2
$\begingroup$

I have to find the cardinality of the set of all relations over the natural numbers, without any limitations.

It seems to be א, but I can't find a function/other way to prove it.

help anyone?

thanxs.

  • 3
    Relations are (or are in correspondence with) subsets of $\Bbb N\times\Bbb N$, and the latter is equinumerous with $ \Bbb N$ itself, so...2012-06-30
  • 0
    @anon You claim that it's cardinality is א0? There can be infinite number of subsets, so it seemed to me like a equinumerous to N^N2012-06-30
  • 0
    Sorry, I meant $\Bbb N\times\Bbb N$ has cardinality $\aleph_0$, not that $\mathcal{P}(\Bbb N\times\Bbb N)$ does.2012-06-30
  • 0
    This question asks about symmetric relations and equivalence relations: [Cardinality of relations set](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/18046/cardinality-of-relations-set).2012-06-30
  • 0
    Is א even a cardinality if you don't put a subscript on it?2012-06-30
  • 0
    Sorry but I didn't get it yet: if it's cardinality is א0 I understand it (as a union of ciuntable sets), but if it is א I don't understand why. so is it א or א0?2012-06-30
  • 0
    @adamco: what do you understand those symbols to mean? In fact, how would you describe those symbols in words? They don't show up well in my font as it is.2012-06-30
  • 5
    To all the commentators, $\aleph$ is used in some parts of the world to denote $2^{\aleph_0}$. In fact this is Cantor's original notation.2012-06-30

2 Answers 2

4

Recall that $R$ is a relation over $A$ if $R\subseteq A\times A$.

The definition above tells us that every subset of $\mathbb{N\times N}$ is a relation over $\mathbb N$, and vice versa - every relation over $\mathbb N$ is a subset of $\mathbb{N\times N}$.

Thus the set of all relations over $\mathbb N$ is exactly $\mathcal P(\mathbb{N\times N})$, that is the power of $\mathbb{N\times N}$.

We know that $\mathbb N$ and $\mathbb{N\times N}$ have the same cardinality, $\aleph_0$. So their power sets also have the same cardinality. Therefore $|\mathcal P(\mathbb{N\times N})|=\aleph=|\mathbb R|=2^{\aleph_0}$.

Note, however, that as a particular set, every relation in particular is a subset of a countable set and thus countable (or finite).

  • 0
    You only consider binary relations here, but of course your proof generalises to $n$-ary relations as $|\mathbb{N}^n| = |\mathbb{N}| = \aleph_0$.2012-06-30
  • 0
    @Benedict, of course. At least in the course I took, and in most contexts "relation" means binary relation, otherwise the arity is specified.2012-06-30
2

All relations from $\Bbb N\to\Bbb N$ are the subsets of $\Bbb N \times \Bbb N $ which is of same cardinality as $\Bbb Q$(set of rationals) as you can consider a rational $p/q$ ($q\neq 0$) as tuple $(p,q)$ of $\Bbb N \times \Bbb N$ and Cardinality of Rationals is same as of $\Bbb N$.Hence, $|\Bbb N \times \Bbb N|=|\Bbb N|=\aleph_0$ and therefore $2^{\aleph_0}$ is the required cardinality.

  • 1
    You can write $\aleph_0$ as `\aleph_0`. But you want cardinality of $\mathcal P(\mathbb N\times\mathbb N)$, not the cardinality of $\mathbb N\times\mathbb N$. So the final result should be $2^{\aleph_0}=\mathfrak c$. (TeX: `$2^{\aleph_0}=\mathfrak c$`)2012-06-30
  • 0
    Careful: this correspondence between rationals and 2-tuples is not an isomorphism.2012-06-30
  • 0
    Per Martin's comment, I believe this answer to be incorrect, and am hence downvoting it.2012-06-30
  • 2
    Actually, @Martin, there is some usage of $\aleph$ as the cardinality of the continuum.2012-06-30
  • 0
    Each relation has cardinality $\aleph_0$, but there are $2^{\aleph_0}$ relations.2012-06-30
  • 0
    @Asaf I did not know about that. Is it some kind of older notation? (Such as $\Omega$ instead of $\omega_1$ which, as far as can say, is used much less now.)2012-06-30
  • 1
    @Martin: Cantor's original, as I remarked in the comments to the question. It is much less common nowadays, though.2012-06-30
  • 1
    Okay, per Asaf's clarification (thanks!) I think this answer is correct, but I can't immediately revoke my downvote (the system won't let me). anon's comment is a legitimate concern (what about negative rationals? why can we assert the result that $|\mathbb Q| = |\mathbb N|$, which I would normally prove *after* proving $|\mathbb{N \times N}| = |\mathbb N|$?)2012-06-30
  • 1
    @Ben: I edited the $\aleph$ symbol. Now you should be able to revoke your downvote.2012-06-30
  • 0
    @Asaf: Thanks, done :) (have to admit, I think that particular restriction somewhat silly).2012-06-30