Georg Cantor's first set theory article

Georg Cantor, c. 1870

Georg Cantor published his first set theory article in 1874, and it contains the first theorems of transfinite set theory, which studies infinite sets and their properties. One of these theorems is "Cantor's revolutionary discovery" that the set of all real numbers is uncountably, rather than countably, infinite. This theorem is proved using Cantor's first uncountability proof, which differs from the more familiar proof using his diagonal argument. The title of the article, "On a Property of the Collection of All Real Algebraic Numbers" ("Ueber eine Eigenschaft des Inbegriffes aller reellen algebraischen Zahlen"), refers to its first theorem: the set of real algebraic numbers is countable. In 1879, Cantor modified his uncountability proof by using the topological notion of a set being dense in an interval.

Cantor's 1874 article also contains a proof of the existence of transcendental numbers. As early as 1930, mathematicians have disagreed on whether this proof is constructive or non-constructive. Books as recent as 2014 and 2015 indicate that this disagreement has not been resolved. Since Cantor's proof either constructs transcendental numbers or does not, an analysis of his article can determine whether his proof is constructive or non-constructive. Cantor's correspondence with Richard Dedekind shows the development of his ideas and reveals that he had a choice between two proofs, one that uses the uncountability of the real numbers and one that does not.

Historians of mathematics have examined Cantor's article and the circumstances in which it was written. For example, they have discovered that Cantor was advised to leave out his uncountability theorem in the article he submitted; he added it during proofreading. They have traced this and other facts about the article to the influence of Karl Weierstrass and Leopold Kronecker. Historians have also studied Dedekind's contributions to the article, including his contributions to the theorem on the countability of the real algebraic numbers. In addition, they have looked at the article's legacy, which includes the impact that the uncountability theorem and the concept of countability have had on mathematics.

The article

Cantor's article is short, less than four and a half pages. It begins with a discussion of the real algebraic numbers and a statement of his first theorem: The set of real algebraic numbers can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the set of positive integers. Cantor restates this theorem in terms more familiar to mathematicians of his time: The set of real algebraic numbers can be written as an infinite sequence in which each number appears only once.

Cantor's second theorem works with a closed interval [a, b], which is the set of real numbers ≥ a and ≤ b. The theorem states: Given any sequence of real numbers x₁, x₂, x₃, ... and any interval [a, b], there is a number in [a, b] that is not contained in the given sequence. Hence, there are infinitely many such numbers.

The first part of this theorem implies the "Hence" part. For example, let [0, 1] be the interval, and consider its pairwise disjoint subintervals [0, 1/2], [3/4, 7/8], [15/16, 31/32], .... Applying the first part of the theorem to each subinterval produces infinitely many numbers in [0, 1] that are not contained in the given sequence.

Cantor observes that combining his two theorems yields a new proof of Liouville's theorem that every interval [a, b] contains infinitely many transcendental numbers.

Cantor then remarks that his second theorem is:

the reason why collections of real numbers forming a so-called continuum (such as, all real numbers which are ≥ 0 and ≤ 1) cannot correspond one-to-one with the collection (ν) [the collection of all positive integers]; thus I have found the clear difference between a so-called continuum and a collection like the totality of real algebraic numbers.

This remark contains Cantor's uncountability theorem, which only states that an interval [a, b] cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the set of positive integers. It does not state that this interval is an infinite set of larger cardinality than the set of positive integers. Cardinality is defined in Cantor's next article, which was published in 1878.

Proof of Cantor's uncountability theorem

Cantor does not explicitly prove his uncountability theorem, which follows easily from his second theorem. To prove it, we use proof by contradiction. Assume that the interval [a, b] can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the set of positive integers, or equivalently: The real numbers in [a, b] can be written as a sequence in which each real number appears only once. Applying Cantor's second theorem to this sequence and [a, b] produces a real number in [a, b] that does not belong to the sequence. This contradicts the original assumption, and proves the uncountability theorem.

Cantor only states his uncountability theorem. He does not use it in any proofs.

