Note: Full functionality of this website requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser.

# Proof of more Real numbers than Natural numbers

Page last updated 09 Sep 2021

If you have come to this page looking for the proof that there are more real numbers than natural numbers, then you have come to the right place. Reading this page will save you a lot of time and effort searching for something that does not exist - because this page reveals that there is not actually any rigorous proof that there are more real numbers than natural numbers. When asked for such a proof, mathematicians and logicians resort instead to various pleas, which are described below. (Footnote: For an example see Why we need formality in mathematics where the author writes an article proclaiming the importance of formal rigor in mathematics, particularly in relation to the question of whether there are more real numbers than natural numbers. However, when challenged in the subsequent comments, he completely fails to provide any rigorous defence of his claim that there are more real numbers than natural numbers.)

## Cantor’s Diagonal proof

Georg Cantor’s Diagonal proof is probably the most commonly cited claim of a proof that there are “more” real numbers than natural numbers.

However, the simple fact is that Cantor’s Diagonal argument * only* establishes that,

*, there cannot exist any one-to-one correspondence between the set of all real numbers and the set of all natural numbers.*

**within any given mathematical system**

That’s all.

It says absolutely nothing about whether there are “more” real numbers than natural numbers.

The diagonal proof is a proof of what is called non-denumerability. Note that there are other proofs of non-denumerability, but, as for the diagonal proof, these proofs also only prove the absence of a one-to-one correspondence within a mathematical system and they do not prove that there are “more” real numbers than natural numbers.

Also note that there are some fully formal proofs that also prove non-denumerability, but again, they only prove the absence of a one-to-one correspondence within a mathematical system and do not prove that there are “more” real numbers than natural numbers.

### Intuition steps in

When the above is pointed out, an intuitive plea is frequently advanced which is some version of:

*“I can’t see how two sets could not be different sizes if there cannot be any one-to-one correspondence between them.”*

This is an intuitive assumption that has no logical basis whatsoever, and results in a direct contradiction; the notion that one set with limitlessly many elements can have fewer elements than another set with limitlessly many elements is a blatant contradiction. For an example of how this assumption is slipped in as though it were a proven theorem see
David Hilbert’s On the Infinite, and see The Origins of Transfinite Numbers for Cantor’s justification of this contradictory assumption. Such assumptions do not in any way constitute mathematical proof, and you are entitled to summarily reject the plea on that account. A mathematician should not accept any argument that * you* present that is not a rigorous proof, and similarly you shouldn’t accept any argument presented to you that is not a rigorous proof.

### Indefinable numbers

Another favorite plea is the argument that there exist infinitely many “indefinable” real numbers and that these “indefinable” numbers account for the difference in size of the set of real numbers and the set of natural numbers. This argument arises from a secondary argument that is commonly tacked onto the diagonal argument - the details of the argument and the rather obvious flaw in that argument are given in The Secondary Argument. The absurdity of the notion of “indefinable” real numbers is analyzed on the page The contradictions of “indefinable” numbers.

#### Specific “indefinable” numbers

When faced with the refutations of the above-mentioned pleas, some people proceed to a claim that they can show that there are actually real numbers that can be precisely described but which are “indefinable” - by which they mean that no-one can ever determine that exact number. (Footnote: The claim is that there is at least one digit in any expansion of that real number that can never be calculated.) An example of this is Chaitin’s Omega number. But the flaw in such arguments is easily demonstrated, see Chaitin’s Constant Error.

## Cardinality

Another favorite trick is to play the *definition of cardinality* card. This trick doesn’t even begin to provide a proof - instead it relies on your gullible acceptance of a definition of cardinality which includes an * assumption* that

**the notion that some infinite sets can have “more” elements than some other infinite sets. See The Conventional Definition of Cardinality for an analysis of the definition and why it includes an unacceptable assumption.**

*guarantees*

Given that definition, the claim necessarily follows:

*If there is no one-to-one correspondence between two sets, then the cardinality of one set must be greater than that of the other*.

