There is no one to one correspondence between the real numbers and the set of integers. In fact, the cardinality of the real numbers is the same as the cardinality of the power set of the set of integers, that is, the set of all subsets of the set of integers.
Proof By Contradiction:Claim: R\Q = Set of irrationals is countable.Then R = Q union (R\Q)Since Q is countable, and R\Q is countable (by claim), R is countable because the union of countable sets is countable.But this is a contradiction since R is uncountable (Cantor's Diagonal Argument).Thus, R\Q is uncountable.
You can choose an irrational number to be either greater or smaller than any given rational number. On the other hand, if you mean which set is greater: the set of irrational numbers is greater. The set of rational numbers is countable infinite (beth-0); the set of irrational numbers is uncountable infinite (more specifically, beth-1 - there are larger uncountable numbers as well).
real numbers
the set of real numbers
Yes. The set of real numbers is closed under addition, subtraction, multiplication. The set of real numbers without zero is closed under division.
In mathematics, when a set is uncountable, it means that it has a cardinality greater than that of the set of natural numbers. For example, the set of real numbers is uncountable because there is no bijection between it and the set of natural numbers. It implies that the set is infinite and dense in some sense.
It is uncountable, because it contains infinite amount of numbers
No, the set of all irrational numbers is not countable. Countable sets are those that can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...). The set of irrational numbers is uncountable because it has a higher cardinality than the set of natural numbers. This was proven by Georg Cantor using his diagonalization argument.
Uncountable sets are those that cannot be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers. Examples include the set of real numbers, the set of points on a line segment, and the set of all subsets of natural numbers (the power set of natural numbers). These sets have a greater cardinality than countable sets, such as the set of integers or rational numbers. The existence of uncountable sets was famously demonstrated by Cantor's diagonal argument.
This would be a literally impossible task, because the set of all real numbers is uncountable and every real number except 0 is a factor of 38. Probably the questioner meant "integral factors", for which the answer is 1, 2, and 19.
They are not. They are countably infinite. That is, there is a one-to-one mapping between the set of rational numbers and the set of counting numbers.
To show that the set of irrational numbers is uncountable, you can use Cantor's diagonal argument. First, assume that the set of irrational numbers is countable and list them in a sequence. By constructing a new number that differs from each listed irrational number at a specific decimal place, you can demonstrate that this new number is also irrational and not in the original list, leading to a contradiction. Thus, the set of irrational numbers must be uncountable.
Proof By Contradiction:Claim: R\Q = Set of irrationals is countable.Then R = Q union (R\Q)Since Q is countable, and R\Q is countable (by claim), R is countable because the union of countable sets is countable.But this is a contradiction since R is uncountable (Cantor's Diagonal Argument).Thus, R\Q is uncountable.
The term "group" can be both countable and uncountable, depending on the context. When referring to a specific set of individuals or items, it is countable (e.g., "three groups of students"). However, when discussing the concept of grouping in a general sense, it can be considered uncountable (e.g., "The concept of group is important in sociology").
uncountable
Uncountable
uncountable