Can we have a cardinal such as ${1.5}^{\aleph_0}$ in the way that we have a powerset as $2^{\aleph_0}$, or is $2^{\aleph_0}$ just the notation we use, rather than actual exponentiation. Or is something else that I don’t know about yet going on here?
2026-03-26 06:29:46.1774506586
Can we have a cardinal exponent of any number?
117 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in SET-THEORY
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Proving the schema of separation from replacement
- Understanding the Axiom of Replacement
- Ordinals and cardinals in ETCS set axiomatic
- Minimal model over forcing iteration
- How can I prove that the collection of all (class-)function from a proper class A to a class B is empty?
- max of limit cardinals smaller than a successor cardinal bigger than $\aleph_\omega$
- Canonical choice of many elements not contained in a set
- Non-standard axioms + ZF and rest of math
Related Questions in EXPONENTIATION
- exponential equation with different bases; no logarithms
- Is square root of $y^2$ for every $y>0,y\in\mathbb{R}$?
- Definite sum for $(1+a)^n$
- Fractional exponents definition and the additive law of exponents
- Fourth term in the expansion of $(1-2x)^{3/2}$
- Why is $\int_{0}^{t} e^{nt} \mathrm{\ dt} = \frac{1}{n} \left(e^{nt} - 1\right)$? [solved; notation is also faulty in the first place]
- Exponentiation property of the modulo operator
- When are $\left(\frac{a}{b}\right)^c$ and $\frac{a^c}{b^c}$ equivalent?
- How can I rewrite expression to get log out of exponent
- Compare $2^{2016}$ and $10^{605}$ without a calculator
Related Questions in CARDINALS
- Ordinals and cardinals in ETCS set axiomatic
- max of limit cardinals smaller than a successor cardinal bigger than $\aleph_\omega$
- If $\kappa$ is a regular cardinal then $\kappa^{<\kappa} = \max\{\kappa, 2^{<\kappa}\}$
- Intuition regarding: $\kappa^{+}=|\{\kappa\leq\alpha\lt \kappa^{+}\}|$
- On finding enough rationals (countable) to fill the uncountable number of intervals between the irrationals.
- Is the set of cardinalities totally ordered?
- Show that $n+\aleph_0=\aleph_0$
- $COF(\lambda)$ is stationary in $k$, where $\lambda < k$ is regular.
- What is the cardinality of a set of all points on a line?
- Better way to define this bijection [0,1) to (0,1)
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
What is "actual exponentiation"? What is $1.5^{1.5}$ or $\sqrt2^{\sqrt2}$ if not some notation?
Cardinal exponentiation is "actual exponentiation" since the cardinal is an arithmetic system that includes addition, multiplication, and exponentiation.
However cardinals are not real numbers. Let me say that again. $$\huge\textbf{Cardinals are }\underline{\textbf{not}}\textbf{ real numbers.}$$
It is a common beginner's mistake to think that the real numbers are "the 'real' numbers" and anything else is just a bunch of extensions. But it's just one way of extending the natural numbers. The ordinals is another, and the cardinals is another. And they do not agree on anything except the arithmetic of the natural numbers.
Since $1.5$ is not a cardinal number (nor it should be), the notation $1.5^{\aleph_0}$ is entirely meaningless, unless you decide that $1.5$ is a new notation for the cardinality of some set, or decided to use $\aleph_0$ to denote a real number or a complex number, or some other object which would make sense of this notation. In either case, you would just cause the majority of mathematician to cry a little bit inside.
Let me finish by saying that unlike real exponentiation which is defined as a continuation of rational exponentiation, which itself is defined in terms of radicals and iterated multiplication, cardinal exponentiation is defined far more directly in terms of number of functions between two sets.
It is this simplicity, perhaps, that leads you to think that this is "just notation". It's not. It's called elegance. :)