or of our thought which are called elements of the setG Cantor
1. The actual infinity, Aristotle-Cantor .
The above definition in the case of infinite sets , establishes the
concept of active or actual infinity, namely the existence of an infinite set as
a mathematical object (in whole), on par with the numbers and finite sets .
The concept of actual infinite reaches from Greek antiquity and was rejected

George Mpantes

www.mpantes.gr

by Aristotle .
" ..... There are no infinite objects , wrote Aristotle , and the infinite totalities of
objects do not form objects of study . Infinite totalities of objects can be
studied only internally ... ( potential infinity) there is no actual infinity, viz
infinity as a whole , whose parts would exist simultaneously , otherwise we
would not comprehend nor the continuity of time (the time would have start
and end) , nor divisibility of sizes ", which means that for Aristotle the only
meaningful study is the study of potential infinity ( Anapolitanos 2005 )
He wrote that:
infinity does not exist in the form of an infinite solid or an infinite magnitude
perceived from senses ... infinity exists only potentially, while actual infinity as a
subject , is the result of a mental leap , which is a process not allowed.

Gauss later (1831) said that : in mathematics infinite magnitude may

never be used as something final:infinity is only a faon de parler, meaning a limit to
which certain ratios may approach..

Let's look at the mathematical version of the above :

We consider the natural numbers ( 0,1,2,3 , .... n, n +1, ..... ) . Potential
infinite in this case means that one can continue to write terms infinitely
without never reaching to an end of the succession, the infinity of numbers is
tested internally.
So for Aristotle, the collection of natural numbers is potential infinity as
there is not a greater last natural , but not an actual infinity as it does not exist
as an integrated entity " ( Aristotle)
But in mathematics of Cantor, set

is a certain object whose clarity

arises from the fact that it has exactly the elements that indicates, and if the
natural numbers are a set N , then the above procedure is considered
finished , and N is actual infinity the same for rational numbers , so for real
numbers . Here we say : the natural numbers is potential infinity because
there is no greater number , but the Cantors set of natural numbers is
actual infinity because it exists as an integrated entity . Thus an expression
actual infinite set " is redundant , saying only infinite set .
The concept of Cantors set is a development exceeded the
physiology of the human brain , which in the route of its growth has learned
thinking linearly (especially regarding time ) , the only way to think infinity is a

The actual infinity in Cantors set theory

line that never ends , or a thing that exists forever , how to conceive a line
without end but finished ! We forget intuition , we did and other times , let us
remember the space-time, the continuum , etc. Descardes said that infinity is
recognizable but not comprehensible.
In Aristotle's question " where the human being can sustain the
controversial conceptual leap of objectification the infinity ? " The answer is :
in the concept of Cantors set. In the sequence 1,2,3,4,5we can write a
billion, a trillion,..terms but all of them are aleph (null) terms.
2.The origins of Cantors infinity

The origin of infinity has to do with its trading.

Cantor makes a

tripartite distinction of infinity in three contexts : ".first when it is realized in

its most complete form, in a fully independent supernal being , in Deo,
whereat I call Absolute Infinity , (that means God ,) the highest perfection of
God is the ability to create an infinite set , and His boundless magnanimity
prompted him (Cantor) to create it ." We are in the heart of metaphysics !
The infinite set created by God , and him (Cantor) discovered it ! secondly
when displayed in the eventual world of creation ( ie the natural infinity) , third
when the mind conceives it in abstracto, as a mathematical magnitude ,
cardinal or ordinal number. ( the mathematical infinity ). I want strongly to
dissociate the Absolute Infinite from what I call transfinite ( will

see the

meaning of the term) , ie integrated infinite of the second and third kind, which
are clearly delimited , can grow more, and therefore are associated with the
finite .Cantor ) .

3. The natural infinity.

Is there the infinite "out there" in nature ? Here things are clearer to
the reader since neither the individuality of matter , nor later of electricity and
energy advocate with the idea of infinite divisibility as it is contradicted by the
experience of physics and chemistry ( Hilbert , for infinity ).
However, there are three areas in which our world appears to be
unblocked and therefore infinite . It seems that the time is not possible to

