TedTest

From the Ted Talk by Dennis Wildfogel: How big is infinity?

Unscramble the Blue Letters

When I was in fourth gadre, my teacher said to us one day: "There are as many even numbers as there are numbers." "Really?", I thought. Well, yeah, there are infinitely many of both, so I suppose there are the same number of them. But even nrbuems are only part of the whole numbers, all the odd numbers are left over, so there's got to be more whole numbers than even numbers, right? To see what my tcehear was getting at, let's first think about what it means for two sets to be the same size. What do I mean when I say I have the same number of fingers on my right hand as I do on left hand? Of course, I have five fingers on each, but it's actually simpler than that. I don't have to cnout, I only need to see that I can match them up, one to one. In fact, we think that some ancient people who spoke languages that didn't have words for numbers greater than three used this sort of magic. For ianncste, if you let your sheep out of a pen to graze, you can keep track of how many went out by setting aside a stone for each one, and putting those snoets back one by one when the sehep return, so you know if any are missing without really counting. As another example of matching being more fundamental than counting, if I'm sekaipng to a pkcaed arouiiudtm, where every seat is taken and no one is standing, I know that there are the same number of chairs as people in the audience, even though I don't know how many there are of either. So, what we really mean when we say that two sets are the same size is that the enemelts in those sets can be mechatd up one by one in some way. My fourth grade teacher showed us the whole numbers laid out in a row, and below each we have its double. As you can see, the bottom row contains all the even numbers, and we have a one-to-one match. That is, there are as many even numbers as there are numbers. But what still bothers us is our distress over the fact that even numbers seem to be only part of the whole numbers. But does this convince you that I don't have the same number of fingers on my right hand as I do on my left? Of course not. It doesn't meattr if you try to match the elements in some way and it doesn't work, that doesn't convince us of anything. If you can find one way in which the elements of two sets do match up, then we say those two sets have the same number of elements. Can you make a list of all the fractions? This might be hard, there are a lot of fractions! And it's not obuivos what to put first, or how to be sure all of them are on the list. Nevertheless, there is a very clever way that we can make a list of all the fractions. This was first done by Georg ctanor, in the late eitheegn hundreds. First, we put all the fractions into a grid. They're all there. For instance, you can find, say, 117/243, in the 117th row and 243rd cmuoln. Now we make a list out of this by starting at the ueppr left and snipeewg back and forth diagonally, skipping over any fraction, like 2/2, that represents the same nuebmr as one the we've already pieckd. We get a list of all the fractions, which means we've created a one-to-one match between the whole numbers and the fractions, despite the fact that we thought maybe there ought to be more foitcanrs. OK, here's where it gets really interesting. You may know that not all real numbers — that is, not all the numbers on a number line — are fractions. The square root of two and pi, for instance. Any number like this is caleld irrational. Not because it's crazy, or anything, but because the fractions are rtaios of whole numbers, and so are called rationals; manneig the rest are non-rational, that is, irrational. Irrationals are represented by infinite, non-repeating diclmaes. So, can we make a one-to-one match between the whole numbers and the set of all the decimals, both the rationals and the irrationals? That is, can we make a list of all the daimcel numbers? Cantor showed that you can't. Not merely that we don't know how, but that it can't be done. Look, suppose you claim you have made a list of all the decimals. I'm going to show you that you didn't succeed, by producing a decimal that is not on your list. I'll construct my decimal one place at a time. For the first decimal place of my number, I'll look at the first decimal place of your first number. If it's a one, I'll make mine a two; otherwise I'll make mine a one. For the second place of my number, I'll look at the second pcale of your second number. Again, if yours is a one, I'll make mine a two, and otherwise I'll make mine a one. See how this is going? The decimal I've produced can't be on your list. Why? Could it be, say, your 143rd number? No, because the 143rd place of my decimal is different from the 143rd place of your 143rd number. I made it that way. Your list is incomplete. It doesn't contain my decimal number. And, no matter what list you give me, I can do the same thing, and proudce a decimal that's not on that list. So we're faced with this astounding conclusion: The decimal numbers cannot be put on a list. They represent a bigger infinity that the infinity of whole numbers. So, even though we're familiar with only a few irrationals, like square root of two and pi, the infinity of irrationals is actually greater than the infinity of fractions. Someone once said that the rationals — the fractions — are like the stars in the night sky. The irrationals are like the blackness. Cantor also showed that, for any infinite set, forming a new set made of all the subsets of the original set represents a bigger infinity than that original set. This means that, once you have one infinity, you can always make a bigger one by mainkg the set of all subsets of that first set. And then an even bigger one by making the set of all the subsets of that one. And so on. And so, there are an infinite number of infinities of different sizes. If these ideas make you uncomfortable, you are not alone. Some of the greatest mathematicians of Cantor's day were very uespt with this stuff. They tried to make these different infinities irrelevant, to make mathematics work without them somehow. Cantor was even vilified personally, and it got so bad for him that he sfrefeud severe depression, and spent the last half of his life in and out of mental institutions. But eventually, his ideas won out. taody, they're considered fundamental and mfninicaget. All research mathematicians accept these ideas, every college math major learns them, and I've explained them to you in a few mnietus. Some day, perhaps, they'll be common knowledge. There's more. We just pointed out that the set of decimal numbers — that is, the real numbers — is a bigger iinifnty than the set of whole numbers. Cantor wondered whether there are infinities of different sezis between these two infinities. He didn't believe there were, but couldn't prove it. Cantor's conjecture became known as the cutniuonm hypothesis. In 1900, the great mathematician David Hilbert listed the continuum hiopetsyhs as the most inrtmpoat unsolved problem in mathematics. The 20th crneuty saw a reulotosin of this problem, but in a cptlelomey unexpected, paradigm-shattering way. In the 1920s, Kurt Gödel showed that you can never prove that the continuum hypothesis is false. Then, in the 1960s, Paul J. Cohen showed that you can never povre that the continuum hypothesis is true. Taken together, these results mean that there are unanswerable questions in mathematics. A very stunning conclusion. Mathematics is rightly considered the pinnacle of human reasoning, but we now know that even mmtahicates has its limitations. Still, mathematics has some truly amazing things for us to think about.

