Beth number explained

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,...

, where

\beth

is the Hebrew letter beth. The beth numbers are related to the aleph numbers (

\aleph0,\aleph1,...

), but unless the generalized continuum hypothesis is true, there are numbers indexed by

\aleph

that are not indexed by

\beth

.

Definition

Beth numbers are defined by transfinite recursion:

\beth0=\aleph0,

\beth\alpha+1=

\beth\alpha
2

,

\bethλ=\supl\{\beth\alpha:\alpha<λr\},

where

\alpha

is an ordinal and

λ

is a limit ordinal.[1]

The cardinal

\beth0=\aleph0

is the cardinality of any countably infinite set such as the set

N

of natural numbers, so that

\beth0=|N|

.

Let

\alpha

be an ordinal, and

A\alpha

be a set with cardinality

\beth\alpha=|A\alpha|

. Then,

l{P}(A\alpha)

denotes the power set of

A\alpha

(i.e., the set of all subsets of

A\alpha

),
A\alpha
2

\subsetl{P}(A\alpha x 2)

denotes the set of all functions from

A\alpha

to

\{0,1\}

,
\beth\alpha
2
is the result of cardinal exponentiation, and

\beth\alpha+1=

\beth\alpha
2

=\left|

A\alpha
2

\right|=|l{P}(A\alpha)|

is the cardinality of the power set of

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

is equal to

ak{c}

, the cardinality of the continuum (the cardinality of the set of the real numbers), and the third beth number

\beth2

is the cardinality of the power set of the continuum.

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

, the corresponding beth number is defined to be the supremum of the beth numbers for all ordinals strictly smaller than

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

is the cardinality of

cupl\{N,l{P}(N),l{P}(l{P}(N)),l{P}(l{P}(l{P}(N))),...r\}

.

\beth2\omega

is the cardinality of

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
is the cardinality of

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

}, \mathcal, \mathcal(\mathcal), \dots,

{A3\omega

}, \mathcal, \mathcal(\mathcal), \dots, \dots \Bigr\}.

This equivalence can be shown by seeing that:

S

, the union set of all its members can be no larger than the supremum of its member cardinalities times its own cardinality,

|cupS|\lel(|S| x \supl\{|s|:s\inSr\}r)

\kappaa,\kappab

, if at least one of them is an infinite cardinality, then the product will be the larger of the two,

\kappaa x \kappab=max\{\kappaa,\kappab\}

l\{A\alpha:\alpha<λr\}

will be smaller than most or all of its subsets for any limit ordinal

λ

|cupl\{A\alpha:\alpha<λr\}|=\supl\{\beth\alpha:\alpha<λr\}

for any limit ordinal

λ

Note that this behavior is different from that of successor ordinals. Cardinalities less than

\beth\beta

but greater than any

\beth\alpha:\alpha<\beta

can exist when

\beta

is a successor ordinal (in that case, the existence is undecidable in ZFC and controlled by the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis); but cannot exist when

\beta

is a limit ordinal, even under the second definition presented.

One can also show that the von Neumann universes

V\omega+\alpha

have cardinality

\beth\alpha

.

Relation to the aleph numbers

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

and

\aleph1

, it follows that

\beth1\ge\aleph1.

Repeating this argument (see transfinite induction) yields

\beth\alpha\ge\aleph\alpha

for all ordinals

\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

for all ordinals

\alpha

.

Specific cardinals

Beth null

Since this is defined to be

\aleph0

, or aleph null, sets with cardinality

\beth0

include:

N

Q

l{A}

Beth one

See main article: cardinality of the continuum.

Sets with cardinality

\beth1

include:

R

C

Rn

2N

(the set of all subsets of the natural numbers)

ZN

, which includes all functions from

N

to

Z

)

RN

R

to

R

R

to

R

R

to

R

with at most countable discontinuities [2]

C

to

C

(the holomorphic functions)

NN

).

Beth two

\beth2

(pronounced beth two) is also referred to as

2ak{c}

(pronounced two to the power of

ak{c}

).

Sets with cardinality

\beth2

include:

R

to

R

(

RR

)

Rm

to

Rn

R

to

R

with uncountably many discontinuities [2]

R

,

Q

, and

N

Rn

[3]

Rn

.[4]

Beth omega

\beth\omega

(pronounced beth omega) is the smallest uncountable strong limit cardinal.

Generalization

The more general symbol

\beth\alpha(\kappa)

, for ordinals

\alpha

and cardinals

\kappa

, is occasionally used. It is defined by:

\beth0(\kappa)=\kappa,

\beth\alpha+1

\beth\alpha(\kappa)
(\kappa)=2

,

\bethλ(\kappa)=\sup\{\beth\alpha(\kappa):\alpha<λ\}

if λ is a limit ordinal.

So

\beth\alpha=\beth\alpha(\aleph0).

In Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZF), for any cardinals

\kappa

and

\mu

, there is an ordinal

\alpha

such that:

\kappa\le\beth\alpha(\mu).

And in ZF, for any cardinal

\kappa

and ordinals

\alpha

and

\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

and

\mu

, the equality

\beth\beta(\kappa)=\beth\beta(\mu)

holds for all sufficiently large ordinals

\beta

. That is, there is an ordinal

\alpha

such that the equality holds for every ordinal

\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

Borel determinacy is implied by the existence of all beths of countable index.[5]

See also

References

  1. Book: Jech, Thomas . 2002 . Set Theory . 3rd . Millennium ed, rev. and expanded. Corrected 4th printing 2006. . Springer . 55 . 978-3-540-44085-7 .
  2. Soltanifar . Mohsen . 2023 . A classification of elements of function space F(R,R) . Mathematics . 11 . 17 . 3715 . 10.3390/math11173715 . free . 2308.06297 .
  3. Soltanifar . Mohsen . 2021 . A generalization of the Hausdorff dimension theorem for deterministic fractals . Mathematics . 9 . 13 . 1546 . 2007.07991 . 10.3390/math9131546 . free .
  4. Soltanifar . Mohsen . 2022 . The second generalization of the Hausdorff dimension theorem for random fractals . Mathematics . 10 . 5 . 706 . 1807/110291 . free . 10.3390/math10050706 . free .
  5. Web site: Borel Determinacy Does Not Require Replacement . Leinster . Tom . 23 July 2021 . The n-Category Café . The University of Texas at Austin . 25 August 2021 .

Bibliography

. Judith Roitman . Introduction to Modern Set Theory . 2011 . . 978-0-9824062-4-3 . See page 109 for beth numbers.