The proofs

First theorem

Algebraic numbers on the complex plane colored by polynomial degree. (red = 1, green = 2, blue = 3, yellow = 4). Points become smaller as the integer polynomial coefficients become larger.

To prove that the set of real algebraic numbers is countable, define the height of a polynomial of degree n with integer coefficients as: n − 1 + |a₀| + |a₁| + ... + |a_n|, where a₀, a₁, ..., a_n are the coefficients of the polynomial. Order the polynomials by their height, and order the real roots of polynomials of the same height by numeric order. Since there are only a finite number of roots of polynomials of a given height, these orderings put the real algebraic numbers into a sequence. Cantor went a step further and produced a sequence in which each real algebraic number appears just once. He did this by only using polynomials that are irreducible over the integers. The table below contains the beginning of Cantor's enumeration.

Cantor's enumeration of the real algebraic numbers
Real algebraic number	Polynomial	Height of polynomial
x1 = 0	x	1
x2 = −1	x + 1	2
x3 = 1	x − 1	2
x4 = −2	x + 2	3
x5 = −1/2	2x + 1	3
x6 = 1/2	2x − 1	3
x7 = 2	x − 2	3
x8 = −3	x + 3	4
x9 = −1 − √5/2	x2 + x − 1	4
x10 = −√2	x2 − 2	4
x11 = −1/√2	2x2 − 1	4
x12 = 1 − √5/2	x2 − x − 1	4
x13 = −1/3	3x + 1	4
x14 = 1/3	3x − 1	4
x15 = −1 + √5/2	x2 + x − 1	4
x16 = 1/√2	2x2 − 1	4
x17 = √2	x2 − 2	4
x18 = 1 + √5/2	x2 − x − 1	4
x19 = 3	x − 3	4

Second theorem

Only the first part of Cantor's second theorem needs to be proved. It states: Given any sequence of real numbers x₁, x₂, x₃, ... and any interval [a, b], there is a number in [a, b] that is not contained in the given sequence. We simplify Cantor's proof by using open intervals. The open interval (a, b) is the set of real numbers greater than a and less than b.

To find a number in [a, b] that is not contained in the given sequence, construct two sequences of real numbers as follows: Find the first two numbers of the given sequence that are in (a, b). Denote the smaller of these two numbers by a₁ and the larger by b₁. Similarly, find the first two numbers of the given sequence that are in (a₁, b₁). Denote the smaller by a₂ and the larger by b₂. Continuing this procedure generates a sequence of intervals (a₁, b₁), (a₂, b₂), (a₃, b₃), ... such that each interval in the sequence contains all succeeding intervals—that is, it generates a sequence of nested intervals. This implies that the sequence a₁, a₂, a₃, ... is increasing and the sequence b₁, b₂, b₃, ... is decreasing.

Either the number of intervals generated is finite or infinite. If finite, let (a_N, b_N) be the last interval. If infinite, take the limits a_∞ = lim_n → ∞ a_n and b_∞ = lim_n → ∞ b_n. Since a_n < b_n for all n, either a_∞ = b_∞ or a_∞ < b_∞. Thus, there are three cases to consider:

Case 1: Last interval (a_N, b_N)

Case 2: a_∞ = b_∞

Case 3: a_∞ < b_∞

• Case 1: There is a last interval (a_N, b_N). Since at most one x_n can be in this interval, every y in this interval except x_n (if it exists) is not contained in the given sequence.
• Case 2: a_∞ = b_∞. Then a_∞ is not contained in the given sequence since for all n : a_∞ belongs to the interval (a_n, b_n), but as Cantor observes, x_n does not.