Open Cloze

When I was in fourth _____, my teacher said to us one day: "There are as many even numbers as there are numbers." "Really?", I thought. Well, yeah, there are infinitely many of both, so I suppose there are the same number of them. But even _______ are only part of the whole numbers, all the odd numbers are left over, so there's got to be more whole numbers than even numbers, right? To see what my _______ was getting at, let's first think about what it means for two sets to be the same size. What do I mean when I say I have the same number of fingers on my right hand as I do on left hand? Of course, I have five fingers on each, but it's actually simpler than that. I don't have to _____, I only need to see that I can match them up, one to one. In fact, we think that some ancient people who spoke languages that didn't have words for numbers greater than three used this sort of magic. For ________, if you let your sheep out of a pen to graze, you can keep track of how many went out by setting aside a stone for each one, and putting those ______ back one by one when the _____ return, so you know if any are missing without really counting. As another example of matching being more fundamental than counting, if I'm ________ to a ______ __________, where every seat is taken and no one is standing, I know that there are the same number of chairs as people in the audience, even though I don't know how many there are of either. So, what we really mean when we say that two sets are the same size is that the ________ in those sets can be _______ up one by one in some way. My fourth grade teacher showed us the whole numbers laid out in a row, and below each we have its double. As you can see, the bottom row contains all the even numbers, and we have a one-to-one match. That is, there are as many even numbers as there are numbers. But what still bothers us is our distress over the fact that even numbers seem to be only part of the whole numbers. But does this convince you that I don't have the same number of fingers on my right hand as I do on my left? Of course not. It doesn't ______ if you try to match the elements in some way and it doesn't work, that doesn't convince us of anything. If you can find one way in which the elements of two sets do match up, then we say those two sets have the same number of elements. Can you make a list of all the fractions? This might be hard, there are a lot of fractions! And it's not _______ what to put first, or how to be sure all of them are on the list. Nevertheless, there is a very clever way that we can make a list of all the fractions. This was first done by Georg ______, in the late ________ hundreds. First, we put all the fractions into a grid. They're all there. For instance, you can find, say, 117/243, in the 117th row and 243rd ______. Now we make a list out of this by starting at the _____ left and ________ back and forth diagonally, skipping over any fraction, like 2/2, that represents the same ______ as one the we've already ______. We get a list of all the fractions, which means we've created a one-to-one match between the whole numbers and the fractions, despite the fact that we thought maybe there ought to be more _________. OK, here's where it gets really interesting. You may know that not all real numbers — that is, not all the numbers on a number line — are fractions. The square root of two and pi, for instance. Any number like this is ______ irrational. Not because it's crazy, or anything, but because the fractions are ______ of whole numbers, and so are called rationals; _______ the rest are non-rational, that is, irrational. Irrationals are represented by infinite, non-repeating ________. So, can we make a one-to-one match between the whole numbers and the set of all the decimals, both the rationals and the irrationals? That is, can we make a list of all the _______ numbers? Cantor showed that you can't. Not merely that we don't know how, but that it can't be done. Look, suppose you claim you have made a list of all the decimals. I'm going to show you that you didn't succeed, by producing a decimal that is not on your list. I'll construct my decimal one place at a time. For the first decimal place of my number, I'll look at the first decimal place of your first number. If it's a one, I'll make mine a two; otherwise I'll make mine a one. For the second place of my number, I'll look at the second _____ of your second number. Again, if yours is a one, I'll make mine a two, and otherwise I'll make mine a one. See how this is going? The decimal I've produced can't be on your list. Why? Could it be, say, your 143rd number? No, because the 143rd place of my decimal is different from the 143rd place of your 143rd number. I made it that way. Your list is incomplete. It doesn't contain my decimal number. And, no matter what list you give me, I can do the same thing, and _______ a decimal that's not on that list. So we're faced with this astounding conclusion: The decimal numbers cannot be put on a list. They represent a bigger infinity that the infinity of whole numbers. So, even though we're familiar with only a few irrationals, like square root of two and pi, the infinity of irrationals is actually greater than the infinity of fractions. Someone once said that the rationals — the fractions — are like the stars in the night sky. The irrationals are like the blackness. Cantor also showed that, for any infinite set, forming a new set made of all the subsets of the original set represents a bigger infinity than that original set. This means that, once you have one infinity, you can always make a bigger one by ______ the set of all subsets of that first set. And then an even bigger one by making the set of all the subsets of that one. And so on. And so, there are an infinite number of infinities of different sizes. If these ideas make you uncomfortable, you are not alone. Some of the greatest mathematicians of Cantor's day were very _____ with this stuff. They tried to make these different infinities irrelevant, to make mathematics work without them somehow. Cantor was even vilified personally, and it got so bad for him that he ________ severe depression, and spent the last half of his life in and out of mental institutions. But eventually, his ideas won out. _____, they're considered fundamental and ___________. All research mathematicians accept these ideas, every college math major learns them, and I've explained them to you in a few _______. Some day, perhaps, they'll be common knowledge. There's more. We just pointed out that the set of decimal numbers — that is, the real numbers — is a bigger ________ than the set of whole numbers. Cantor wondered whether there are infinities of different _____ between these two infinities. He didn't believe there were, but couldn't prove it. Cantor's conjecture became known as the _________ hypothesis. In 1900, the great mathematician David Hilbert listed the continuum __________ as the most _________ unsolved problem in mathematics. The 20th _______ saw a __________ of this problem, but in a __________ unexpected, paradigm-shattering way. In the 1920s, Kurt Gödel showed that you can never prove that the continuum hypothesis is false. Then, in the 1960s, Paul J. Cohen showed that you can never _____ that the continuum hypothesis is true. Taken together, these results mean that there are unanswerable questions in mathematics. A very stunning conclusion. Mathematics is rightly considered the pinnacle of human reasoning, but we now know that even ___________ has its limitations. Still, mathematics has some truly amazing things for us to think about.

