God made the integers, all else is the work of man.

- Leopold Kronecker

Continuity, Completeness, and Connectedness of a Real

line

How large a number can we think of ?

It can be said “....on the authority of African explorers that many Hottentot tribes do not
have in their vocabulary the names for numbers larger than three. Ask a native down there
how many sons he has or how many enemies he has slain, and if the number is more than
three he will answer ‘many’.”1
Fortunately, the numeric system helps us to write as big a number as we please. We can
write a number as large as 10000000000000000 and not stop [Link] adding zeroes, we can
get to even bigger numbers. Let’s adopt, from here onwards, a way of writing large numbers
which is that we will represent them using powers of 10. See how
10000000000000000 = 10×10×10×10×10×10×10×10×10×10×10×10×10×10×10×10
and thus will be written as = 1016 .
Adding any more zeroes will only mean that you are multiplying this number with 10s
i.e. increasing the power of 10 from 16 to 17,18,19 and so on. Are these the only kind
of large numbers we can write? No, for there are other numbers like 20000000000000000
or 23400000000000000 or 1234567890123456 that can be . Using the notation comprising
powers of 10, we write them as 2 × 1016 , 2.34 × 1016 or 1.234567890123456 × 1016 respectively.
The point is, are you able to think of a number which is possibly the largest one you can come
up with? If yes then let me prompt you to conceive an even larger number. Add another
zero or zeroes to your number. Or better still, simply add 1 to it! Are you beginning to
perceive the impossibility of finding the ‘largest’ number yet?
1
notes George Gamow in One two three...infinity - facts & speculations of Science

1
Let me rewrite our hunt for the largest number as described above, in terms of the following
question;
Does this series of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4,......,100, 101,....1000,...,1999, 2000,... that is generated
by adding 1 to its predecessor, ever culminate in a number?
In other words, can you find the number of all numbers in the above series? By now, you
should probably be able to sense that the answers to all these questions is No . One can
keep on finding larger and larger numbers implying that the ‘number of all numbers in this
series’ is limitless or INFINITE (from the latin infinitus where in- not, finitus- finished ).

Infinite sets similar to Natural Numbers

The set of numbers that we have been discussing {1,2,3,..,100,... } consists of numbers pre-
dominantly used for counting purposes and are rightfully termed as the Natural Numbers.
In the earlier days, many mathematicians did not include 0 in this set and separately defined
{0,1,2,3,...,100,...} as Whole Numbers. There no longer exists any dispute among the math-
ematicians regarding the “naturalness” of 0 and the set of Natural Numbers is defined as
{0,1,2,3,...,100,...}.2 Likewise, we can define the negative counterparts of these numbers as
-1,-2,-3,...,-100,.. and together, all these numbers form the set of Integers. Figure 1 depicts
this set of integers on a number line.

· · · -1000 · · · · · · -100 · · · −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 ··· 100 · · · · · · 1000 · · ·

Figure 1: Integers on a number line

So far, our discussion has established that the set of non-negative integers { 0,1,2,..} is
infinite, which means that we can say that the set of negative integers is infinite too! How?
Because each negative integer, call it −n, is generated by taking the negative of a positive
integer, n. See figure 2 below.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 n
··· ··· ···
-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 −n

Figure 2: 1-1 correspondence between the set of positive and negative integers

Notice, how we have found ourselves a method to ’count’ infinite numbers! That is exactly
what a well-known mathematician Richard Dedekind realized in the late 1800s. After that,
infinity no longer remained as abstract a notion as it was earlier. He defined an Infinite Set
2
ISO 80000-2:2009

2
to be that set which has a one-to-one correspondence between the set of natural numbers
and itself or a subset of it. Further, George Cantor, a fellow mathematician of Dedekind,
expanded the research on infinity and for the first time made it possible to compare two
infinite sets.
Cantor defined two sets as being equinumerous if they could be put into a one-to-one corre-
spondence with each other. Then, as seen above, the set of positive integers is equinumerous
to the set of negative integers. So is the set of all odd numbers to the set of even numbers.