Proof that for all n :  xn ∉ (an, bn)

This is implied by the stronger result: For all n, (an, bn) excludes x1, ... , x2n, which is proved by induction. Basis step: If a1 = xj, b1 = xk, and E1 = max(j, k), then (a1, b1) excludes x1, ... , xE1. Also, E1 ≥ 2 since the interval (a1, b1) excludes its two endpoints. Inductive step: Assume that (an, bn) excludes x1, ... , xEn and En ≥ 2n. If an+1 = xj, bn+1 = xk, and En+1 = max(j, k), then (an+1, bn+1) excludes x1, ... , xEn+1. Also, En+1 ≥ En + 2 ≥ 2n + 2 = 2(n + 1) since the interval (an+1, bn+1) excludes the numbers that (an, bn) excludes plus the two endpoints an+1 and bn+1. Therefore, for all n : (an, bn) excludes x1, ... , x2n. (This proof is similar to a proof that Cantor published in 1879. The main difference is that Cantor's proof is embedded in a larger proof and uses notation from it. Our proof does not depend on this notation.)

• Case 3: a_∞ < b_∞. Then every y in [a_∞, b_∞] is not contained in the given sequence since for all n : y belongs to (a_n, b_n) but x_n does not.

The proof is complete since, in all cases, at least one real number in [a, b] has been found that is not contained in the given sequence.

Cantor's proofs are constructive and have been used to write a computer program that generates the digits of a transcendental number. This program applies Cantor's construction to a sequence containing all the real algebraic numbers between 0 and 1. The article that discusses this program gives some of its output, which shows how the construction generates a transcendental.

Example of Cantor's construction

An example illustrates how Cantor's construction works. Consider the sequence: 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, 1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5, ... This sequence is obtained by ordering the rational numbers in (0, 1) by increasing denominators, ordering those with the same denominator by increasing numerators, and omitting reducible fractions. The table below shows the first five steps of the construction. The table's first column contains the intervals (a_n, b_n). The second column lists the terms visited during the search for the first two terms in (a_n, b_n). These two terms are in red.

Generating a number using Cantor's construction

Interval	Finding the next interval	Interval (decimal)
$\left(\;{\frac {1}{3}},\;\;\!{\frac {1}{2}}\;\right)$	$\;{\frac {2}{3}},\;\!{\frac {1}{4}},\;\!{\frac {3}{4}},\;\!{\frac {1}{5}},\;\!{\color {red}{\frac {2}{5}},}\;\!\;\!{\frac {3}{5}},\;\!{\frac {4}{5}},\;\!{\frac {1}{6}},\;\!{\frac {5}{6}},\;\!{\frac {1}{7}},\;\!{\frac {2}{7}},\;\!{\color {red}{\frac {3}{7}}}$	$\left(0.3333\dots ,\;0.5000\dots \right)$
$\left(\;{\frac {2}{5}},\;\;\!{\frac {3}{7}}\;\right)$	$\;{\frac {4}{7}},\;\dots ,\;{\frac {1}{12}},{\color {red}{\frac {5}{12}},}\;\!{\frac {7}{12}},\;\dots ,\;{\frac {6}{17}},{\color {red}{\frac {7}{17}}}$	$\left(0.4000\dots ,\;0.4285\dots \right)$
$\left({\frac {7}{17}},{\frac {5}{12}}\right)$	${\frac {8}{17}},\;\!\dots ,\;\!{\frac {11}{29}},{\color {red}{\frac {12}{29}},}\;\!{\frac {13}{29}},\;\dots ,\;{\frac {16}{41}},{\color {red}{\frac {17}{41}}}$	$\left(0.4117\dots ,\;0.4166\dots \right)$
$\left({\frac {12}{29}},{\frac {17}{41}}\right)$	${\frac {18}{41}},\;\!\dots ,\;\!{\frac {27}{70}},{\color {red}{\frac {29}{70}},}\;\!{\frac {31}{70}},\;\dots ,\;{\frac {40}{99}},{\color {red}{\frac {41}{99}}}$	$\left(0.4137\dots ,\;0.4146\dots \right)$
$\left({\frac {41}{99}},{\frac {29}{70}}\right)$	${\frac {43}{99}},\dots ,{\frac {69}{169}},{\color {red}{\frac {70}{169}},}\;\!{\frac {71}{169}},\,\dots ,{\frac {98}{239}},{\color {red}{\frac {99}{239}}}$	$\left(0.4141\dots ,\;0.4142\dots \right)$

Since the sequence contains all the rational numbers in (0, 1), the construction generates an irrational number, which turns out to be √2 − 1.