George Mpantes

www.mpantes.gr

have an end , also the space , and yet it seems that every spatial or time
interval can be divided indefinitely . But, recent opinions in physics verify the
views of the operational definitions of physical concepts , ( The Logic of
Modern Physics, Bridgman) , without exception , even in mental (i.e
mathematical concepts, as the mathematical continuity), so the assertion that
time is infinite is a mere statement, such as the statement of classical
mechanics, that time is global the concepts of science are defined by sets
of operations , and not by arbitrary definitions of philosophical type , they are
in a Platonic world only in our minds , Bridgman is the modern Aristotle for the
new realities of physics (relativity). What experiment has proved that time is
infinitely divisible? It is readily apparent that experiments and infinity are
incompatible since the life of the experimenter is finite .
In all theories of physics the problem of infinity is responsible for
creating impasses . Even Zeno 's paradoxes arise from trying to connect
infinity by the motion of natural bodies . These ( theories ) start to accept
infinity initially and then slowly pooping out this concept to be able to produce
equations to correspond to reality. The vision of the Dirac was just that: to
throw out the infinities of the equations studied ( ' unification of forces Abdus
Salam). That seems as the second infinity of Cantor , in the eventual world of
creation, the natural infinity, doesnt exist just as Aristotle considered ..
4.The mathematical infinity :
Until the nineteenth century mathematicians systematically abstained from the
concept of actual infinity . So when Cantor introduced actually infinite sets he
had to advance his creations against conceptions held by the greatest
mathematicians of the past. The infinitesimals which founded calculus is an
example of the contradiction between the two concepts: they were treated as
both potential and actual infinity. Potential because they are constantly
decreasing quantities without end . Actual because they take part in
operations and behave as zero. The unending process of operation
( reduction ) that produces them, is considered finished . Restoring logical
consequence in Calculus is done using only the potential infinity . This is
basically the meaning of expulsion of infinitesimals from the scope of

The actual infinity in Cantors set theory

Analysis : is dismissed the actual infinity. Indeed the great of analysis , as

Cauchy, Weierstrass and others talked about the infinite small and the
infinitely large just internally , through permissive acts of limits, ie as
something that is born , formed , for an infinite process without ever achieved
identification . They traded the potential infinity ( eliminate the infinitely large
and infinitely small and reduced the proposals referred to them in relations
between finite sizes , Hilbert ) , ie the rigorous foundation of calculus is on
mathematics of potential infinity . Only in the work of Dedekind the infinite
sets become self-consistent logical entities , ie the mathematical study of
actual infinity has begun. This was completed by Cantor .
5. A first classification of sets .
Two sets are called equal A = B if they contain the same elements.
Sets are divided into finite and infinite,
An infinite set called countable set if we can construct an 1-1 correspondence
between the elements of the set and the natural numbers.

6. Three notable examples of countable sets .

theorem 1 : the set of all rational is countable.
The principle behind the above proof is called
first method of diagonals (Kamke).

Consider first the positive rational numbers .

We imagine lines as follows : in first line all
integers in order of magnitude , ie all rational with
denominator 1, second line the numbers of the first line divided by two, third
likewise divided by 3 etc . Thus we have the sequence of numbers in the
order that the line meets omitting the numbers we get, is clear that in the
sequence will appear every positive rational only once 1, 2, 1 / 2, 1 / 3, 3 , 4 ,
3 / 2, 2 / 3, 1 / 4 , .... And if we denote this sequence by { a1 , a2 , ...... } is
obvious that { 0, - a1 , a1 , - a2 , a2 , ....... } are all the rational numbers and
the set is countable .
theorem 2 :
the set of all algebraic numbers is countable .

George Mpantes

www.mpantes.gr

It is possible , however, that all infinite sets are countable . Separating

sets in countable and non- countable acquires significance only after proving
the existence of non countable sets . Their existence follows from the
following theorem of Cantor
theorem 3 : the set of real numbers in the interval [0,1 ] is not
countable . ( uncountable ).
The proof is based on a method the second method of diagonals of
Cantor difficult and imaginative. So the infinite sets are subdivided into
denumerable (or countably infinite) sets and uncountable sets
(nondenumerable infinite sets). So he proved the surprising result that the set
of whole numbers is equivalent to the set of rational numbers but less than the
set of all real numbers. We cant enumetate the real numbers.
Corollary : the set of transcendental numbers is not countable . (We
presuppose the existence of transcendental numbers).
7. The 1-1 correspondence, equivalent sets, cardinality

Now the next question is : is it possible a further division of the class

of non- countable sets ? Cantor raised this question in the following manner
truly intelligent (Kamke): Is it possible to generalize the concept of number ,
so that in each set corresponds one of the generalized these numbers as
somehow typical of the " number of elements "? If this could happen then it
will automatically result a classification of infinite sets , depending on their "
number of elements" .
Cantor , needed new numbers to measure the infinity.
The 1-1 corresponcence .
Cantors basic idea to distinguish the infinite sets was the one-to-one
correspondence . We can set up the following one-to-one correspondence
between the whole numbers and the even numbers
1 2 3 4 5
2 4 6 8 10..
Each whole number corresponds to precisely one even number its
double and each even number corresponds to precisely one whole number
its half.