1 3 5 7 9 11 13
··· ···
2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Figure 3: 1-1 correspondence between the set of even and odd integers

Further, Infinity of even numbers is exactly as large as the infinity of all natural numbers.
Surprised? Well, in the world of infinity,a part may be equal to the whole! As you can see in
the figure 5, for each integer, n, there corresponds an even integer, 2n, and vice-versa.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 n
··· ··· ···
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2n

Figure 4: 1-1 correspondence between the set of even integers and positive integers

Ready to be surprised again? The set of integers is equinumerous to the set of positive
integers. How? We can assign to all negative integers like -1, -2, -3.. , positive even integers
like 2,4,6,.. respectively and all the positive integers like 0,1,2,3.. can be assigned positive
odd numbers like 0, 1,3,5,.. respectively. Check for yourself to see how this is a valid
correspondence in the sense that no integer is left behind or repeated.

n -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 n
··· ··· ··· ···
2(−n) 6 4 2 0 1 3 5 2n − 1

Figure 5: 1-1 correspondence between the set of integers and positive integers

To get more comfortable with the counter-intuitive properties of infinite numbers, let us
discuss the fascinating puzzle of ‘Hilbert’s Hotel with Infinite Rooms’. As the name suggests,
this problem was introduced by David Hilbert in his famous lectures on Infinity in 1924.

3
Consider any hotel with an infinite number of rooms, and assume that all the rooms are
occupied. A new guest arrives and asks for a room. Now if the hotel only had a finite number
of rooms, the proprietor would have had to decline the guest’s request for accommodation.
But, the proprietor of the infinite rooms hotel can actually accommodate that guest! He
moves the person previously occupying room 1 into room 2, the person from room 2 into
room 3, the person from room 3 into room 4, and so on. . . . These transpositions result in
room 1 being made available for the new guest to stay in.
What if there were a finite number of guests, say 10, that needed to be accommodated in
the Infinite hotel? Simple. The occupant of room 1 is asked to move to room 11, that of
room 2 is asked to moved to room 12, and so on up until the occupant in room 10 moves to
room 20. This makes the first ten rooms of the hotel available and the proprietor can easily
accommodate the newcomers in those rooms.
Further, what if an infinite number of new guests come in looking for accommodation? The
proprietor cunningly frees all the odd numbered rooms by moving the occupant of room l
into room 2, that of room 2 into room 4, and so on. Since we know that the infinity of odds
is equinumerous to the infinity of all natural numbers, the infinitely many new guests can
easily be accommodated in the now vacated odd-numbered rooms.

Infinity of Rationals

So far, we have discussed infinities of integers but what about the fractional numbers between
1 33
any two consecutive integers, like , etc.? Surely, these numbers are plentiful and in
2 49
comparison to integers, it seems like they are more in number. As we proceed further in the
section, we will see that both the infinities are equinumerous to each other!
But first let us formally define these fractional numbers, which are also called
 the Rationals
p
or the set of rational numbers. A rational number is defined as a fraction of two integers
q
where the integer in the denominator, (q), should be non-zero.
Cantor quite brilliantly proved that the set of rational numbers in equinumerous to the set
of positive integers. He did so by identifying rationals according to their sum of numerator
1
and denominator (p + q). For eg., we will start with the which generates a sum of 2. Then,
1

4
 1 2 3 2 1
for the sum of 3, we have numbers like and . Similarly, rationals , , and generate
2 1 1 2 3
a sum of 4 , and so on.
p
Figure 6 shows how Cantor rearranged all the rationals, , by treating them as ordered
q
23
pairs, (p, q) and placing them in pth row and qth column, for eg. rational will be placed
77
in 23rd row and 77th column below. In this way, one can arrange all the possible rationals
which sets the stage for us to start counting them.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ···
1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 ···
2 1/2 2/2 3/2 4/2 5/2 6/2 7/2 8/2 9/2 10/2 ···
3 1/3 2/3 3/3 4/3 5/3 6/3 7/3 8/3 9/3 10/3 ···
4 1/4 2/4 3/4 4/4 5/4 6/4 7/4 8/4 9/4 10/4 ···
5 1/5 2/5 3/5 4/5 5/5 6/5 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/5 ···
6 1/6 2/6 3/6 4/6 5/6 6/6 7/6 8/6 9/6 10/6 ···
7 1/7 2/7 3/7 4/7 5/7 6/7 7/7 8/7 9/7 10/7 ···
8 1/8 2/8 3/8 4/8 5/8 6/8 7/8 8/8 9/8 10/8 ···
9 1/9 2/9 3/9 4/9 5/9 6/9 7/9 8/9 9/9 10/9 ···
10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10 ···
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 6: Rationals as Ordered pairs