Proof that the number generated is √2 − 1

The proof uses Farey sequences and continued fractions. The Farey sequence $F_{n}$ is the increasing sequence of completely reduced fractions whose denominators are $\leq n.$ If ${\frac {a}{b}}$ and ${\frac {c}{d}}$ are adjacent in a Farey sequence, the lowest denominator fraction between them is their mediant ${\frac {a+c}{b+d}}.$ This mediant is adjacent to both ${\frac {a}{b}}$ and ${\frac {c}{d}}$ in the Farey sequence $F_{b+d}.$ Cantor's construction produces mediants because the rational numbers were sequenced by increasing denominator. The first interval in the table is $({\frac {1}{3}},{\frac {1}{2}}).$ Since ${\frac {1}{3}}$ and ${\frac {1}{2}}$ are adjacent in $F_{3},$ their mediant ${\frac {2}{5}}$ is the first fraction in the sequence between ${\frac {1}{3}}$ and ${\frac {1}{2}}.$ Hence, ${\frac {1}{3}}<{\frac {2}{5}}<{\frac {1}{2}}.$ In this inequality, ${\frac {1}{2}}$ has the smallest denominator, so the second fraction is the mediant of ${\frac {2}{5}}$ and ${\frac {1}{2}},$ which equals ${\frac {3}{7}}.$ This implies: ${\frac {1}{3}}<{\frac {2}{5}}<{\frac {3}{7}}<{\frac {1}{2}}.$ Therefore, the next interval is $({\frac {2}{5}},{\frac {3}{7}}).$ We will prove that the endpoints of the intervals converge to the continued fraction $[0;2,2,\dots ].$ This continued fraction is the limit of its convergents: ${\frac {p_{n}}{q_{n}}}=[0;2,\dots ,2]\;\;(n\;2{\text{'s}}).$ The $p_{n}$ and $q_{n}$ sequences satisfy the equations: $p_{0}=0\;\;\;\;\;\;\;p_{1}=1\;\;\;\;\;\;\;p_{n+1}=2p_{n}+p_{n-1}{\text{ for }}n\geq 1$ $q_{0}=1\;\;\;\;\;\;\;q_{1}=2\;\;\;\;\;\;\;q_{n+1}=2q_{n}+q_{n-1}{\text{ for }}n\geq 1$ First, we prove by induction that for odd n, the n-th interval in the table is: $\left({\frac {p_{n}+p_{n-1}}{q_{n}+q_{n-1}}},{\frac {p_{n}}{q_{n}}}\right)\!,$ and for even n, the interval's endpoints are reversed: $\left({\frac {p_{n}}{q_{n}}},{\frac {p_{n}+p_{n-1}}{q_{n}+q_{n-1}}}\right)\!.$ This is true for the first interval since: $\left({\frac {p_{1}+p_{0}}{q_{1}+q_{0}}},{\frac {p_{1}}{q_{1}}}\right)=\left({\frac {1}{3}},{\frac {1}{2}}\right)\!.$ Assume that the inductive hypothesis is true for the k-th interval. If k is odd, this interval is: $\left({\frac {p_{k}+p_{k-1}}{q_{k}+q_{k-1}}},{\frac {p_{k}}{q_{k}}}\right)\!.$ The mediant of its endpoints ${\frac {2p_{k}+p_{k-1}}{2q_{k}+q_{k-1}}}={\frac {p_{k+1}}{q_{k+1}}}$ is the first fraction in the sequence between these endpoints. Hence, ${\frac {p_{k}+p_{k-1}}{q_{k}+q_{k-1}}}<{\frac {p_{k+1}}{q_{k+1}}}<{\frac {p_{k}}{q_{k}}}.$ In this inequality, ${\frac {p_{k}}{q_{k}}}$ has the smallest denominator, so the second fraction is the mediant of ${\frac {p_{k+1}}{q_{k+1}}}$ and ${\frac {p_{k}}{q_{k}}},$ which equals ${\frac {p_{k+1}+p_{k}}{p_{k+1}+q_{k}}}.$ This implies: ${\frac {p_{k}+p_{k-1}}{q_{k}+q_{k-1}}}<{\frac {p_{k+1}}{q_{k+1}}}<{\frac {p_{k+1}+p_{k}}{p_{k+1}+q_{k}}}<{\frac {p_{k}}{q_{k}}}.$ Therefore, the (k + 1)-st interval is $\left({\frac {p_{k+1}}{q_{k+1}}},{\frac {p_{k+1}+p_{k}}{p_{k+1}+q_{k}}}\right)\!.$ This is the desired interval; ${\frac {p_{k+1}}{q_{k+1}}}$ is the left endpoint because k + 1 is even. Thus, the inductive hypothesis is true for the (k + 1)-st interval. For even k, the proof is similar. This completes the inductive proof. Since the right endpoints of the intervals are decreasing and every other endpoint is ${\frac {p_{2n-1}}{q_{2n-1}}},$ their limit equals $\lim _{n\to \infty }{\frac {p_{n}}{q_{n}}}.$ The left endpoints have the same limit because they are increasing and every other endpoint is ${\frac {p_{2n}}{q_{2n}}}.$ As mentioned above, this limit is the continued fraction $[0;2,2,\dots ],$ which equals ${\sqrt {2}}-1.$

