Talk:Aleph number

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Aleph two 2 Aleph-not? 3 Possible origins 4 ∞ isn't just ∞ 5 Internet Explorer 6 bijective/bijection

I'm not sure about the paragraph discussing the aleph numbers and algebraic infinity - I think it might cause some confusion, since it states that the two are unrelated, yet aleph numbers were developed to deal with infinite sets. Perhaps something that explains the difference? -- ocmpoma

I've merged together the aleph-null, aleph-one articles, and the fragement from the aleph article. I think this is justified because the alephs, particularly aleph-null and aleph-one, are so closely tied together that they should be discussed in the same article. This now needs copyediting and review by someone else. -- The Anome 11:11, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

good idea. It looks pretty good to me! :) -- Tarquin 13:52, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I'm in disagreement with Michael Hardy regarding the definition of Aleph-1 and haven't had the time to actually follow through on some of the research. I claim that that Aleph-1 (with the Axiom of Choice) = the smallest infinite cardinality greater than Aleph-0, but not necessarily equal to the continuum, while he claims that Aleph-1 = the continuum, but it is uncertain whether there are values between the two. (Hope I summerized the disagreement properly). If there are other people with knowledge here, I'd appreciate their input. GulDan 17:48, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You have not summarized the disagreement at all correctly. Michael Hardy was pointing out that "aleph_1 is the next cardinal after aleph_0" is a theorem of ZFC, not the definition of aleph_1. He certainly did not say that aleph_1 = the continuum. --Zundark 21:10, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I realized later that my def was off too, but he was still accepting the CH which was my primary complaint. However, all is fixed now. Once again, thanks for the clarification. GulDan

---

I have read in quite a few books on the so-called "extremely useful" and "remarkable" property of Aleph-one that every countable subset of it has an upper bound in it. But the only example that I know that actually uses this fact is trying to find an explicit description of the sigma algebra generated by a collection of subsets. I would guess that it is useful for closure with respect to countable operations (such as countable unions + complements in the sigma algebra case). But if anyone has more examples or can elucidate this issue... suggestions welcome (and add it to aleph-one).

Choni 10:10, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Is there more work needed to get total consistency in the typo-style for the aleph-null glyph? - Bevo 20:04, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Should we mention that Aleph-null is also pronounced Aleph-nought? I had never heard -null before.

[edit] Aleph two

I think the aleph two section is completely wrong; I'm going to remove it completely. Aleph two is not as interesting as some other alephs anyway, like aleph omega-sub-six (which cannot be equal to the continuum -- I think).

It was wrong insofar as it said "second smallest" instead of "third smallest infinite". I'm not sure it was best to remove it completely, rather than just correcting it.

Can you explain why aleph_{omega_6} is not the continuum? I thought it was known that this could not be proved in ZFC (assuming ZFC is consistent), because aleph_{omega_6} has uncountable cofinality. --Zundark, 26 Jul 2004

Ok first off, what is aleph_{omega_6}? Why omega_6? Just plain aleph_omega, the first aleph after the alephs with finite indices, has countable cofinality and hence cannot be the continuum.-- Choni

[edit] Aleph-not?

I've heard it referred to as Aleph-not on multiple occasions, perhaps a page for Aleph-not should be redirected to here?

actually its spelled "Naught"

[edit] Possible origins

This section is mere speculation at this time. Should be sourced or deleted. BTW it seems a little implausible to me that Cantor used "aleph" to suggest an identity between mathematical infinite and theological infinite. I think that would have struck him as sacrilege; as I understand it he chose the term "transfinite" as opposed to "infinite", at least in part, specifically to avoid such an implication. --Trovatore 19:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ∞ isn't just ∞

Maybe i'm wrong but i think that ∞ isn't just ∞.. There are different orders of infinity.. e.g.: Limit(x / e^x, x->∞) -> 0, so e^∞ is an infinite grater than the mere ∞.

You're probably thinking of Big O notation or asymptotic analysis, which don't have much to do with infinite cardinals. Note that simply means that f(x) increases without bound, that is, f(x) can be made larger than any specified real number by choosing an appropriate value for x. —Keenan Pepper 15:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Explorer

I notice JRSpriggs always undoes changes that make use of the ℵ symbol and prefers that a image is generated for it instead because Internet Explorer doesn't support them. I just checked here and I can see them just fine in Internet Explorer 6. I doubt it's an issue with IE, more likely is that JRSpriggs has font problems. From my reading of the Wikipedia rules it appears that it is more accessible and is better to use the actual characters in cases such as this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.193.190.213 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure what JRSpriggs's technical problems are, but he also can't view the "element of symbol", and so won't allow them in articles he works on either. It's a sad state of affairs. -lethe ^{talk +} 04:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there's nothing wrong with Internet Explorer. (Wait, wtf did I just say? I meant it's not IE's fault in this particular case...) JRSpriggs just doesn't have a font that has the aleph character. —Keenan Pepper 16:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I initially thought as well, but when this first came up, I think we established that this is not the problem; the character displays correctly for JRSpriggs in Firefox, but not in IE. So his system must have a font with the symbol, right? If IE works for some people and and JRSpriggs does have the fonts necessary, I have no idea why his system won't display the symbols, but apparently he's not the only one (his nephew as well). -lethe ^{talk +} 17:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's some history of this issue. This was first brought up here, and afterwards JRSpriggs changed from unicode to inline PNGs in about a dozen different articles. I then brought it up at the project talk page. -lethe ^{talk +} 18:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's how I see it:

• JRSpriggs has the right font.
• Others, using IE and the right font, can see ℵ, but JRSpriggs can't.
• So JRSpriggs' copy of IE must not know how to find the right font, or hasn't been told that it's supposed to use it.

This is a guess, of course, but it seems like the place to look. JR, could you go into Preferences in your copy of Firefox and figure out where it's looking for fonts, and then tell IE where that is, or else copy them into your C:\Windows\Fonts directory and "install" them or whatever it is you have to do? --Trovatore 19:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So actually, if you follow the link above to the discussion on the math project talk page, you will find that you also verified that your own copy of IE exhibits the same behavior. Maybe tomorrow I will go find a Windows computer in the lab and check it myself. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Both my copy of Firefox and my copy of Internet Explorer say that they are using Unicode (UTF-8) as their character encoding. Auto-select is turned off for both. Are those the correct choices? JRSpriggs 03:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bijective/bijection

Regarding the recent, shall we say, edit skirmish, here's how I see it: JR wants "bijective" and "one-to-one" both to modify "correspondence". That's perfectly cromulent grammar, but you need to punctuate it as follows:

..a bijective, or "one-to-one", correspondence...

because otherwise it's not clear that "correspondence" is supposed to distribute over the "or". If you do it like that, though, it becomes problematic to wikilink, at least if you want to wikilink both bijective and one-to-one correspondence.

In fact, though, bijective and one-to-one correspondence are both redirects to bijection, so you really shouldn't wikilink them, per the MoS.

So no vote, per se, on my part as to the conflict between the two editors; just a suggestion that if JR's sentence structure is used, then the commas should be placed as I have recommended, and "one-to-one correspondence" should not be wikilinked. --Trovatore 16:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)