In mathematics, particularly in set theory, the beth numbers are a certain sequence of infinite cardinal numbers (also known as transfinite numbers), conventionally written
\beth0,\beth1,\beth2,\beth3,...
\beth
\aleph0,\aleph1,...
\aleph
\beth
Beth numbers are defined by transfinite recursion:
\beth0=\aleph0,
\beth\alpha+1=
\beth\alpha | |
2 |
,
\bethλ=\supl\{\beth\alpha:\alpha<λr\},
where
\alpha
λ
The cardinal
\beth0=\aleph0
N
\beth0=|N|
Let
\alpha
A\alpha
\beth\alpha=|A\alpha|
l{P}(A\alpha)
A\alpha
A\alpha
A\alpha | |
2 |
\subsetl{P}(A\alpha x 2)
A\alpha
\{0,1\}
\beth\alpha | |
2 |
\beth\alpha+1=
\beth\alpha | |
2 |
=\left|
A\alpha | |
2 |
\right|=|l{P}(A\alpha)|
A\alpha
Given this definition,
\beth0,\beth1,\beth2,\beth3,...
are respectively the cardinalities of
N,l{P}(N),l{P}(l{P}(N)),l{P}(l{P}(l{P}(N))),...
so that the second beth number
\beth1
ak{c}
\beth2
Because of Cantor's theorem, each set in the preceding sequence has cardinality strictly greater than the one preceding it. For infinite limit ordinals
λ
λ
\bethλ=\supl\{\beth\alpha:\alpha<λr\}.
One can show that this definition is equivalent to
\bethλ=|cupl\{A\alpha:\alpha<λr\}|.
For instance:
\beth\omega
cupl\{N,l{P}(N),l{P}(l{P}(N)),l{P}(l{P}(l{P}(N))),...r\}
\beth2\omega
cupl\{N,l{P}(N),l{P}(l{P}(N)),l{P}(l{P}(l{P}(N))),...,{A\omega},l{P}({A\omega}),l{P}(l{P}({A\omega})),l{P}(l{P}(l{P}({A\omega}))),...r\}
\beth | |
\omega2 |
cupl\{N,l{P}(N),l{P}(l{P}(N)),l{P}(l{P}(l{P}(N))),...,{A\omega},l{P}({A\omega}),l{P}(l{P}({A\omega})),...,{A2\omega
{A3\omega
This equivalence can be shown by seeing that:
S
|cupS|\lel(|S| x \supl\{|s|:s\inSr\}r)
\kappaa,\kappab
\kappaa x \kappab=max\{\kappaa,\kappab\}
l\{A\alpha:\alpha<λr\}
λ
|cupl\{A\alpha:\alpha<λr\}|=\supl\{\beth\alpha:\alpha<λr\}
λ
Note that this behavior is different from that of successor ordinals. Cardinalities less than
\beth\beta
\beth\alpha:\alpha<\beta
\beta
\beta
One can also show that the von Neumann universes
V\omega+\alpha
\beth\alpha
Assuming the axiom of choice, infinite cardinalities are linearly ordered; no two cardinalities can fail to be comparable. Thus, since by definition no infinite cardinalities are between
\aleph0
\aleph1
\beth1\ge\aleph1.
\beth\alpha\ge\aleph\alpha
\alpha
The continuum hypothesis is equivalent to
\beth1=\aleph1.
The generalized continuum hypothesis says the sequence of beth numbers thus defined is the same as the sequence of aleph numbers, i.e.,
\beth\alpha=\aleph\alpha
\alpha
Since this is defined to be
\aleph0
\beth0
N
Q
l{A}
See main article: cardinality of the continuum.
Sets with cardinality
\beth1
R
C
Rn
2N
ZN
N
Z
RN
R
R
R
R
R
R
C
C
NN
\beth2
2ak{c}
ak{c}
Sets with cardinality
\beth2
R
R
RR
Rm
Rn
R
R
R
Q
N
Rn
Rn
\beth\omega
The more general symbol
\beth\alpha(\kappa)
\alpha
\kappa
\beth0(\kappa)=\kappa,
\beth\alpha+1
\beth\alpha(\kappa) | |
(\kappa)=2 |
,
\bethλ(\kappa)=\sup\{\beth\alpha(\kappa):\alpha<λ\}
So
\beth\alpha=\beth\alpha(\aleph0).
In Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZF), for any cardinals
\kappa
\mu
\alpha
\kappa\le\beth\alpha(\mu).
And in ZF, for any cardinal
\kappa
\alpha
\beta
\beth\beta(\beth\alpha(\kappa))=\beth\alpha+\beta(\kappa).
Consequently, in ZF absent ur-elements, with or without the axiom of choice, for any cardinals
\kappa
\mu
\beth\beta(\kappa)=\beth\beta(\mu)
holds for all sufficiently large ordinals
\beta
\alpha
\beta\geq\alpha
This also holds in Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with ur-elements (with or without the axiom of choice), provided that the ur-elements form a set which is equinumerous with a pure set (a set whose transitive closure contains no ur-elements). If the axiom of choice holds, then any set of ur-elements is equinumerous with a pure set.
Borel determinacy is implied by the existence of all beths of countable index.[5]
. Judith Roitman . Introduction to Modern Set Theory . 2011 . . 978-0-9824062-4-3 . See page 109 for beth numbers.