Cantor's second uncountability proof

Everywhere dense

In 1879, Cantor published a new uncountability proof that modifies his 1874 proof. He first defines the topological notion of a point set P being "everywhere dense in an interval" (which is quite often shortened to "dense in an interval"):

If P lies partially or completely in the interval [α, β], then the remarkable case can happen that all intervals [γ, δ] contained in [α, β], no matter how small, contain points of P. In such a case, we will say that P is everywhere dense in the interval [α, β].

We will use a, b, c, d rather than α, β, γ, δ. Cantor assumes that an interval [c, d] satisfies c < d.

Since our discussion of Cantor's 1874 proof was simplified by using open intervals rather than closed intervals, the same simplification is used here. This requires an equivalent definition of everywhere dense: A set P is everywhere dense in the interval [a, b] if and only if every subinterval (c, d) of [a, b] contains at least one point of P.

Cantor did not specify how many points of P a subinterval (c, d) must contain. He did not need to specify this because assuming that every subinterval contains at least one point of P implies that they contain infinitely many points of P. This is proved by generating a sequence of points belonging to both P and (c, d). Since P is dense in [a, b], the subinterval (c, d) contains at least one point x₁ of P. Now consider the subinterval (x₁, d). It contains at least one point x₂ of P, which satisfies x₂ > x₁. In general, after generating x_n, the subinterval (x_n, d) is used to obtain the point x_n + 1, which satisfies x_n + 1 > x_n. The points x_n are all unique and belong to both P and (c, d).

Cantor's 1879 proof

Cantor's 1879 proof is the same as his 1874 proof except for a new proof of the first part of his second theorem: Given any sequence P of real numbers x₁, x₂, x₃, ... and any interval [a, b], there is a number in [a, b] that is not contained in the sequence P. The new proof has only two cases.

In the first case, P is not dense in [a, b]. By definition, P is dense if and only if for all (c, d) ⊆ [a, b], there is an x ∈ P such that x ∈ (c, d). Taking the negation of each side of the "if and only if" produces: P is not dense in [a, b] if and only if there exists a (c, d) ⊆ [a, b] such that for all x ∈ P, we have x ∉ (c, d). Thus, every number in (c, d) is not contained in the sequence P. This case handles cases 1 and 3 of Cantor's 1874 proof.