As shown by Cantor, we construct a one-to-one correspondence between naturals and ratio-

1
nals in the way shown in figure 8. We start by assigning 1 to . Then, moving down, we
1
1 2
assign 2 to . We then move diagonally and assign 3 to the . We then move to the ad
2 1
3 2 1
joint column and assign 4 to . We again move diagonally and assign 5 to and 6 to .
1 2 3
Repeating the same process, we keep on assigning natural numbers to these rationals.
As you can see in the figure 7 on the next page, allocating natural numbers to rationals in
this way essentially means that one is able to count them all and without any repetitions.
So far we have seen that the infinities of odds, evens, positive integers, negative integers,
rationals are all equinumerous to one another. Does that mean that infinities of all kind are

5
equal to one another? We will see in the coming section that is indeed not the case. Have
we dealt with all possible numbers that can exist on a number line?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ···
1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 ···
2 1/2 2/2 3/2 4/2 5/2 6/2 7/2 8/2 9/2 10/2 ···
3 1/3 2/3 3/3 4/3 5/3 6/3 7/3 8/3 9/3 10/3 ···
4 1/4 2/4 3/4 4/4 5/4 6/4 7/4 8/4 9/4 10/4 ···
5 1/5 2/5 3/5 4/5 5/5 6/5 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/5 ···
6 1/6 2/6 3/6 4/6 5/6 6/6 7/6 8/6 9/6 10/6 ···
7 1/7 2/7 3/7 4/7 5/7 6/7 7/7 8/7 9/7 10/7 ···
8 1/8 2/8 3/8 4/8 5/8 6/8 7/8 8/8 9/8 10/8 ···
9 1/9 2/9 3/9 4/9 5/9 6/9 7/9 8/9 9/9 10/9 ···
10 1/10 2/10 3/10 4/10 5/10 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10 ···
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 7: Cantor’s diagonalization of Rationals

Infinity of Real Line: What are Irrationals?

Ancient Greeks believed that a Pythagorean3 √ named Hippasus faced the wrath of the Gods
after having ‘discovered’ the irrationality of 2. A number is said to be irrational when
it cannot be written as a rational i.e. in the fractional form. Upon √ discovering that the
hypotenuse of an isosceles right-angled triangle of length 1, which is 2, could not be written
in a fractional form p/q 4 , Hippasus stumbled upon a whole new range of numbers!
Can we plot these irrationals which are square roots of numbers on the number line? Yes
we can. Draw a right-angled isosceles triangle√ of 1 unit, as shown in the figure 8. The
hypotenuse of this triangle will be of length 2 which√ by using a compass, can be drawn
the same length on the number line. How do we get √ 3? By drawing another right angle
triangle of length
q √1 with base√as the line of length 2. The hypotenuse of this triangle will
be of length ( 2)2 + 12 = 3. Using a compass, we can again measure that distance on
√ √ √
the number line. We can go on doing that and plot 5, 6, 7... and so on.
3
One who follows the teachings and beliefs held by Pythagoras,
√ and his followers.
4
See the appendix for Hippasus’s proof of irrationality of 2.