Solution

ratios
mathematics
picked
decimal
hypothesis
upper
grade
resolution
sheep
instance
teacher
matched
magnificent
called
century
numbers
number
stones
place
continuum
cantor
obvious
meaning
elements
column
today
sizes
count
produce
infinity
decimals
sweeping
important
eighteen
making
speaking
completely
fractions
matter
packed
suffered
auditorium
prove
minutes
upset

Original Text

When I was in fourth grade, my teacher said to us one day: "There are as many even numbers as there are numbers." "Really?", I thought. Well, yeah, there are infinitely many of both, so I suppose there are the same number of them. But even numbers are only part of the whole numbers, all the odd numbers are left over, so there's got to be more whole numbers than even numbers, right? To see what my teacher was getting at, let's first think about what it means for two sets to be the same size. What do I mean when I say I have the same number of fingers on my right hand as I do on left hand? Of course, I have five fingers on each, but it's actually simpler than that. I don't have to count, I only need to see that I can match them up, one to one. In fact, we think that some ancient people who spoke languages that didn't have words for numbers greater than three used this sort of magic. For instance, if you let your sheep out of a pen to graze, you can keep track of how many went out by setting aside a stone for each one, and putting those stones back one by one when the sheep return, so you know if any are missing without really counting. As another example of matching being more fundamental than counting, if I'm speaking to a packed auditorium, where every seat is taken and no one is standing, I know that there are the same number of chairs as people in the audience, even though I don't know how many there are of either. So, what we really mean when we say that two sets are the same size is that the elements in those sets can be matched up one by one in some way. My fourth grade teacher showed us the whole numbers laid out in a row, and below each we have its double. As you can see, the bottom row contains all the even numbers, and we have a one-to-one match. That is, there are as many even numbers as there are numbers. But what still bothers us is our distress over the fact that even numbers seem to be only part of the whole numbers. But does this convince you that I don't have the same number of fingers on my right hand as I do on my left? Of course not. It doesn't matter if you try to match the elements in some way and it doesn't work, that doesn't convince us of anything. If you can find one way in which the elements of two sets do match up, then we say those two sets have the same number of elements. Can you make a list of all the fractions? This might be hard, there are a lot of fractions! And it's not obvious what to put first, or how to be sure all of them are on the list. Nevertheless, there is a very clever way that we can make a list of all the fractions. This was first done by Georg Cantor, in the late eighteen hundreds. First, we put all the fractions into a grid. They're all there. For instance, you can find, say, 117/243, in the 117th row and 243rd column. Now we make a list out of this by starting at the upper left and sweeping back and forth diagonally, skipping over any fraction, like 2/2, that represents the same number as one the we've already picked. We get a list of all the fractions, which means we've created a one-to-one match between the whole numbers and the fractions, despite the fact that we thought maybe there ought to be more fractions. OK, here's where it gets really interesting. You may know that not all real numbers — that is, not all the numbers on a number line — are fractions. The square root of two and pi, for instance. Any number like this is called irrational. Not because it's crazy, or anything, but because the fractions are ratios of whole numbers, and so are called rationals; meaning the rest are non-rational, that is, irrational. Irrationals