The actual infinity in Cantors set theory

Hence Cantor concluded that the two sets contain the same number of
objects. Now an infinite set can be put into one-to-one correspondence with

a proper subset of itself. In this correspondence, Cantor saw that infinite sets
could obey laws that did not apply to finite collections , as quaternions could
obey new laws that did not hold for real numbers.
This correspondence is a thought experiment , a process we saw
several times in science (space time, continuum). We get conclusions
applicable equally to finite or infinite sets.
Definition 2

two sets A and B have the same power or are

equivalent if and only if they can have one to one correspondence with each
other eg A = {1,2,3 ....... 24} B = {letters of the alphabet} .
The concepts: equivalence and correspondence are the drivers
of Cantor in his research. We mention a few examples of equivalent sets.
1.For points any two finite intervals T1 and T2 always happens T1 ~ T2
2.A semi-line and an entire line are equivalent with an interval.
3.The sets of points [0,1], (0,1], [0,1), (0,1) are equivalent
4.The interval [0,1] is designated as the continuum. The intervals, the semi-lines and
the lines are equivalent to each other, especially with the continuum.(fig1,2)
5. there are infinite sets that are not
equivalent to each other, for example, the
continuum and a countable set. But this does
not preclude that all uncountable sets are
equivalent to each other. Therefore, the
following proposal acquires fundamental
importance
theorem 4 : there are infinite sets that are neither countable nor equivalent

to the 1continuum. (Second method the diagonal)

The cardinality

Cantor gave the concept of cardinality ( cardinal number ) with a very

sophisticated way ( Katerina Gikas N ) , in which if we take a random
collection of discrete objects and remove all the physical properties of each
object , then remains "something" called cardinality or cardinal number of the
objects in the collection. A trio of trees and a trio of apples have a common
1

George Mpantes

www.mpantes.gr

property which we call three. The cardinality so appear as a characteristic of

sets . All the sets that have the same cardinal number with { a, b } are said to
have cardinal number two , all sets with the same cardinal number as the set {
a, b , c } are said to have three cardinal number , etc. and we denote cardinal
numbers one, two, three , ... with 1,2,3 ....
The cardinality of the set, no matter how abstract seems this definition,
agrees to the case of finite sets with the number expressing the number of
their elements.
Even we will get the sense of the crowd, when move from finite to infinite sets
( Transfinite numbers , an extension of R).
.... and the mathematicians who incorporate various branches of mathematics within
set theory are justified to identify the finite cardinality with natural numbers for the
purpose of this activity ... (Moshe Machover).

8.The theory of transfinite numbers .

Just as it is convenient to have the number symbols 2,4,8,etc to denote
the number of the elements of finite sets , so Cantor used symbols to denote
the number of elements in infinite sets (their cardinals). These symbols are
known as transfinite numbers. The set of the whole number and sets that can
be put into1-1 correspondence with it, have the same number of objects and
this number is denoted by 0 ( aleph null, aleph the first letter of the Hebrew
alphabet ). Since the set of all real numbers proved to be larger than the set of
whole numbers , he denoted this set by a new number c, the cardinal number
of continuum2.

To compare cardinalities, we introduce the relationship is smaller

than by the definition: cardA <cardB iff A is equivalent to a subset of B and
B is not equivalent to any subset of A e.g. cardQ <cardR.
Cantor discovered and proved operations of an arithmetic with
transfinite numbers, these are:
If n is a finite cardinal ( natural number ) :
2

Before Cantor mathematicians accept a single infinite , denoted by the symbol ,

and implied the 'number ' of elements of sets such as the natural numbers or the real
numbers

The actual infinity in Cantors set theory

Note that subtraction and division are not defined in this arithmetic . There are
not zero , unit , inverse and negative .
The well-known theorem of Cantor tells us that the power

set (the set of subsets ) of a set is greater than the

whole. If the set has n elements of the power set has 2 n
Cantor by considering all the possible subsets of the set
of integers, was able to prove that 2 = c. Also he proved

.
Cantor's theory provides an infinite sequence of transfinite numbers
and there is evidence that an unlimited number of cardinals larger than c,
there is in reality.
1 = The size of the power set of a set with size aleph3 zero
2 = The size of the power set of a set with a size aleph one,
3 = The size of the power set of a set with a size aleph two .....

We take this way the sequence of the first infinite transfinite numbers 4
But are there transfinite numbers between
0

and c; the name ( aleph 1 ) was given for such a cardinal . The belief was

that there was not such a number, ie there is no set with cardinality between
the two . This belief is known as the " continuum hypothesis ", and was not
possible to be proved . Finally it has been shown that is not supported by the
3

More often the question has been discussed of whether Georg Cantor was of Jewish origin.