This is accompanied by the claim that, since by the definition the cardinality of a set is the number of elements in the set, then since different infinite sets can have different cardinalities, then different infinite sets can have different numbers of elements.

What the assumption in the definition conveniently ignores is that every infinite set has limitlessly many elements - and it is never explained how there can be limitlessly large sets that are smaller than other limitlessly large sets, when for both sets, there is no upper limit on how many elements they contain. It is impossible that one infinite set can have “more” elements than another, since there is no upper limit on the quantities of elements of either set.

There is no reason for you or anyone else to accept an assumption that directly produces such an absurd result. Ask for a rigorous proof, and don’t accept absurd assumptions.

## The last resort - the ad hominem attack

When you have rejected all the pleas as not fulfilling the requirement of being a rigorous mathematical proof, it’s not uncommon to be the object of the old ad hominem trick of branding anyone with a dissenting voice as a “crank”. These people fail to see the irony that it is the supposed “crank” who is requesting a rigorous argument.

### Properties of elements of infinite sets

We may note that for finite sets, a one-to-one correspondence can be given *without any reference whatsoever* to the properties of the elements of the sets, by an actual list (e.g. 1:A, 2:B, 3:C). But for infinite sets this is not possible, and all known instances of a one-to-one correspondence are cases where there is a definition that defines a correspondence * in terms of the properties of the elements of the sets*. For example, the function 2

*x*defines a one-to-one correspondence between the set of positive integers and the set of even positive integers, but it cannot define a correspondence for letters of the alphabet. (Footnote: Note that there could be a finite number of other elements in the sets that could be assigned a one-to-one correspondence by a simple list, but this does not affect the fact that a one-to-one correspondence between the other, infinitely many elements requires a reference to their properties.)

And we can also observe an instance where an element of a set has a * property that prevents the definition of a one-to-one correspondence* - the Power set proof relies on the definition of one subset where that definition gives the subset a property such that a one-to-one correspondence cannot be defined.

And we can further observe that the size of a set is independent of the properties of its elements, that is, one can replace any element by some other element not already in the set and the size of the set is not affected.

### Why do people continue to defend the indefensible?

It is an intriguing question - why do people prefer to continue to believe something that is blatantly contradictory? And why do they continue to believe it when, despite the claim being prevalent for well over a hundred years, there has never been anything even approaching a rigorous proof of the claim? Why is there an immediate knee-jerk reaction against any suggestion that one might be able to remove this contradiction by a full logical analysis of everything involved? See Why do people believe weird things? for some of the reasons for this strange attitude.

Footnotes:

**Interested in supporting this site?**

You can help by sharing the site with others. You can also donate at _{} where there are full details.

As site owner I reserve the right to keep my comments sections as I deem appropriate. I do not use that right to unfairly censor valid criticism. My reasons for deleting or editing comments do not include deleting a comment because it disagrees with what is on my website. Reasons for exclusion include:

Frivolous, irrelevant comments.

Comments devoid of logical basis.

Derogatory comments.

Long-winded comments.

Comments with excessive number of different points.

Questions about matters that do not relate to the page they post on. Such posts are not comments.

Comments with a substantial amount of mathematical terms not properly formatted will not be published unless a file (such as doc, tex, pdf) is simultaneously emailed to me, and where the mathematical terms are correctly formatted.

Reasons for deleting comments of certain users:

Bulk posting of comments in a short space of time, often on several different pages, and which are not simply part of an ongoing discussion. Multiple anonymous usernames for one person.

Users, who, when shown their point is wrong, immediately claim that they just wrote it incorrectly and rewrite it again - still erroneously, or else attack something else on my site - erroneously. After the first few instances, further posts are deleted.

Users who make persistent erroneous attacks in a scatter-gun attempt to try to find some error in what I write on this site. After the first few instances, further posts are deleted.

Difficulties in understanding the site content are usually best addressed by contacting me by e-mail.

Note: a password enables editing of comments, an email enables notification of replies