For countable sets, what is the advantage of using an indexing set, such as $i \in I$, compared to just using the naturals and the normal enumeration of $1, 2, 3, \ldots$? To me it seems they equivalent unless the sets are uncountable, in which you cannot use something like $\mathbb{N}$ to index your set.
2026-04-02 12:26:32.1775132792
What is the advantage of using an indexing set?
160 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in ELEMENTARY-SET-THEORY
- how is my proof on equinumerous sets
- Composition of functions - properties
- Existence of a denumerble partition.
- Why is surjectivity defined using $\exists$ rather than $\exists !$
- Show that $\omega^2+1$ is a prime number.
- A Convention of Set Builder Notation
- I cannot understand that $\mathfrak{O} := \{\{\}, \{1\}, \{1, 2\}, \{3\}, \{1, 3\}, \{1, 2, 3\}\}$ is a topology on the set $\{1, 2, 3\}$.
- Problem with Cartesian product and dimension for beginners
- Proof that a pair is injective and surjective
- Value of infinite product
Related Questions in NOTATION
- Symbol for assignment of a truth-value?
- Does approximation usually exclude equality?
- Is division inherently the last operation when using fraction notation or is the order of operation always PEMDAS?
- Question about notation $S^c$
- strange partial integration
- What does Kx mean in this equation? [in Carnap or Russell and Whitehead's logical notation]
- Need help with notation. Is this lower dot an operation?
- What does this "\" mathematics symbol mean?
- Why a set or vector start counting from a negative or zero index?
- How to express a sentence having two for all?
Related Questions in INFINITY
- Does Planck length contradict math?
- No two sided limit exists
- Are these formulations correct?
- Are these numbers different from each other?
- What is wrong in my analysis?
- Where does $x$ belong to?
- Divide by zero on Android
- Why is the set of all infinite binary sequences uncountable but the set of all natural numbers are countable?
- Is a set infinite if there exists a bijection between the topological space X and the set?
- Infinitesimal Values
Related Questions in INFINITE-PRODUCT
- How to find $f(m)=\prod\limits_{n=2}^{\infty}\left(1-\frac{1}{n^m}\right)^{-1}$ (if $m>1$)?
- Counterexample to Cauchy product theorem
- identity for finding value of $\pi$
- A confusing sequence of products
- Deriving $\sin(\pi s)=\pi s\prod_{n=1}^\infty (1-\frac{s^2}{n^2})$ without Hadamard Factorization
- How to find $(a_{1}a_{2})^n+(a_{1}a_{3})^n+(a_{2}a_{3})^n+\cdots$, which came from $\prod\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}(1-a_{k}x)$?
- Derivation of $\lim_{s\to1}\zeta(s)-\log\prod_{n=1}^\infty(1+n^{-s})=\gamma$
- Euler's "On transcendental progressions..." [E19]
- Alternate proof for Viète's infinite product of nested radicals
- Does $\prod_{k=1}^\infty 1- \frac{1}{k^\alpha}$ converge for $\alpha >1$?
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?
Even ignoring the advantage of avoiding a notational disagreement between countable and uncountable cases, just because something is countable doesn't mean that there is a canonical bijection between it and $\mathbb{N}$. By being flexible about index sets we can make sure that the Cartesian products we build don't have (or require us to input any!) any "extraneous information."
To see how this might get used in an argument, consider for example the following:
For each $S$ this is a Cartesian product; specifically, it's $$\prod_{s\in S}\{t\in\mathbb{R}: t<s\}.$$ Now if we really want to, since each $S$ is countable we could instead look at $$\prod_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\{t\in\mathbb{R}: t<f(n)\}$$ for some fixed bijection $f:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow S$, but this adds a layer of complexity: we need to fold in some choice of $f$, and in general there won't be a "best" choice to make here. In particular, if we insist on doing this then the definition of $\mathcal{F}$ given in $(*)$ is incomplete for our purposes since it doesn't tell us which $f$ to pick.