
PAULINA STREET JOURNAL
The different sizes of infinity
September 9, 2010
It was a Sunday morning, an appropriate time
for the mind to turn to the higher realms, when my friend Bob informed me
there were different sizes of infinity. I thought: if this is true and on
subjects like this, Bob isn't someone you're smart to doubt this is
something the world needs to know.
Not everyone will see it that way. Some will
say: I can happily go to my grave without ever having achieved a practical
grasp of the infinite. Fine, wallow in ignorance. All I know is, when I come to
the end of the road and get pitched into the abyss of eternity, I want to have
some clue.
Others will say: everybody knows there
are different sizes of infinity, everybody being defined as persons who feel
they were rooked because they weren't allowed to score above 800 on their
math boards. This was basically Bob's take on it. As it
happened, the different sizes of infinity weren't his main point he was
merely using the idea as a homely, everyday illustration of a concept that
was really complex. When I objected that he'd left me at the starting
gate, he cheerfully offered to explain the notion in two minutes or less,
then did so in a breezy manner that would probably have had the President's
Council of Economic Advisers nodding in satisfaction but as far as I was
concerned
well, let's just say my comprehension had conspicuous gaps. I conceded that
one could, in fact, have different sizes of infinity. The part I didn't get
was how.
It didn't seem right to leave things that way.
Geniuses have wrestled with this subject wrestled with it long ago, in
fact; the idea was first propounded by the German mathematician
Georg Cantor in 1874. Surely, I thought, it's about time some notion of it filtered down to us.
Our original gathering having dispersed (we
were brunching at my house with friends), I sat down with Bob on the front
steps. "Bob," I said, "I hope you don't have anything pressing planned this afternoon. I need to get this figured out."
I did, to my satisfaction anyway. It took 90 minutes. I present the
result below. I don't claim it's elegant, but it works for me. Perhaps it'll work for you.
We start with the basics. The different sizes
of infinity we're talking about are those involving numbers. (Note to
mathphobes: don't freak. No equations, minimal terminology.)

Take the counting numbers 1, 2, 3
Everybody understands that there are
infinitely many of these.

Now consider the even numbers 2, 4, 6
Everybody gets that there
are infinitely many of these, too.

Some may think that, since the counting numbers are seemingly twice as
numerous as the even numbers, the counting numbers are twice as infinite.
These people are knuckleheads. You can match up all the counting numbers
with all the even numbers, like so: 1 goes with 2, 2 goes with 4, 3 goes
with 6, and so on. Every counting number is matched with an even number;
every even number is matched to a counting number. Ergo, these infinities
are the same size.

You can match up the counting numbers with any set of rational numbers.
(Rational numbers can be expressed as the quotient of two integers, provided
you don't divide by zero.) For example, consider the set of numbers of the
form 1/x that is, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3
These numbers get
infinitely small, and never exceed 1, whereas the counting numbers get
infinitely large. Doesn't matter. The two sets can be matched up these
infinities are the same size.

You can match up the counting numbers with many sets of irrational
numbers. (An irrational number is any number that, duh, isn't rational. For
example, the square root of two, 1.41421356
, is irrational; the decimal
never repeats.) Consider numbers of the form square root of x
that is,
square root of 1, square root of 2, square root of 3
This set
can be matched up with the counting numbers. These two infinities are the
same size.

You can match up the counting numbers with any other set of numbers that can
be generated algebraically which is to say, through the ordinary
operations of mathematics. All these sets are infinities of the same size.

You're thinking: we don't seem to be getting anywhere here. Ah, but we are. Just wait.

The
real numbers, which for our purposes we'll take to
mean all numbers, includes some numbers that can't be generated
algebraically. These latter numbers are called transcendental
numbers. The best known transcendental number is pi, 3.14159265
Pi,
the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter,
is a real quantity of obvious usefulness, but it can't be produced
algebraically. (There are ways of approximating pi, but that's
different.) Since there's no way to systematically generate transcendental
numbers, they can't be matched up with the counting numbers and thus can't
be counted.

The real numbers, then, include sets of numbers that can be counted and another
set of numbers (the transcendentals) that can't.
The implication, if you think about it, is that there are
more real numbers than counting numbers. In short, the real numbers
are a bigger infinity than the counting numbers.

This may strike you it certainly struck me as cheating. Surely, you
think, there's some procedure that would generate all the real numbers and
make them countable, from which it would then follow that the counting
numbers and the real numbers were the same size infinity.

There isn't. The proof of this was devised by the aforementioned Georg
Cantor and makes use of an ingenious
diagonal
argument. I won't attempt to explain it here, but the gist is that for
any possible list of numbers you could devise, there's some additional
number that isn't on the list and thus won't be counted. In fact, it can be
shown that most real numbers (or better, "most" real numbers, since we're
comparing infinite quantities) are transcendental and thus not
countable, from which it follows that, as infinities go, the counting
numbers don't amount to squat.

Nothing further to add. However, an explanation with only 11 items in it
seems profoundly wrong.
That's pretty much it. I acknowledge this proposition takes a
while to get your head around, and won't appreciably improve your quality of
life. But you can see why I thought you should know.
Ed Zotti
Photo by Pat O'Neil
Previous Paulina Street Journal Columns
The Curse of
the Right Way
Guide for the
perplexed: Inception
Curing
cancer by committee
Doing right by the Kardashians
Urban
explorers, part 2
Urban
explorers, part 1
One in a
trillion
Working for
Barack
Digital
psychosis

Follow STRAIGHT DOPE CHICAGO on
twitter, assuming Little Ed remembers
to send the feeds out, and if nothing else observe his fumblings with a
technology that is obviously beyond him.
Send questions for Cecil Adams to
cecil@chicagoreader.com or post
them on the Straight Dope Chicago Message Board.
Send comments about this website to:
webmaster@straightdope.com
Advertise on the Straight Dope! Your direct line to thousands of the
smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.
Copyright 19962008 SunTimes Media, LLC.