are represented by infinite, non-repeating decimals. So, can we make a one-to-one match between the whole numbers and the set of all the decimals, both the rationals and the irrationals? That is, can we make a list of all the decimal numbers? Cantor showed that you can't. Not merely that we don't know how, but that it can't be done. Look, suppose you claim you have made a list of all the decimals. I'm going to show you that you didn't succeed, by producing a decimal that is not on your list. I'll construct my decimal one place at a time. For the first decimal place of my number, I'll look at the first decimal place of your first number. If it's a one, I'll make mine a two; otherwise I'll make mine a one. For the second place of my number, I'll look at the second place of your second number. Again, if yours is a one, I'll make mine a two, and otherwise I'll make mine a one. See how this is going? The decimal I've produced can't be on your list. Why? Could it be, say, your 143rd number? No, because the 143rd place of my decimal is different from the 143rd place of your 143rd number. I made it that way. Your list is incomplete. It doesn't contain my decimal number. And, no matter what list you give me, I can do the same thing, and produce a decimal that's not on that list. So we're faced with this astounding conclusion: The decimal numbers cannot be put on a list. They represent a bigger infinity that the infinity of whole numbers. So, even though we're familiar with only a few irrationals, like square root of two and pi, the infinity of irrationals is actually greater than the infinity of fractions. Someone once said that the rationals — the fractions — are like the stars in the night sky. The irrationals are like the blackness. Cantor also showed that, for any infinite set, forming a new set made of all the subsets of the original set represents a bigger infinity than that original set. This means that, once you have one infinity, you can always make a bigger one by making the set of all subsets of that first set. And then an even bigger one by making the set of all the subsets of that one. And so on. And so, there are an infinite number of infinities of different sizes. If these ideas make you uncomfortable, you are not alone. Some of the greatest mathematicians of Cantor's day were very upset with this stuff. They tried to make these different infinities irrelevant, to make mathematics work without them somehow. Cantor was even vilified personally, and it got so bad for him that he suffered severe depression, and spent the last half of his life in and out of mental institutions. But eventually, his ideas won out. Today, they're considered fundamental and magnificent. All research mathematicians accept these ideas, every college math major learns them, and I've explained them to you in a few minutes. Some day, perhaps, they'll be common knowledge. There's more. We just pointed out that the set of decimal numbers — that is, the real numbers — is a bigger infinity than the set of whole numbers. Cantor wondered whether there are infinities of different sizes between these two infinities. He didn't believe there were, but couldn't prove it. Cantor's conjecture became known as the continuum hypothesis. In 1900, the great mathematician David Hilbert listed the continuum hypothesis as the most important unsolved problem in mathematics. The 20th century saw a resolution of this problem, but in a completely unexpected, paradigm-shattering way. In the 1920s, Kurt Gödel showed that you can never prove that the continuum hypothesis is false. Then, in the 1960s, Paul J. Cohen showed that you can never prove that the continuum hypothesis is true. Taken together, these results mean that there are unanswerable questions in mathematics. A very stunning conclusion. Mathematics is rightly considered the pinnacle of human reasoning, but we now know that even mathematics has its limitations. Still, mathematics has some truly amazing things for us to think about.

