By:
If you are talking about integer powers of 10, then condition 2 above is automatically enforced as all integers are rational numbers.
The easiest way is:
10⁰ → 0
10⁻¹ → -1
10¹ → 1
10⁻² → -2
10² → 2
etc.
Similarly, if the power is a rational number, the result of taking the logarithm to base 10 is the set of rational numbers which is also countably infinite:
The complete set of rationals can be generated by considering the numbers created by taking the integer pair (i, j) where i + j = n are all possible combinations of i ≥ 0, j ≥ 0 as n = 1, 2, 3, ..., and listing the rational numbers in the order -i/j (if i > 0) and i/j. This list includes all possible numerators and denominators, and can be placed in a one-to-one relationship with the counting numbers.
If the power is an irrational number (eg √2, e, π), then the powers of 10 are not an infinitely countable set as taking the logarithm results in a set of Irrational Numbers and the set of irrational numbers is not countable:
Assume the irrational numbers are countable, then they can all be listed in order.
Take the number by adding 1 to the first digit of the first number, 1 to the second digit of the second number, 1 to the third digit of the third number and so on. (If the original digit was a 9 it becomes a 0).
This creates a new number which is not on the list as it is different from the first, second, third, etc numbers.
Thus the assumption that the list is complete is false
Thus the cannot all be listed in order and so cannot be put in a one-to-one relation with the counting numbers.
Thus the irrational numbers is not an infinitely countable set.
By establishing a one-to-one correspondence with the set of natural numbers - or to the set of integers, which is also countably infinite.For example, for the positive powers of ten, you set the correspondence:
0 <--> 10^0
1 <--> 10^1
2 <--> 10^2
etc.
You cannot because it is not true. It is true only if you consider the set of integer powers of ten - which is NOT the same as the set of powers of ten. Even a minute spent thing of log10 will tell you that the set of powers of ten has a cardinality equal to the continuum.
Consider the mapping 10x to x where x is in Z.
This is a one-to-one mapping and so the cardinality of the two sets is the same. That is, the set of powers of ten is countably infinite.
Yes, because it is countably infinite.
There are more real numbers than integers. The set of integers is countably infinite, of magnitude aleph-zero. The set of real numbers is uncountably infinite (specifically, aleph-one).A computer can't really represent real numbers (that would require an infinite amount of memory), rather, it uses an approximation.There are more real numbers than integers. The set of integers is countably infinite, of magnitude aleph-zero. The set of real numbers is uncountably infinite (specifically, aleph-one).A computer can't really represent real numbers (that would require an infinite amount of memory), rather, it uses an approximation.There are more real numbers than integers. The set of integers is countably infinite, of magnitude aleph-zero. The set of real numbers is uncountably infinite (specifically, aleph-one).A computer can't really represent real numbers (that would require an infinite amount of memory), rather, it uses an approximation.There are more real numbers than integers. The set of integers is countably infinite, of magnitude aleph-zero. The set of real numbers is uncountably infinite (specifically, aleph-one).A computer can't really represent real numbers (that would require an infinite amount of memory), rather, it uses an approximation.
Because the set of numbers is infinite.
It is called in infinite set.
It is the infinite set (-∞, 50)
No. The set of irrational numbers has the same cardinality as the set of real numbers, and so is uncountable.The set of rational numbers is countably infinite.
No, it is countably infinite.
Countably infinite means you can set up a one-to-one correspondence between the set in question and the set of natural numbers. It can be shown that no such relationship can be established between the set of real numbers and the natural numbers, thus the set of real numbers is not "countable", but it is infinite.
There are finite sets, countably infinite sets and uncountably infinite sets.
An infinite set whose elements can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the set of integers is said to be countably infinite; otherwise, it is called uncountably infinite.
Easily. Indeed, it might be empty. Consider the set of positive odd numbers, and the set of positive even numbers. Both are countably infinite, but their intersection is the empty set. For a non-empty intersection, consider the set of positive odd numbers, and 2, and the set of positive even numbers. Both are still countably infinite, but their intersection is {2}.
A finite set or a countably infinite set.
Yes, because it is countably infinite.
There are many ways of classifying sets. One way is by the size of the set: its cardinality.On this basis a set may beFinite,Countably infinite, orUncountably infinite.
They are both infinite sets: they have countably infinite members and so have the same cardinality - Aleph-null.
In terms of size: the null set, a finite set, a countably infinite set and an uncountably infinite set. A countably infinite set is one where each element of the set can be put into a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of natural numbers. For example, the set of positive even numbers. It is infinite, but each positive even number can me mapped onto one and only one counting number. The set of Real numbers cannot be mapped in such a way (as was proven by Cantor).
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.