6
 1
√
3
√
2 1

√ √
2 3
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3

Figure 8: Plotting Irrationals on the Number line

These are not the only kind of numbers that are not rationals. In terms of the decimal
representation, every rational number is either a terminating or a repeating decimal. That
is, either it has a finite number of decimal digits or an infinitely many recurring decimal
1497
digits. For eg. terminating decimal numbers like = 1.497 or recurring decimal numbers
1000
10 3227 ¯
= 3.33333... and = 5.8144144144... = 5.8144.
3 555
Now, consider a number 3.14159265358979324.... which lies to the right of 3.3333... but is
non-terminating and non-repeating. Numbers like these cannot be written as fractionals
and are therefore called irrationals. What is this number really? This is π, the ratio of
the circumference and diameter of any circle and cannot be represented as a square root,
or a cubic root or as a matter of fact, any nth degree root.5 But we, unlike the ancient
Greeks, know better than to deny the exist of such a number! So, we have our rationals
which include the integers (0 = 0/1, 1 = 1/1, 2 = 2/1 and so on..) and the fractionals
(repeating or terminating decimals). And we have established that all the other numbers
(non-repeating and non-terminating decimals) are irrationals. Together, the rationals and
the irrationals form the number line, or the real line, or the set of real numbers.

5
The numbers which cannot be represented as the nth root of a polynomial equation are known as the
transcendental numbers.

7
Cantor was the first one to ask if there are different degrees of infinity as intuitively, the
infinity of real numbers or irrational numbers did not seem equinumerous to the infinity of
natural numbers. This time, he could trust his intuition. He showed that it is impossible to
establish a one-to-one correspondence between the points on a line and the integer numbers.
In fact, the infinity of points on a line is much larger, or stronger, than the infinity of all
integer or fractional numbers.
Here is the gist of Cantor’s proof (for real numbers greater than 0 and less than 1): If the
positive real numbers greater than zero and less than one are equinumerous with the positive
integers, then they can all be listed out in a sequence such as

1st 0.2092119644443...
2nd 0.3108131969619...
3rd 0.2425129315441...
4th 0.3480075650872...
5th 0.0415810010525...
6th 0.4702742494171...
7th 0.6598371022485...
8th 0.4153943669555...
9th 0.8832597362598...
10th 0.2475646576200...
11th 0.7400378254561...
12th 0.6523095434371...
13th 0.3513962470851...
Cantor’ great insight is to consider the highlighted digits on the diagonal. He changes all of
their values by adding 1 if the value is 0-8 and changes a 9 to a 0. This will construct a real
number 0.3231952777682... that cannot be in the table because it will differ from every real
number listed in the table!6
One striking feature of this proof is that it gives us a glimpse of the infinite possibilities
of numbers. And makes us realize that the infinite, yet countable, natural numbers are no
match for these uncountably infinite real numbers.

6
Proof as in God Created the Integers: The Mathematical Breakthroughs That Changed History by Stephen
Hawking.

8
 √
Appendix : Hippasus proof of irrationality of 2
√
This is a proof by contradiction. Let us assume that 2 is a rational number i.e there exist
p √
some integers, say p and q such that = 2, where q is not equal to zero and p, q have no
q
common factors between them. Even if we start with integers that are not reduced to lowest
terms (i.e. they still contain common factors), we can always arrive at the reduced-form by
factoring out all the common factors between the numerator and denominator.
Taking square on both sides,

p2
=2
q2
=⇒ p2 = 2q 2

Since the right hand side i.e. 2q 2 is multiplied by 2, we can infer that p2 is an even number.
Now, if the square of a number is even, then that number is even too. (Check for yourself.
3 × 3 = 9, 5 × 5 = 25, 33 × 33 = 1089...) Therefore p is an even number. Let us denote
p = 2r where r can be either odd or even. Then the above identity becomes,

4r2 = 2q 2
=⇒ 2r2 = q 2

Now since the left hand side is mulitplied by 2, we can infer that q 2 is even as well. This
implies that q is an even number too. Voila! Here lies our contradiction. We have shown
that p and q are both even numbers and have a common factor 2 between them while we
started out with the assumption that these two integers had no common factor between
√ p
them. Therefore, by assuming that 2 = , a fractional reduced to lowest terms, we have
q
p
shown that the fraction is not reduced to lowest terms. Since logically our assumption has
q
lead us to a contradiction to itself, our assumption must √
have been false in the√first place.
Therefore, there are no integers that as a fraction equal 2. In other words, 2 is not a
rational number.