Misplaced Pages

In mathematics, a set is countable if either it is finite or it can be made in one to one correspondence with the set of natural numbers. Equivalently, a set is countable if there exists an injective function from it into the natural numbers; this means that each element in the set may be associated to a unique natural number, or that the elements of the set can be counted one at a time, although the counting may never finish due to an infinite number of elements.

In more technical terms, assuming the axiom of countable choice, a set is countable if its cardinality (the number of elements of the set) is not greater than that of the natural numbers. A countable set that is not finite is said to be countably infinite.

The concept is attributed to Georg Cantor, who proved the existence of uncountable sets, that is, sets that are not countable; for example the set of the real numbers.

A note on terminology

Although the terms "countable" and "countably infinite" as defined here are quite common, the terminology is not universal. An alternative style uses countable to mean what is here called countably infinite, and at most countable to mean what is here called countable.

The terms enumerable and denumerable may also be used, e.g. referring to countable and countably infinite respectively, definitions vary and care is needed respecting the difference with recursively enumerable.

Definition

A set ${\displaystyle S}$ is countable if:

• Its cardinality ${\displaystyle |S|}$ is less than or equal to ${\displaystyle \aleph _{0}}$ (aleph-null), the cardinality of the set of natural numbers ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} }$.
• There exists an injective function from ${\displaystyle S}$ to ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} }$.
• ${\displaystyle S}$ is empty or there exists a surjective function from ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} }$ to ${\displaystyle S}$.
• There exists a bijective mapping between ${\displaystyle S}$ and a subset of ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} }$.
• ${\displaystyle S}$ is either finite (${\displaystyle |S|<\aleph _{0}}$) or countably infinite.

All of these definitions are equivalent.

A set ${\displaystyle S}$ is countably infinite if:

• Its cardinality ${\displaystyle |S|}$ is exactly ${\displaystyle \aleph _{0}}$.
• There is an injective and surjective (and therefore bijective) mapping between ${\displaystyle S}$ and ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} }$.
• ${\displaystyle S}$ has a one-to-one correspondence with ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} }$.
• The elements of ${\displaystyle S}$ can be arranged in an infinite sequence ${\displaystyle a_{0},a_{1},a_{2},\ldots }$, where ${\displaystyle a_{i}}$ is distinct from ${\displaystyle a_{j}}$ for ${\displaystyle i\neq j}$ and every element of ${\displaystyle S}$ is listed.

A set is uncountable if it is not countable, i.e. its cardinality is greater than ${\displaystyle \aleph _{0}}$.

History

In 1874, in his first set theory article, Cantor proved that the set of real numbers is uncountable, thus showing that not all infinite sets are countable. In 1878, he used one-to-one correspondences to define and compare cardinalities. In 1883, he extended the natural numbers with his infinite ordinals, and used sets of ordinals to produce an infinity of sets having different infinite cardinalities.

Introduction

A set is a collection of elements, and may be described in many ways. One way is simply to list all of its elements; for example, the set consisting of the integers 3, 4, and 5 may be denoted ${\displaystyle \{3,4,5\}}$, called roster form. This is only effective for small sets, however; for larger sets, this would be time-consuming and error-prone. Instead of listing every single element, sometimes an ellipsis ("...") is used to represent many elements between the starting element and the end element in a set, if the writer believes that the reader can easily guess what ... represents; for example, ${\displaystyle \{1,2,3,\dots ,100\}}$ presumably denotes the set of integers from 1 to 100. Even in this case, however, it is still possible to list all the elements, because the number of elements in the set is finite. If we number the elements of the set 1, 2, and so on, up to ${\displaystyle n}$, this gives us the usual definition of "sets of size ${\displaystyle n}$".

Some sets are infinite; these sets have more than ${\displaystyle n}$ elements where ${\displaystyle n}$ is any integer that can be specified. (No matter how large the specified integer ${\displaystyle n}$ is, such as ${\displaystyle n=10^{1000}}$, infinite sets have more than ${\displaystyle n}$ elements.) For example, the set of natural numbers, denotable by ${\displaystyle \{0,1,2,3,4,5,\dots \}}$, has infinitely many elements, and we cannot use any natural number to give its size. It might seem natural to divide the sets into different classes: put all the sets containing one element together; all the sets containing two elements together; ...; finally, put together all infinite sets and consider them as having the same size. This view works well for countably infinite sets and was the prevailing assumption before Georg Cantor's work. For example, there are infinitely many odd integers, infinitely many even integers, and also infinitely many integers overall. We can consider all these sets to have the same "size" because we can arrange things such that, for every integer, there is a distinct even integer: $${\displaystyle \ldots \,-\!2\!\rightarrow \!-\!4,\,-\!1\!\rightarrow \!-\!2,\,0\!\rightarrow \!0,\,1\!\rightarrow \!2,\,2\!\rightarrow \!4\,\cdots }$$ or, more generally, ${\displaystyle n\rightarrow 2n}$ (see picture). What we have done here is arrange the integers and the even integers into a one-to-one correspondence (or bijection), which is a function that maps between two sets such that each element of each set corresponds to a single element in the other set. This mathematical notion of "size", cardinality, is that two sets are of the same size if and only if there is a bijection between them. We call all sets that are in one-to-one correspondence with the integers countably infinite and say they have cardinality ${\displaystyle \aleph _{0}}$.

Georg Cantor showed that not all infinite sets are countably infinite. For example, the real numbers cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers (non-negative integers). The set of real numbers has a greater cardinality than the set of natural numbers and is said to be uncountable.

Formal overview

By definition, a set ${\displaystyle S}$ is countable if there exists a bijection between ${\displaystyle S}$ and a subset of the natural numbers ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} =\{0,1,2,\dots \}}$. For example, define the correspondence $${\displaystyle a\leftrightarrow 1,\ b\leftrightarrow 2,\ c\leftrightarrow 3}$$ Since every element of ${\displaystyle S=\{a,b,c\}}$ is paired with precisely one element of ${\displaystyle \{1,2,3\}}$, and vice versa, this defines a bijection, and shows that ${\displaystyle S}$ is countable. Similarly we can show all finite sets are countable.

As for the case of infinite sets, a set ${\displaystyle S}$ is countably infinite if there is a bijection between ${\displaystyle S}$ and all of ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} }$. As examples, consider the sets ${\displaystyle A=\{1,2,3,\dots \}}$, the set of positive integers, and ${\displaystyle B=\{0,2,4,6,\dots \}}$, the set of even integers. We can show these sets are countably infinite by exhibiting a bijection to the natural numbers. This can be achieved using the assignments ${\displaystyle n\leftrightarrow n+1}$ and ${\displaystyle n\leftrightarrow 2n}$, so that $${\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}0\leftrightarrow 1,&1\leftrightarrow 2,&2\leftrightarrow 3,&3\leftrightarrow 4,&4\leftrightarrow 5,&\ldots \\0\leftrightarrow 0,&1\leftrightarrow 2,&2\leftrightarrow 4,&3\leftrightarrow 6,&4\leftrightarrow 8,&\ldots \end{matrix}}}$$ Every countably infinite set is countable, and every infinite countable set is countably infinite. Furthermore, any subset of the natural numbers is countable, and more generally:

Theorem — A subset of a countable set is countable.

The set of all ordered pairs of natural numbers (the Cartesian product of two sets of natural numbers, ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} \times \mathbb {N} }$ is countably infinite, as can be seen by following a path like the one in the picture:

The resulting mapping proceeds as follows:

$${\displaystyle 0\leftrightarrow (0,0),1\leftrightarrow (1,0),2\leftrightarrow (0,1),3\leftrightarrow (2,0),4\leftrightarrow (1,1),5\leftrightarrow (0,2),6\leftrightarrow (3,0),\ldots }$$ This mapping covers all such ordered pairs.

This form of triangular mapping recursively generalizes to ${\displaystyle n}$-tuples of natural numbers, i.e., ${\displaystyle (a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},\dots ,a_{n})}$ where ${\displaystyle a_{i}}$ and ${\displaystyle n}$ are natural numbers, by repeatedly mapping the first two elements of an ${\displaystyle n}$-tuple to a natural number. For example, ${\displaystyle (0,2,3)}$ can be written as ${\displaystyle ((0,2),3)}$. Then ${\displaystyle (0,2)}$ maps to 5 so ${\displaystyle ((0,2),3)}$ maps to ${\displaystyle (5,3)}$, then ${\displaystyle (5,3)}$ maps to 39. Since a different 2-tuple, that is a pair such as ${\displaystyle (a,b)}$, maps to a different natural number, a difference between two n-tuples by a single element is enough to ensure the n-tuples being mapped to different natural numbers. So, an injection from the set of ${\displaystyle n}$-tuples to the set of natural numbers ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} }$ is proved. For the set of ${\displaystyle n}$-tuples made by the Cartesian product of finitely many different sets, each element in each tuple has the correspondence to a natural number, so every tuple can be written in natural numbers then the same logic is applied to prove the theorem.

Theorem — The Cartesian product of finitely many countable sets is countable.

The set of all integers ${\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} }$ and the set of all rational numbers ${\displaystyle \mathbb {Q} }$ may intuitively seem much bigger than ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} }$. But looks can be deceiving. If a pair is treated as the numerator and denominator of a vulgar fraction (a fraction in the form of ${\displaystyle a/b}$ where ${\displaystyle a}$ and ${\displaystyle b\neq 0}$ are integers), then for every positive fraction, we can come up with a distinct natural number corresponding to it. This representation also includes the natural numbers, since every natural number ${\displaystyle n}$ is also a fraction ${\displaystyle n/1}$. So we can conclude that there are exactly as many positive rational numbers as there are positive integers. This is also true for all rational numbers, as can be seen below.

Theorem — ${\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} }$ (the set of all integers) and ${\displaystyle \mathbb {Q} }$ (the set of all rational numbers) are countable.

In a similar manner, the set of algebraic numbers is countable.

Sometimes more than one mapping is useful: a set ${\displaystyle A}$ to be shown as countable is one-to-one mapped (injection) to another set ${\displaystyle B}$, then ${\displaystyle A}$ is proved as countable if ${\displaystyle B}$ is one-to-one mapped to the set of natural numbers. For example, the set of positive rational numbers can easily be one-to-one mapped to the set of natural number pairs (2-tuples) because ${\displaystyle p/q}$ maps to ${\displaystyle (p,q)}$. Since the set of natural number pairs is one-to-one mapped (actually one-to-one correspondence or bijection) to the set of natural numbers as shown above, the positive rational number set is proved as countable.

Theorem — Any finite union of countable sets is countable.

With the foresight of knowing that there are uncountable sets, we can wonder whether or not this last result can be pushed any further. The answer is "yes" and "no", we can extend it, but we need to assume a new axiom to do so.

Theorem — (Assuming the axiom of countable choice) The union of countably many countable sets is countable.

For example, given countable sets ${\displaystyle {\textbf {a}},{\textbf {b}},{\textbf {c}},\dots }$, we first assign each element of each set a tuple, then we assign each tuple an index using a variant of the triangular enumeration we saw above: $${\displaystyle {\begin{array}{c|c|c }{\text{Index}}&{\text{Tuple}}&{\text{Element}}\\\hline 0&(0,0)&{\textbf {a}}_{0}\\1&(0,1)&{\textbf {a}}_{1}\\2&(1,0)&{\textbf {b}}_{0}\\3&(0,2)&{\textbf {a}}_{2}\\4&(1,1)&{\textbf {b}}_{1}\\5&(2,0)&{\textbf {c}}_{0}\\6&(0,3)&{\textbf {a}}_{3}\\7&(1,2)&{\textbf {b}}_{2}\\8&(2,1)&{\textbf {c}}_{1}\\9&(3,0)&{\textbf {d}}_{0}\\10&(0,4)&{\textbf {a}}_{4}\\\vdots &&\end{array}}}$$

We need the axiom of countable choice to index all the sets ${\displaystyle {\textbf {a}},{\textbf {b}},{\textbf {c}},\dots }$ simultaneously.

Theorem — The set of all finite-length sequences of natural numbers is countable.

This set is the union of the length-1 sequences, the length-2 sequences, the length-3 sequences, each of which is a countable set (finite Cartesian product). So we are talking about a countable union of countable sets, which is countable by the previous theorem.

Theorem — The set of all finite subsets of the natural numbers is countable.

The elements of any finite subset can be ordered into a finite sequence. There are only countably many finite sequences, so also there are only countably many finite subsets.

Theorem — Let ${\displaystyle S}$ and ${\displaystyle T}$ be sets.

1. If the function ${\displaystyle f:S\to T}$ is injective and ${\displaystyle T}$ is countable then ${\displaystyle S}$ is countable.
2. If the function ${\displaystyle g:S\to T}$ is surjective and ${\displaystyle S}$ is countable then ${\displaystyle T}$ is countable.

These follow from the definitions of countable set as injective / surjective functions.

Cantor's theorem asserts that if ${\displaystyle A}$ is a set and ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}(A)}$ is its power set, i.e. the set of all subsets of ${\displaystyle A}$, then there is no surjective function from ${\displaystyle A}$ to ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}(A)}$. A proof is given in the article Cantor's theorem. As an immediate consequence of this and the Basic Theorem above we have:

Proposition — The set ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}(\mathbb {N} )}$ is not countable; i.e. it is uncountable.

For an elaboration of this result see Cantor's diagonal argument.

The set of real numbers is uncountable, and so is the set of all infinite sequences of natural numbers.

Minimal model of set theory is countable

If there is a set that is a standard model (see inner model) of ZFC set theory, then there is a minimal standard model (see Constructible universe). The Löwenheim–Skolem theorem can be used to show that this minimal model is countable. The fact that the notion of "uncountability" makes sense even in this model, and in particular that this model M contains elements that are:

• subsets of M, hence countable,
• but uncountable from the point of view of M,

was seen as paradoxical in the early days of set theory; see Skolem's paradox for more.

The minimal standard model includes all the algebraic numbers and all effectively computable transcendental numbers, as well as many other kinds of numbers.

Total orders

Countable sets can be totally ordered in various ways, for example:

• Well-orders (see also ordinal number):
  • The usual order of natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...)
  • The integers in the order (0, 1, 2, 3, ...; −1, −2, −3, ...)
• Other (not well orders):
  • The usual order of integers (..., −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...)
  • The usual order of rational numbers (Cannot be explicitly written as an ordered list!)

In both examples of well orders here, any subset has a least element; and in both examples of non-well orders, some subsets do not have a least element. This is the key definition that determines whether a total order is also a well order.

See also

• Aleph number
• Counting
• Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel
• Uncountable set

Notes

1. ^ Since there is an obvious bijection between ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} }$ and ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} ^{*}=\{1,2,3,\dots \}}$, it makes no difference whether one considers 0 a natural number or not. In any case, this article follows ISO 31-11 and the standard convention in mathematical logic, which takes 0 as a natural number.
2. Proof: Observe that ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} \times \mathbb {N} }$ is countable as a consequence of the definition because the function ${\displaystyle f:\mathbb {N} \times \mathbb {N} \to \mathbb {N} }$ given by ${\displaystyle f(m,n)=2^{m}\cdot 3^{n}}$ is injective. It then follows that the Cartesian product of any two countable sets is countable, because if ${\displaystyle A}$ and ${\displaystyle B}$ are two countable sets there are surjections ${\displaystyle f:\mathbb {N} \to A}$ and ${\displaystyle g:\mathbb {N} \to B}$. So ${\displaystyle f\times g:\mathbb {N} \times \mathbb {N} \to A\times B}$ is a surjection from the countable set ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} \times \mathbb {N} }$ to the set ${\displaystyle A\times B}$ and the Corollary implies ${\displaystyle A\times B}$ is countable. This result generalizes to the Cartesian product of any finite collection of countable sets and the proof follows by induction on the number of sets in the collection.
3. Proof: The integers ${\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} }$ are countable because the function ${\displaystyle f:\mathbb {Z} \to \mathbb {N} }$ given by ${\displaystyle f(n)=2^{n}}$ if ${\displaystyle n}$ is non-negative and ${\displaystyle f(n)=3^{-n}}$ if ${\displaystyle n}$ is negative, is an injective function. The rational numbers ${\displaystyle \mathbb {Q} }$ are countable because the function ${\displaystyle g:\mathbb {Z} \times \mathbb {N} \to \mathbb {Q} }$ given by ${\displaystyle g(m,n)=m/(n+1)}$ is a surjection from the countable set ${\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} \times \mathbb {N} }$ to the rationals ${\displaystyle \mathbb {Q} }$.
4. Proof: Per definition, every algebraic number (including complex numbers) is a root of a polynomial with integer coefficients. Given an algebraic number ${\displaystyle \alpha }$, let ${\displaystyle a_{0}x^{0}+a_{1}x^{1}+a_{2}x^{2}+\cdots +a_{n}x^{n}}$ be a polynomial with integer coefficients such that ${\displaystyle \alpha }$ is the ${\displaystyle k}$-th root of the polynomial, where the roots are sorted by absolute value from small to big, then sorted by argument from small to big. We can define an injection (i. e. one-to-one) function ${\displaystyle f:\mathbb {A} \to \mathbb {Q} }$ given by ${\displaystyle f(\alpha )=2^{k-1}\cdot 3^{a_{0}}\cdot 5^{a_{1}}\cdot 7^{a_{2}}\cdots {p_{n+2}}^{a_{n}}}$, where ${\displaystyle p_{n}}$ is the ${\displaystyle n}$-th prime.
5. Proof: If ${\displaystyle A_{i}}$ is a countable set for each ${\displaystyle i}$ in ${\displaystyle I=\{1,\dots ,n\}}$, then for each ${\displaystyle i}$ there is a surjective function ${\displaystyle g_{i}:\mathbb {N} \to A_{i}}$ and hence the function $${\displaystyle G:I\times \mathbf {N} \to \bigcup _{i\in I}A_{i},}$$ given by ${\displaystyle G(i,m)=g_{i}(m)}$ is a surjection. Since ${\displaystyle I\times \mathbb {N} }$ is countable, the union ${\textstyle \bigcup _{i\in I}A_{i}}$ is countable.
6. Proof: As in the finite case, but ${\displaystyle I=\mathbb {N} }$ and we use the axiom of countable choice to pick for each ${\displaystyle i}$ in ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} }$ a surjection ${\displaystyle g_{i}}$ from the non-empty collection of surjections from ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} }$ to ${\displaystyle A_{i}}$. Note that since we are considering the surjection ${\displaystyle G:\mathbf {N} \times \mathbf {N} \to \bigcup _{i\in I}A_{i}}$, rather than an injection, there is no requirement that the sets be disjoint.
7. Proof: For (1) observe that if ${\displaystyle T}$ is countable there is an injective function ${\displaystyle h:T\to \mathbb {N} }$. Then if ${\displaystyle f:S\to T}$ is injective the composition ${\displaystyle h\circ f:S\to \mathbb {N} }$ is injective, so ${\displaystyle S}$ is countable. For (2) observe that if ${\displaystyle S}$ is countable, either ${\displaystyle S}$ is empty or there is a surjective function ${\displaystyle h:\mathbb {N} \to S}$. Then if ${\displaystyle g:S\to T}$ is surjective, either ${\displaystyle S}$ and ${\displaystyle T}$ are both empty, or the composition ${\displaystyle g\circ h:\mathbb {N} \to T}$ is surjective. In either case ${\displaystyle T}$ is countable.
8. See Cantor's first uncountability proof, and also Finite intersection property#Applications for a topological proof.

Citations

1. Manetti, Marco (19 June 2015). Topology. Springer. p. 26. ISBN 978-3-319-16958-3.
2. Rudin 1976, Chapter 2
3. Tao 2016, p. 181
4. Kamke 1950, p. 2
5. ^ Lang 1993, §2 of Chapter I
6. Apostol 1969, p. 23, Chapter 1.14
7. Thierry, Vialar (4 April 2017). Handbook of Mathematics. BoD - Books on Demand. p. 24. ISBN 978-2-9551990-1-5.
8. Mukherjee, Subir Kumar (2009). First Course in Real Analysis. Academic Publishers. p. 22. ISBN 978-81-89781-90-3.
9. ^ Yaqub, Aladdin M. (24 October 2014). An Introduction to Metalogic. Broadview Press. ISBN 978-1-4604-0244-3.
10. Singh, Tej Bahadur (17 May 2019). Introduction to Topology. Springer. p. 422. ISBN 978-981-13-6954-4.
11. ^ Katzourakis, Nikolaos; Varvaruca, Eugen (2 January 2018). An Illustrative Introduction to Modern Analysis. CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-351-76532-9.
12. Halmos 1960, p. 91
13. Kamke 1950, p. 2
14. Dlab, Vlastimil; Williams, Kenneth S. (9 June 2020). Invitation To Algebra: A Resource Compendium For Teachers, Advanced Undergraduate Students And Graduate Students In Mathematics. World Scientific. p. 8. ISBN 978-981-12-1999-3.
15. Tao 2016, p. 182
16. Stillwell, John C. (2010), Roads to Infinity: The Mathematics of Truth and Proof, CRC Press, p. 10, ISBN 9781439865507, Cantor's discovery of uncountable sets in 1874 was one of the most unexpected events in the history of mathematics. Before 1874, infinity was not even considered a legitimate mathematical subject by most people, so the need to distinguish between countable and uncountable infinities could not have been imagined.
17. Cantor 1878, p. 242.
18. Ferreirós 2007, pp. 268, 272–273.
19. "What Are Sets and Roster Form?". expii. 2021-05-09. Archived from the original on 2020-09-18.
20. Halmos 1960, p. 91
21. Halmos 1960, p. 92
22. Avelsgaard 1990, p. 182
23. Kamke 1950, pp. 3–4
24. Avelsgaard 1990, p. 180
25. Fletcher & Patty 1988, p. 187
26. Hrbacek, Karel; Jech, Thomas (22 June 1999). Introduction to Set Theory, Third Edition, Revised and Expanded. CRC Press. p. 141. ISBN 978-0-8247-7915-3.

References

• Apostol, Tom M. (June 1969), Multi-Variable Calculus and Linear Algebra with Applications, vol. 2 (2nd ed.), New York: John Wiley + Sons, ISBN 978-0-471-00007-5
• Avelsgaard, Carol (1990), Foundations for Advanced Mathematics, Scott, Foresman and Company, ISBN 0-673-38152-8
• Cantor, Georg (1878), "Ein Beitrag zur Mannigfaltigkeitslehre", Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik, 1878 (84): 242–248, doi:10.1515/crelle-1878-18788413, S2CID 123695365
• Ferreirós, José (2007), Labyrinth of Thought: A History of Set Theory and Its Role in Mathematical Thought (2nd revised ed.), Birkhäuser, ISBN 978-3-7643-8349-7
• Fletcher, Peter; Patty, C. Wayne (1988), Foundations of Higher Mathematics, Boston: PWS-KENT Publishing Company, ISBN 0-87150-164-3
• Halmos, Paul R. (1960), Naive Set Theory, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc Reprinted by Springer-Verlag, New York, 1974. ISBN 0-387-90092-6 (Springer-Verlag edition). Reprinted by Martino Fine Books, 2011. ISBN 978-1-61427-131-4 (Paperback edition).
• Kamke, Erich (1950), Theory of Sets, Dover series in mathematics and physics, New York: Dover, ISBN 978-0486601410
• Lang, Serge (1993), Real and Functional Analysis, Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag, ISBN 0-387-94001-4
• Rudin, Walter (1976), Principles of Mathematical Analysis, New York: McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-054235-X
• Tao, Terence (2016). "Infinite sets". Analysis I. Texts and Readings in Mathematics. Vol. 37 (Third ed.). Singapore: Springer. pp. 181–210. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-1789-6_8. ISBN 978-981-10-1789-6.

• Arithmetic
• Mathematics

v t e Mathematical logic
General	Axiom list Cardinality First-order logic Formal proof Formal semantics Foundations of mathematics Information theory Lemma Logical consequence Model Theorem Theory Type theory
Theorems (list)  and paradoxes	Gödel's completeness and incompleteness theorems Tarski's undefinability Banach–Tarski paradox Cantor's theorem, paradox and diagonal argument Compactness Halting problem Lindström's Löwenheim–Skolem Russell's paradox
Logics	Traditional Classical logic Logical truth Tautology Proposition Inference Logical equivalence Consistency Equiconsistency Argument Soundness Validity Syllogism Square of opposition Venn diagram Propositional Boolean algebra Boolean functions Logical connectives Propositional calculus Propositional formula Truth tables Many-valued logic 3 finite ∞ Predicate First-order list Second-order Monadic Higher-order Fixed-point Free Quantifiers Predicate Monadic predicate calculus
Set theory	Set hereditary Class (Ur-)Element Ordinal number Extensionality Forcing Relation equivalence partition Set operations: intersection union complement Cartesian product power set identities Types of sets Countable Uncountable Empty Inhabited Singleton Finite Infinite Transitive Ultrafilter Recursive Fuzzy Universal Universe constructible Grothendieck Von Neumann Maps and cardinality Function/Map domain codomain image In/Sur/Bi-jection Schröder–Bernstein theorem Isomorphism Gödel numbering Enumeration Large cardinal inaccessible Aleph number Operation binary Set theories Zermelo–Fraenkel axiom of choice continuum hypothesis General Kripke–Platek Morse–Kelley Naive New Foundations Tarski–Grothendieck Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel Ackermann Constructive
Formal systems (list), language and syntax	Alphabet Arity Automata Axiom schema Expression ground Extension by definition conservative Relation Formation rule Grammar Formula atomic closed ground open Free/bound variable Language Metalanguage Logical connective ¬ ∨ ∧ → ↔ = Predicate functional variable propositional variable Proof Quantifier ∃ ! ∀ rank Sentence atomic spectrum Signature String Substitution Symbol function logical/constant non-logical variable Term Theory list Example axiomatic systems (list) of arithmetic: Peano second-order elementary function primitive recursive Robinson Skolem of the real numbers Tarski's axiomatization of Boolean algebras canonical minimal axioms of geometry: Euclidean: Elements Hilbert's Tarski's non-Euclidean Principia Mathematica
Proof theory	Formal proof Natural deduction Logical consequence Rule of inference Sequent calculus Theorem Systems axiomatic deductive Hilbert list Complete theory Independence (from ZFC) Proof of impossibility Ordinal analysis Reverse mathematics Self-verifying theories
Model theory	Interpretation function of models Model equivalence finite saturated spectrum submodel Non-standard model of arithmetic Diagram elementary Categorical theory Model complete theory Satisfiability Semantics of logic Strength Theories of truth semantic Tarski's Kripke's T-schema Transfer principle Truth predicate Truth value Type Ultraproduct Validity
Computability theory	Church encoding Church–Turing thesis Computably enumerable Computable function Computable set Decision problem decidable undecidable P NP P versus NP problem Kolmogorov complexity Lambda calculus Primitive recursive function Recursion Recursive set Turing machine Type theory
Related	Abstract logic Algebraic logic Automated theorem proving Category theory Concrete/Abstract category Category of sets History of logic History of mathematical logic timeline Logicism Mathematical object Philosophy of mathematics Supertask
Mathematics portal

v t e Set theory
Overview	Set (mathematics)
Axioms	Adjunction Choice countable dependent global Constructibility (V=L) Determinacy projective Extensionality Infinity Limitation of size Pairing Power set Regularity Union Martin's axiom Axiom schema replacement specification
Operations	Cartesian product Complement (i.e. set difference) De Morgan's laws Disjoint union Identities Intersection Power set Symmetric difference Union
Concepts Methods	Almost Cardinality Cardinal number (large) Class Constructible universe Continuum hypothesis Diagonal argument Element ordered pair tuple Family Forcing One-to-one correspondence Ordinal number Set-builder notation Transfinite induction Venn diagram
Set types	Amorphous Countable Empty Finite (hereditarily) Filter base subbase Ultrafilter Fuzzy Infinite (Dedekind-infinite) Recursive Singleton Subset · Superset Transitive Uncountable Universal
Theories	Alternative Axiomatic Naive Cantor's theorem Zermelo General Principia Mathematica New Foundations Zermelo–Fraenkel von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel Morse–Kelley Kripke–Platek Tarski–Grothendieck
Paradoxes Problems	Russell's paradox Suslin's problem Burali-Forti paradox
Set theorists	Paul Bernays Georg Cantor Paul Cohen Richard Dedekind Abraham Fraenkel Kurt Gödel Thomas Jech John von Neumann Willard Quine Bertrand Russell Thoralf Skolem Ernst Zermelo

• Basic concepts in infinite set theory
• Cardinal numbers
• Infinity