In the second case, P is dense in [a, b]. The denseness of P is used to recursively define a nested sequence of intervals that excludes all elements of P. The definition begins with a₁ = a and b₁ = b. The definition's inductive case starts with the interval (a_n, b_n), which because of the denseness of P contains infinitely many elements of P. From these elements of P, we take the two with smallest indices and denote the least of these two numbers by a_n + 1 and the greatest by b_n + 1. Cantor proved that for all n :  x_n ∉ (a_n, b_n). We proved this in a previous section.

The sequence a_n is increasing and bounded above by b, so it has a limit A, which satisfies a_n < A. The sequence b_n is decreasing and bounded below by a, so it has a limit B, which satisfies B < b_n. Also, a_n < b_n implies A ≤ B. Therefore, a_n < A ≤ B < b_n. If A < B, then for every n: x_n ∉ (A, B) because x_n is not in the larger interval (a_n, b_n). This contradicts P being dense in [a, b]. Therefore, A = B. Since for all n: A ∈ (a_n, b_n) but x_n ∉ (a_n, b_n), the limit A is a real number that is not contained in the sequence P. This case handles case 2 of Cantor's 1874 proof.

Cantor's new proof first takes care of the easy case of the sequence P not being dense in the interval. Then it deals with the more difficult case of P being dense. This division into cases not only indicates which sequences are most difficult to handle, but it also reveals the important role denseness plays in the proof.

In the Example of Cantor's construction, each successive nested interval excludes rational numbers for two different reasons. It will exclude the finitely many rationals visited in the search for the first two rationals within the interval (these two rationals will have the least indices). These rationals are then used to form an interval that excludes the rationals visited in the search along with infinitely many more rationals. However, it still contains infinitely many rationals since our sequence of rationals is dense in [0, 1]. Forming this interval from the two rationals with the least indices guarantees that this interval excludes an initial segment of our sequence that contains at least two more elements than the preceding initial segment. Since the denseness of our sequence guarantees that this process never ends, all rationals will be excluded. Because of the ordering of the rationals in our sequence, the intersection of the nested intervals is the set {√2 − 1}.

The development of Cantor's ideas

The development leading to Cantor's 1874 article appears in the correspondence between Cantor and Richard Dedekind. On November 29, 1873, Cantor asked Dedekind whether the collection of positive integers and the collection of positive real numbers "can be corresponded so that each individual of one collection corresponds to one and only one individual of the other?" Cantor added that collections having such a correspondence include the collection of positive rational numbers, and collections of the form (a_{n1, n2, . . . , nν}) where n₁, n₂, . . . , n_ν, and ν are positive integers.

Dedekind replied that he was unable to answer Cantor's question, and said that it "did not deserve too much effort because it has no particular practical interest." Dedekind also sent Cantor a proof that the set of algebraic numbers is countable.

On December 2, Cantor responded that his question does have interest: "It would be nice if it could be answered; for example, provided that it could be answered no, one would have a new proof of Liouville's theorem that there are transcendental numbers."

On December 7, Cantor sent Dedekind a proof by contradiction that the set of real numbers is uncountable. Cantor starts by assuming the real numbers can be written as a sequence. Then he applies a construction to this sequence to produce a real number not in the sequence, thus contradicting his assumption. The letters of December 2 and 7 lead to a non-constructive proof of the existence of transcendental numbers.

On December 9, Cantor announced the theorem that allowed him to construct transcendental numbers as well as prove the uncountability of the set of real numbers:

I show directly that if I start with a sequence
(I)     ω₁, ω₂, … , ω_n, …
I can determine, in every given interval [α, β], a number η that is not included in (I).

This is the second theorem in Cantor's article. It comes from realizing that his construction can be applied to any sequence, not just to sequences that supposedly enumerate the real numbers. So Cantor had a choice between two proofs that demonstrate the existence of transcendental numbers: one proof is constructive, but the other is not. We now compare the proofs assuming that we have a sequence consisting of all the real algebraic numbers.

The constructive proof applies Cantor's construction to this sequence and the interval [a, b] to produce a transcendental number in this interval.

