A bunch of readers sent me a link to a tweet this morning from Professor Jordan Ellenberg:

```
```If you're writing a math textbook and you're not sure you understand a piece of math, just don't include it. http://t.co/nVe6oLvLhg

— Jordan Ellenberg (@JSEllenberg) September 9, 2015

The tweet links to the following image:

(And yes, this is real. You can see it in context here.)

This is absolutely infuriating.

This is a photo of a problem assignment in a *math textbook* published by an imprint of McGraw-Hill. And it’s absolutely, unquestionably, *trivially* wrong. No one who knew anything about math looked at this before it was published.

The basic concept underneath this is fundamental: it’s the cardinality of sets from Cantor’s set theory. It’s an extremely important concept. And it’s a concept that’s at the root of a huge amount of misunderstandings, confusion, and frustration among math students.

Cardinality, and the notion of cardinality relations between infinite sets, are difficult concepts, and they lead to some very un-intuitive results. Infinity isn’t one thing: there are different *sizes* of infinities. That’s a rough concept to grasp!

Here on this blog, I’ve spent more time dealing with people who believe that it must be wrong – a subject that I call Cantor crackpottery – than with any other bad math topic. This error teaches students something deeply wrong, and it encourages Cantor crackpottery!

Let’s review.

Cantor said that two collections of things are the same size if it’s possible to create a one-to-one mapping between the two. Imagine you’ve got a set of 3 apples and a set of 3 oranges. They’re the same size. We know that because they both have 3 elements; but we can also show it by setting aside pairs of one apple and one orange – you’ll get three pairs.

The same idea applies when you look at infinitely large sets. The set of positive integers and the set of negative integers are the same size. They’re both infinite – but we can show how you can create a one-to-one relation between them: you can take any positive integer , and map it to exactly one negative integer, .

That leads to some unintuitive results. For example, the set of all natural numbers and the set of all *even* natural numbers are the same size. That seems crazy, because the set of all even natural numbers is a *strict subset* of the set of natural numbers: how can they be the same size?

But they are. We can map each natural number to exactly one even natural number . That’s a perfect one-to-one map between natural numbers and even natural numbers.

Where it gets uncomfortable for a lot of people is when we start thinking about real numbers. The set of real numbers is infinite. Even the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 is infinite! But it’s also *larger* than the set of natural numbers, which is also infinite. How can that be?

The answer is that Cantor showed that for any possible one-to-one mapping between the natural numbers and the real numbers between 0 and 1, there’s at least one real number that the mapping *omitted*. No matter how you do it, all of the natural numbers are mapped to one value in the reals, but there’s at least one real number which is *not* in the mapping!

In Cantor set theory, that means that the size of the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 is strictly larger than the set of all natural numbers. There’s an infinity bigger than infinity.

I *think* that this is what the math book in question meant to say: that there’s no possible mapping between the natural numbers and the real numbers. But it’s not what they did say: what they said is that there’s no possible map between the integers and the fractions. And *that* is not true.

Here’s how you generate the mapping between the integers and the rational numbers (fractions) between 0 and 1, written as a pseudo-Python program:

i = 0 for denom in Natural: for num in 1 .. denom: if num is relatively prime with denom: print("%d => %d/%d" % (i, num, denom)) i += 1

It produces a mapping (0 => 0, 1 => 1, 2 => 1/2, 3 => 1/3, 4 => 2/3, 5 => 1/4, 6 => 3/4, …). It’ll never finish running – but you can easily show that for any possible fraction, there’ll be exactly one integer that maps to it.

That means that the set of all rational numbers between 0 and 1 is *the same size* as the set of all natural numbers. There’s a similar way of producing a mapping between the set of *all* fractions and the set of natural numbers – so the set of all fractions is the same size as the set of natural numbers. But both are *smaller than* the set of all *real* numbers, because there are many, many real numbers that cannot be written as fractions. (For example, . Or the square root of 2. Or . )

This is terrible on multiple levels.

- It’s a
*math textbook*written and reviewed by people who don’t understand the basic math that they’re writing about. - It’s teaching children something incorrect about something that’s already likely to confuse them.
- It’s teaching something incorrect about a topic that doesn’t need to be covered
*at all*in the textbook. This is an algebra-2 textbook. You don’t need to cover Cantor’s infinite cardinalities in Algebra-2. It’s not*wrong*to cover it – but it’s not necessary. If the authors didn’t understand cardinality, they could have just left it out. - It’s
*obviously*wrong. Plenty of bright students are going to come up with the the mapping between the fractions and the natural numbers. They’re going to come away believing that they’ve disproved Cantor.

I’m sure some people will argue with that last point. My evidence in support of it? *I* came up with a proof of that in high school. Fortunately, my math teacher was able to explain why it was wrong. (Thanks Mrs. Stevens!) Since I write this blog, people assume I’m a mathematician. I’m not. I’m just an engineer who really loves math. I was a good math student, but far from a great one. I’d guess that every medium-sized high school has at least one math student every year who’s better than I was.

The proof I came up with is absolutely trivial, and I’d expect tons of bright math-geek kids to come up with something like it. Here goes:

- The set of fractions is a strict subset of the set of ordered pairs of natural numbers.
- So: if there’s a one-to-one mapping between the set of ordered pairs and the naturals, then there must be a one-to-one mapping between the fractions and the naturals.
- On a two-d grid, put the natural numbers across, and then down.
- Zigzag diagonally through the grid, forming pairs of the horizontal position and the vertical position: (0,0), (1, 0), (0, 1), (2, 0), (1, 1), (0, 2), (3, 0), (2, 1), (1, 2), (0, 3).
- This will produce every possible ordered pair of natural numbers. For each number in the list, produce a mapping between the position in the list, and the pair. So (0, 0) is 0, (2, 0) is 3, etc.

As a proof, it’s sloppy – but it’s correct. And plenty of high school students will come up with something like it. How many of them will walk away believing that they just disproved Cantor?