Frequently Occurring Word Combinations

ngrams of length 2

collocation	frequency
continuum hypothesis	4
bigger infinity	3
real numbers	2
square root	2
decimal place	2
decimal numbers	2
original set	2

Important Words

accept
amazing
ancient
astounding
audience
auditorium
bad
bigger
blackness
bothers
bottom
called
cantor
century
chairs
claim
clever
cohen
college
column
common
completely
conclusion
conjecture
considered
construct
continuum
convince
count
counting
crazy
created
david
day
decimal
decimals
depression
diagonally
distress
double
eighteen
elements
eventually
explained
faced
fact
false
familiar
find
fingers
forming
fourth
fraction
fractions
fundamental
georg
give
grade
graze
great
greater
greatest
grid
gödel
hand
hard
hilbert
human
hundreds
hypothesis
ideas
important
incomplete
infinite
infinitely
infinities
infinity
instance
institutions
interesting
irrational
irrationals
irrelevant
knowledge
kurt
laid
languages
late
learns
left
life
limitations
line
list
listed
lot
magic
magnificent
major
making
match
matched
matching
math
mathematician
mathematicians
mathematics
matter
meaning
means
mental
minutes
missing
night
number
numbers
obvious
odd
original
packed
part
paul
pen
people
personally
pi
picked
pinnacle
place
pointed
problem
produce
produced
producing
prove
put
putting
questions
rationals
ratios
real
reasoning
represent
represented
represents
research
resolution
rest
results
return
rightly
root
row
seat
set
sets
setting
severe
sheep
show
showed
simpler
size
sizes
skipping
sky
sort
speaking
spent
spoke
square
standing
stars
starting
stone
stones
stuff
stunning
subsets
succeed
suffered
suppose
sweeping
teacher
thought
time
today
track
true
unanswerable
uncomfortable
unexpected
unsolved
upper
upset
vilified
won
wondered
words
work
yeah