The non-constructive proof uses two proofs by contradiction:

1. The proof by contradiction used to prove the uncountability theorem (see Proof of Cantor's uncountability theorem).
2. The proof by contradiction used to prove the existence of transcendental numbers from the countability of the real algebraic numbers and the uncountability of real numbers. Cantor's December 2nd letter mentions this existence proof but does not contain it. Here is a proof: Assume that there are no transcendental numbers in [a, b]. Then all the numbers in [a, b] are algebraic. This implies that they form a subsequence of the sequence of all real algebraic numbers, which contradicts Cantor's uncountability theorem. Thus, the assumption that there are no transcendental numbers in [a, b] is false. Therefore, there is a transcendental number in [a, b].

Cantor chose to publish the constructive proof, which not only produces a transcendental number but is also shorter and avoids two proofs by contradiction. The non-constructive proof from Cantor's correspondence is simpler than the one above because it works with all the real numbers rather than the interval [a, b]. This eliminates the subsequence step and all occurrences of [a, b] in the second proof by contradiction.

The disagreement about Cantor's existence proof

Oskar Perron

The correspondence containing Cantor's non-constructive reasoning was published in 1937. By then, other mathematicians had rediscovered its non-constructive proof. As early as 1921, this proof was attributed to Cantor and criticized for not producing any transcendental numbers. In that year, Oskar Perron stated: "… Cantor's proof for the existence of transcendental numbers has, along with its simplicity and elegance, the great disadvantage that it is only an existence proof; it does not enable us to actually specify even a single transcendental number."

Abraham Fraenkel

Some mathematicians have attempted to correct this misunderstanding of Cantor's work. In 1930, the set theorist Abraham Fraenkel stated that Cantor's method is "… a method that incidentally, contrary to a widespread interpretation, is fundamentally constructive and not merely existential." In 1972, Irving Kaplansky wrote: "It is often said that Cantor's proof is not 'constructive,' and so does not yield a tangible transcendental number. This remark is not justified. If we set up a definite listing of all algebraic numbers … and then apply the diagonal procedure …, we get a perfectly definite transcendental number (it could be computed to any number of decimal places)."

Cantor's diagonal argument has often replaced his 1874 construction in expositions of his proof. The diagonal argument is constructive and produces a more efficient computer program than his 1874 construction. Using it, a computer program has been written that computes the digits of a transcendental number in polynomial time. The program that uses Cantor's 1874 construction requires at least sub-exponential time.

The disagreement about Cantor's proof occurs because two groups of mathematicians are talking about different proofs: the constructive one that Cantor published and the non-constructive one that was later rediscovered. The opinion that Cantor's proof is non-constructive appears in some books that were quite successful as measured by the length of time new editions or reprints appeared—for example: Eric Temple Bell's Men of Mathematics (1937; still being reprinted), Godfrey Hardy and E. M. Wright's An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers (1938; 2008 6th edition), Garrett Birkhoff and Saunders Mac Lane's A Survey of Modern Algebra (1941; 1997 5th edition), and Michael Spivak's Calculus (1967; 2008 4th edition). Since these books view Cantor's proof as non-constructive, they do not mention his constructive proof. On the other hand, the quotations above from Fraenkel and Kaplansky show that they knew Cantor's work can be used non-constructively. The disagreement about Cantor's proof shows no sign of being resolved: since 2014, at least two books have appeared stating that Cantor's proof is constructive, and at least four have appeared stating that his proof does not construct any (or a single) transcendental.

Asserting that Cantor gave a non-constructive proof can lead to erroneous statements about the history of mathematics. In A Survey of Modern Algebra, Birkhoff and Mac Lane state: "Cantor's argument for this result [Not every real number is algebraic] was at first rejected by many mathematicians, since it did not exhibit any specific transcendental number." Birkhoff and Mac Lane are talking about the non-constructive proof. Cantor's proof produces transcendental numbers, and there appears to be no evidence that his argument was rejected. Even Leopold Kronecker, who had strict views on what is acceptable in mathematics and who could have delayed publication of Cantor's article, did not delay it. In fact, applying Cantor's construction to the sequence of real algebraic numbers produces a limiting process that Kronecker accepted—namely, it determines a number to any required degree of accuracy.

