• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Question regarding Infinity

Depends on what infinite of infinity is,From what I hear it looks like infinite×infinity so it could be different but I am not sure
 
Normally when people write 2^X for cardinal numbers they're referring to cardinal exponentiation, which is defined by the Power Set. For finite numbers the Power Set equals ordinal exponentiation, but when it comes to transfinite numbers it doesn't.

In math we have something known as hyper operators.

H0(a,b) = a + 1


H1(a,b) = a + b


H2(a,b) = a + a + a + ... (b times) = a*b


H3(a,b) = a*a*a*... (b times) = a^b


H4(a,b) = a^a^a^... (b times) = aÔåæb


...etc.

No hyper operation is going to make your infinity larger. That's why you have ordinals like epsilon, which is defined as w^w^w^... (where w is an transfinite ordinal) but is still just countable.

But the Power Set is defined completely differently, it's a function of combinatorics. That's why most teachers use P(X) or ^X 2 (where the superscript comes before the 2) for the Power Set, to not confuse their students that they're dealing with regular exponentiation.
 
Oh.. i understand, so something like Aleph ^ w or Aleph ^ Omega, so infinity^infinity is not larger than infinity^w?
 
GLHF22 said:
With that im pretty sure many High 1-A ratings is wrong.
Yes.

GLHF22 said:
Oh.. i understand, so something like Aleph ^ w or Aleph ^ Omega, so infinity^infinity is not larger than infinity^w?
X^w (where X is a cardinal and w is an ordinal) isn't really correct in the first place because you're mixing two incompatable classes of numbers.

And X^X doesn't make any sense, because while 2^X is defined as the Power Set, there is no definition for 3^X or 7^X or X^X.

That said, ordinals are used for the subscripts of cardinals. X_0, X_1, X_2, ..., X_w, X_(w+1).

While w^w and w are equal in size ( card(w^w) = card(w) = X ) the well-ordering property makes it so that w^w isn't equal to w. But the well-ordering has nothing to do with size, 1+w = w Ôëá w+1 (consequence of the well ordering property).

The first uncountable ordinal (aleph-1) is the union of all countable ordinals (and not a hyper-operator function of any kind).
 
I should also point out that in ordinal exponentiation w^w is defined as sup y [ sup x [ x^y ] ] which is a natural extension of a^b as used in classical arithmetics.

But to go back to your original question, if card(w) = X, then card(w^w) = X as well.
 
Back
Top