About this it is reported in a notice of the Danish genealogical Institute in Copenhagen from
the year 1937 concerning his father: "It is hereby testified that Georg Woldemar Cantor, born
1809 or 1814, is not present in the registers of the Jewish community, and that he completely
without doubt was not a Jew .
4

Some infinites are bigger than other infinites.Cantor

George Mpantes

www.mpantes.gr

10

usual axioms of set theory , but is usually taken as an additional axiom (Paul
Cohen). At this point the theory bifurcates, here applies the continuum
hypothesis there is not true ! The situation is analogous to the parallel
postulate of Euclidean geometry .
In addition to the transfinite numbers already described

which are

called transfinite cardinal numbers , Cantor introduced transfinite ordinal

numbers symbolized by . The distinction is rather delicate, it is another
infinity different than , is subject in different operations and laws i.e
+1=1+

+11+,

but it is beyond this description.

Set Theory, as developed by G. Cantor, is often termed naive as it was
based on the intuitive notion of sets and their properties. But this was the third
crisis in the foundations of mathematics, after the irrational numbers and
infinitesimals. Began to appear reasonably paradoxes and contradictions in
the Cantor building, and to avoid such inconsistencies and keep Set Theory
contradiction-free, mathematicians came up with several axiomatic systems,
of which the one known as Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) became the most popular,
there are many set theories as many geometries. This story, however, is
beyond the limits of this article .
9. Existence and construction .
The two schools of mathematical philosophy , constructivism and
realism, carry in centuries the differences between Aristotle and Plato.
The variety of paths that connect mathematics with natural science
lead in both directions:
...Most areas of mathematics shed light / examine about directly on some
part of nature. The geometry regards space. The theory of probability teaches us
about the random processes. The group theory sheds light on symmetry. The logic
describes the correct reasoning. Many parts of the analysis were created to study
specific procedures ... is a fact that the best of our theorems give information for the
specific world Nicolas Goodman

Cantor however believed in the freedom of mathematics to posit and

prove concepts apart from the realm of physical phenomena , as expressions
within an internal reality . The only restrictions of this metaphysical system

The actual infinity in Cantors set theory

11

are that all mathematical concepts must be devoid of internal contradiction.

This belief is summarized in his famous assertion that the essence of
mathematics is its freedom

In the case of actual infinity Aristotle does not admit infinite sets as a
totality, in the same way that rejects a seven sided regular polygon. The
Platonists (Cantor was one) on the other hand believe that this exists in some
objective word independent of man, who discovers it.
at all times there have been opposing tendencies in philosophy , and it
would not seem that these differences are nearing any settlement. The reason is
presumably that men have different minds, and that these minds cannot be changed.
There is therefore no hope of expecting any agreement between the Pragmatists
and the Cantorians. Men do not agree because they do not speak the same
language and because some languages can never be learned.Poincare

But the problem of existence is transferred as problem in the value of

existence proofs.

Cantor

proved that there were more real numbers than algebraic

numbers. Hence there must exist transcendental irrational numbers. But this
existence proof did not enable one to name, much less calculate, even one

transcendental number. Also Gauss , proved that every nth degree polynomial
equation with real or complex coefficients had at least one root. But the proof
did not show how to calculate this root. Many mathematicians regarded the
mere proof of existence as worthless. They wanted a proof that demonstrates
the existence of a mathematical object by creating or providing a method for
creating the object, say that the proof of existence should enable
mathematicians to calculate the existing quantity. Such proofs they call
constructive proof.

But if we do believe in mathematical reasoning we need not to

distinguish between the existence and construction proofs. Existence or
constructive proofs are finally mathematical proofs, and mathematical reality
is the mathematical proof.
But in actual infinity can not occur an constructive

proof, because

there is nothing to construct, the construction relates with physical reality, we

can not construct some aleph number because is it not connected with
anything in nature.. Actual infinity divides mathematics in two parts keeping for

George Mpantes

www.mpantes.gr

12

itself just the existential part of math, we cant palpate actual infinity but only
to imagine it. It is a mathematical reality on logic, a monster of logic just for
Platonists who believe that true is everything we think, without a connection
with the real world round us.
George Mpantes

mpantes on scribd

Sources

Amalia Christina N. Babili ( ): ,

Anastasiadis:
Howard Eves: foundations and fundamental concepts of mathematics, Dover
. Moshe Machover: set theory and their limitations.
James Stein How math explains the world Avgo
Katerina Gikas N: ,
, ),
Robert L.Vaught :set theory: an introduction)
E. Kamke: theory (versions Karavias 1962)
Patric Suppes: Axiomatic set theory (Dover) Hilbert
DAbro: the rise of new physics Dover
Morris Klein:mathematics the loss of certainty Dover
Stewart Shapiro: thinking about mathematics (University of Patras)

The actual infinity in Cantors set theory

13