Previously in this question, we have found that $\mathbb{R^Z}$ is uncountable and its multiset of components, denoted by
$$K = \{ (..., 0, 0, w, 0, 0, ... ) : w \in \mathbb{R} \}$$
where for each real number $x$ there's a sequence $(k_m)$ in $K$ with $k_0 = w$ and $k_j = 0$ for all $j \ne 0$.
OR
$$A = \{ Y_j : j \in \mathbb{Z} \}$$
where $$Y_j = \{ (..., 0, x_j, 0, 0, ... ) : x_j \in \mathbb{R} \}$$
is also uncountable and a sub(multi)set of of $\mathbb{R^Z}$
==========================================================
Now I am wondering about the cardinality of $\mathbb{Z^R}$ and $\mathbb{R^Z}$
Using my half baked understanding of cardinal exponentiation and multiplication, (assuming the Axiom of Choice), learnt from here, and also some properties of cardinality here, I use the following formulae
- If 2 ≤ κ and 1 ≤ μ and at least one of them is infinite, then: $$\max (κ, 2^μ) ≤ κ^μ ≤ \max (2^κ, 2^μ)$$
- If either κ or μ is infinite and both are non-zero, then $$\kappa\cdot\mu=\max\left\{\kappa,\mu\right\}$$
- $$|\mathbb{R}|=2^{\aleph_0}>\aleph_0=|\mathbb{N}|=|\mathbb{Z}|$$
and get
$$\max (|\mathbb{Z}|, |2^\mathbb{R}|) ≤ |\mathbb{Z^R}| ≤ \max (|2^\mathbb{Z}|, |2^\mathbb{R}|)$$ $$\max (|\mathbb{R}|, |2^\mathbb{Z}|) ≤ |\mathbb{R^Z}| ≤ \max (|2^\mathbb{R}|, |2^\mathbb{Z}|)$$ Simplifying using the formulae $$|2^\mathbb{R}| ≤ |\mathbb{Z^R}| ≤ |2^\mathbb{R}|$$ $$\max (|\mathbb{R}|, |2^\mathbb{Z}|) ≤ |\mathbb{R^Z}| ≤ |2^\mathbb{R}|$$ $\hspace{1mm}$ $$|\mathbb{Z^R}| = |2^\mathbb{R}|=2^{2^{\aleph_0}}$$ $$\max (2^{\aleph_0}, 2^{\aleph_0}) ≤ |\mathbb{R^Z}| ≤ 2^{2^{\aleph_0}}$$ $\hspace{1mm}$ $$|\mathbb{Z^R}| = |2^\mathbb{R}|=2^{2^{\aleph_0}}$$ $$2^{\aleph_0} ≤ |\mathbb{R^Z}| ≤ 2^{2^{\aleph_0}}$$ And finally $$|\mathbb{R}| < |\mathbb{R^Z}| ≤ |\mathbb{Z^R}|$$
But then what are the approaches I should use in order to seek for a bijective function (if it exists) that maps elements of $\mathbb{Z^R}$ to $\mathbb{Z^R}$ and vise versa, so that I can work out whether $|\mathbb{R^Z}| < |\mathbb{Z^R}|$ or $|\mathbb{R^Z}| = |\mathbb{Z^R}|$?
As Henning explains, they're different. Do you know about the beth numbers? We have:
From this, we can answer your question:
Since the beth numbers are a strictly increasing family of cardinal numbers (this follows immediately from Cantor's theorem), the above claim implies that
$$|\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{Z}| < |\mathbb{Z}^\mathbb{R}|,$$
so they're different.
Lets begin by proving $|\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{Z}| = \beth_1$. Essentially we just copy Henning's proof, in different notation:
$$|\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{Z}| = \beth_1^{\beth_0} = (2^{\beth_0})^{\beth_0} = 2^{\beth_0 \cdot \beth_0} = 2^{\beth_0} = \beth_1$$
So much for that! Proving the latter is just a little more involved. We're trying to simplify the expression:
$$\beth_0^{\beth_1}$$
The intuition is that since $\beth_0$ is quite small compared to $\beth_1$, hence raising $\beth_0$ to the power of $\beth_1$ gives the same result as raising $2$ to the power of $\beth_1$. Much more precisely, we use the following theorem about cardinal numbers.
Hence since $2 \leq \beth_0 \leq 2^{\beth_1}$ (and $\beth_1$ infinite) we deduce that $\beth_0^{\beth_1} = 2^{\beth_1}$ which implies that: $$\beth_0^{\beth_1} = \beth_2.$$
Exercise. Prove Proposition 1 using only the basic principles of cardinal arithmetic. (It isn't hard!)