Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It might be a better explanation but those two are very much not equivalent.

Actually the fact that splitting it into pairs is the same as splitting into two equal sets of equal cardinality is itself non-trivial. The reason why shows up when you try to get the two definitions closer together.

Splitting an ordinal into pairs is essentially splitting it into ordered pairs (a_i, b_i) such that the map i to a_i is monotonic and for no i<j the pair (a_i, b_i) overlaps with (a_j, b_j) in the sense that a_j <= b_j.

Splitting a set into pairs is splitting it into sets {a_i, b_i} such that for no i != j the two sets {a_i, b_i} and {a_j, b_j} overlap.

These two are note the same, you can split pretty much any infinite set into two disjoint sets of equal cardinality.

It's hard to get the definitions general enough to get one definition for both ordinals and sets. Mostly because products of ordinals are a bit weird. For sets (and most other types of mathematical objects) it doesn't matter which way around you pair things up, but for the ordinals you end up with a completely different object if you do it the other way around and this is apparently the more interesting definition of the two.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: