On the comparison of cardinality of

Natural numbers and cardinality

Rational numbers
Shikhar Maheshwari
Bhaktivedanta Institute,
Juhu Road, Juhu, Mumbai-400049
shikhar@bvinst.edu, icoshikhar@gmail.com

Abstract
Here I wish to demonstrate that the proof given by Cantor to establish that Natural numbers and
Rational numbers have same cardinality lacks mathematical vigor and logic which is required for proving
mathematical proofs for infinite sets. Also, an alternative proof is given to show that the cardinality of
rational numbers is in fact greater than the cardinality of natural numbers.

Introduction
In the justly famous and well known result of Cantor proving that the cardinality of rational numbers is
shown to be same as the cardinality of natural numbers, the proof has been noted by many
mathematicians and philosophers to be counter-intuitive.[reference] This paper is divided into 3 parts.
Firstly, I will be giving a proof based on our intuitive thinking which proves that numbers of elements in
rational numbers are more than number of elements in natural numbers. Secondly, we will see the
aspect in Cantor’s proof which lacks sufficient mathematical vigor. Finally, I will give another proof
which, though does not disprove Cantor’s result, but is more powerful in mathematical vigor than
Cantor’s proof giving the result as per our intuition.

Part I
Setting the terminologies for the proof
Let
denote the set of natural numbers.

Let N(a, b] denote the set of natural numbers in the partially closed interval (a, b].

Then, N(a, b] is defined as,

, 


  
 

Let  denote the set of rational numbers.

Let Q(a, b] denote the set of rational numbers in the partially closed interval (a, b].
Then, Q(a, b] is defined as,

, 

   
 

Two sets A and B are called mutually exclusive if they have no elements in common.

If two sets Set A and Set B are mutually exclusive, then

             0

where n(S) denotes the number of elements in the Set S.

This can be extended to any number of mutually exclusive sets. Hence,

  !  "  #  $  %      !   "   #   $  % …… (1)

where  , ! , " , # , $ , % are mutually exclusive sets.

Let a, b, c be numbers such that a < b < c.

By definition,

, 


  
 

and

,& 


  
 '

Now, , and ,& are mutually exclusive sets (a < b < c)

Therefore, from (1),

,  ,&   ,   ,& ……… (2)

But,

,  ,&  ,&…… (3)

Combining results (2) and (3), we get,

,&   ,   ,& …… (4)

Again, by definition,

, 

   
 

and

,& 

   
 '
Now, , and ,& are mutually exclusive sets (a < b < c)

Therefore, from (1),

(,  ,& )  ,   ,& …… (5)

But,

,  ,&  ,& ……… (6)

Combining results (5) and (6), we get,

(,& )  ,   ,& …… (7)

Now, consider the interval (0, 1]

Then, by definition,

*,  


 0 
 1 , *,   1

Similarly,

 ,! 


 1 
 2 ,  ,!  2

!," 


 2 
 3 , !,"  3

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

%/ ,% 


 0 1 1 
 0 , %/ ,%  0

 (%/ ,% ) 120

Also, *,  ,  ,! , !," , $ , %/ ,% are all mutually exclusive sets.

Therefore, from (1),

*,    ,!  !,"  $  %/ ,%   *,     ,!   !,"   $  %/ ,% 

Again,

*,    ,!  !,"  $  %/ ,%  *,% …… (8)

Therefore, from (4) and (8), we get,

*,%   *,     ,!   !,"   $  %/ ,% …… (9)

Again, consider the interval (0, 1]. Let us mark all the rational numbers on the semi-closed interval (0, 1]
as described below:
Step 0: 1 is a rational number in the interval (0, 1].

Step 1: Mark all fractions with the denominator 2. There is only the single ½

Step 2: Mark all fractions with the denominator 3, arranging them in the order of increasing numerators:
1/3, 2/3

Step 3: Mark all fractions with the denominator 4, arranging them in ascending order: ¼, (2/4), ¾. The
fraction 2/4 = ½ is in brackets, because this number has appeared before.

·······················································································

Step (n-1) Mark all fractions with the denominator n, arranging them in ascending order: 1/n, 2/n, 3/n,
··· , (n-1) /n. If any fractions have common divisors, they are crossed out because on reduction to their
lowest terms, we see that they have appeared earlier.

···························································································

This is a infinite process. Still they are countably infinite steps. Although it cannot be completed, it is
sure to mark all rational numbers in the interval between 0 and 1. For example, consider the fraction
8/13. In step 12, we mark all the fractions with the denominator 13, arranging them in ascending order
as described for step (n-1). We will have 1/13, 2/13,…, 7/13, 8/13,..., 12/13. Hence, whatever fraction
between 0 and 1 is selected, it will certainly be reached and marked off on the segment (0, 1].
Displacement of these points by 1, 2, ···, (r-1) units to the right will mark all rational numbers in the
intervals (1, 2], (2, 3],……., (r-1, r].

Thus each of the sets Q(0, 1], Q(1, 2],…………….., Q(r-1, r] contains infinite elements. Also, each of these sets
contains same number of elements as we can have a bijective relationship between the elements of
each of the sets as shown below.

Thus,

1 1 2 1
*,   , , , , $ ,1
2 3 3 4
1 1 2 1
 ,!  1  , 1  , 1  , 1  , $ ,2
2 3 3 4
1 1 2 1
!,"  2  , 2  , 2  , 2  , $ ,3
2 3 3 4

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

1 1 2 1
%/ ,%  0 1 1  , 0 1 1  , 0 1 1  , 0 1 1  , $ , 0
2 3 3 4

The relationship between the corresponding elements of the above sets of rational numbers can be
expressed as follows:
If 4 is an element of *,  and 5 be corresponding elements of the set %/ ,% , then the two elements
are connected by the relationship,

5  4  0 1 1

Hence, all these set of rational numbers will have same number of elements (and hence same
cardinality) because of above bijective relationship. Also, each set will have countably infinite elements.

Also, *,  ,  ,! , !," $ %/ ,% are all mutually exclusive sets.

Therefore,

(*,    ,!  !,"  $  %/ ,% )  (*,  )  ( ,! )  (!," )  $  (%/ ,% )

Hence, from (7),

(*,% )  (*,  )  ( ,! )  (!," )  $  (%/ ,% ) ………… (10)

Now,

*,    *,  

( ,! )  ( ,! )

(!," )  (!," )

$$$$$$$$$$

(%/ ,% )  (%/ ,% )

Adding the above Inequations, we get,

*,     ,!   $  (%/ ,% )  60,1 7  61,2 7  $  6011,0 7…… (11)

Combining the results of (9), (10) and (11), we get,

(*,% )  (*,% )

Now, here there has been no restriction placed on value of r. Hence, it can have any value in domain of
natural numbers. This result is in agreement with our intuitive thinking that the number of elements in
 is greater than the number of elements in

8
Part II
The diagram below gives us the method used by Cantor to prove that the cardinality of  is same as the
cardinality of
.

In the method for proving that the rational numbers are denumerable by Cantor, he established
following bijective relationship between natural numbers and rational numbers:

1
19
1
2
29
1
1
39
2
1
49
3
3
59
1
4
69
1
3
79
2
2
89
3

$9$
But, no bijective functional relationship between the elements of natural numbers and the elements
from the group of rational numbers expressed by above correspondence was found in literature.
Identifying the existence of such a relationship is another mathematical task and to prove existence of
such a functional relationship or deny its existence is a question in itself. By means of bijective functional
relationship, it is meant that given a natural number (say 26713), we can get the corresponding rational
number by a mathematical formula rather than following the empirical method of Cantor of drawing the
diagonals till we reach to the desired rational number (26713th number in the series of rational
numbers). This is the point where Cantor’s proof seems to be less mathematically rigorous compared to
the proof that is given in part III by the author.

8
Part III
In this part, we will be constructing a set having same cardinality as that of
and prove that this newly
constructed set is a subset of . Let cardinality of set > be denoted by |>|.

Comparing Sets
Case 1: | A | = | B |
Two sets A and B have the same cardinality if there exists a bijection, which is an injective and surjective
function from A to B.
Case 2: | A | ≥ | B |
A has cardinality greater than or equal to the cardinality of B if there exists an injective function
from B into A.
Case 3: | A | > | B |
A has cardinality strictly greater than the cardinality of B if there is an injective function, but no bijective
function, from B to A.

Consider the reciprocal function having
as domain as shown below.

1
A0  , BCD0D 0

0

Now, let ` represent the range of f. Now by the above functional relationship, we can have
following bijective relationship as shown below:

`
1
1 ⁄1

2 ½
1
3 ⁄3

4 ¼

5 1
⁄5

6 1
⁄6

F F

Now, by means of above functional relationship, we can see that there exists, one-to-one relationship
between the elements of
and elements of `. Thus, the set ` have same cardinality as set
.

 |
|  |`|......... (1)

 G
Now, consider set `. All the elements of the set are in the form H , where p and q are natural numbers.
Hence, all elements of set ` are rational numbers. Hence, we have an injective function relationship
from ` to .

` I ……… (2)
%
Consider a fraction , where r and s are some natural numbers which have the property of being
J
coprime to each other and 0 K 1. Here, in particular in `, the elements are having 1 in the numerator
and a natural number in denominator. Numbers r and s being coprime to each other , we cannot express
%
J
in the form H (which can be bijection in
under the given functional relationship A under
%
consideration). Hence, does not belong to set `.
J
%
 J L `……… (3)

Also, according to definition of rational number, r/s is a rational number.

%
 J ……… (4)

%
So, we have a number J which is an element of  but is not an element of `. Hence, from (2), (3) and
(4), we have ` is a proper subset of set  with atleast one element in  which has no equivalent
element in `. In other words, we have an injective function but no surjective function from ` to .

` M ……… (5)

 |`|  ||……… (6)

Since, there are many infinite pairs of coprime numbers, infinite such elements exist in  without
corresponding element in `.

From, (1) and (6), it follows,

|
|  ||

Thus, we have proved here that the cardinality of rational numbers is strictly greater than the cardinality
of natural numbers.

Conclusion
Here, Cantor’s proof is not challenged but an alternative proof is given which is equally strong as
Cantor’s proof. In fact, the mathematical rigor of the proof in part III is greater than Cantor’s proof
because of the absence of bijective functional relationship in Cantor’s proof. The result mentioned
above must have a great impact on our understanding of Set Theory which forms the basis of modern
mathematics. Further details on this must await future publications.