The influence of Weierstrass and Kronecker on Cantor's article

Karl Weierstrass

Leopold Kronecker, 1865

Historians of mathematics have discovered the following facts about Cantor's article "On a Property of the Collection of All Real Algebraic Numbers":

• Cantor's uncountability theorem was left out of the article he submitted. He added it during proofreading.
• The article's title refers to the set of real algebraic numbers. The main topic in Cantor's correspondence was the set of real numbers.
• The proof of Cantor's second theorem came from Dedekind. However, it omits Dedekind's explanation of why the limits a_∞ and b_∞ exist.
• Cantor restricted his first theorem to the set of real algebraic numbers. The proof he was using demonstrates the countability of the set of all algebraic numbers.

To explain these facts, historians have pointed to the influence of Cantor's former professors, Karl Weierstrass and Leopold Kronecker. Cantor discussed his results with Weierstrass on December 23, 1873. Weierstrass was first amazed by the concept of countability, but then found the countability of the set of real algebraic numbers useful. Cantor did not want to publish yet, but Weierstrass felt that he must publish at least his results concerning the algebraic numbers.

From his correspondence, it appears that Cantor only discussed his article with Weierstrass. However, Cantor told Dedekind: "The restriction which I have imposed on the published version of my investigations is caused in part by local circumstances …" Cantor biographer Joseph Dauben believes that "local circumstances" refers to Kronecker who, as a member of the editorial board of Crelle's Journal, had delayed publication of an 1870 article by Eduard Heine, one of Cantor's colleagues. Cantor would submit his article to Crelle's Journal.

Weierstrass advised Cantor to leave his uncountability theorem out of the article he submitted, but Weierstrass also told Cantor that he could add it as a marginal note during proofreading, which he did. It appears in a remark at the end of the article's introduction. The opinions of Kronecker and Weierstrass both played a role here. Kronecker did not accept infinite sets, and it seems that Weierstrass did not accept that two infinite sets could be so different, with one being countable and the other not. Weierstrass changed his opinion later. Without the uncountability theorem, the article needed a title that did not refer to this theorem. Cantor chose Ueber eine Eigenschaft des Inbegriffes aller reellen algebraischen Zahlen ("On a Property of the Collection of All Real Algebraic Numbers"), which refers to the countability of the set of real algebraic numbers, the result that Weierstrass found useful.

Kronecker's influence appears in the proof of Cantor's second theorem. Cantor used Dedekind's version of the proof except he left out why the limits a_∞ = lim_n → ∞ a_n and b_∞ = lim_n → ∞ b_n exist. Dedekind had used his "principle of continuity" to prove they exist. This principle (which is equivalent to the least upper bound property of the real numbers) comes from Dedekind's construction of the real numbers, a construction Kronecker did not accept.

Cantor restricted his first theorem to the set of real algebraic numbers even though Dedekind had sent him a proof that handled all algebraic numbers. Cantor did this for expository reasons and because of "local circumstances." This restriction simplifies the article because the second theorem works with real sequences. Hence, the construction in the second theorem can be applied directly to the enumeration of the real algebraic numbers to produce "an effective procedure for the calculation of transcendental numbers." This procedure would be acceptable to Weierstrass.

Dedekind's contributions to Cantor's article

Richard Dedekind, c. 1870

Since 1856, Dedekind had developed theories involving infinitely many infinite sets—for example: ideals, which he used in algebraic number theory, and Dedekind cuts, which he used to construct the real numbers. This work enabled him to understand and contribute to Cantor's work.

Dedekind's first contribution concerns the theorem that the set of real algebraic numbers is countable. Cantor is usually given credit for this theorem, but the mathematical historian José Ferreirós calls it "Dedekind's theorem." Their correspondence reveals what each mathematician contributed to the theorem.

In his letter introducing the concept of countability, Cantor stated without proof that the set of positive rational numbers is countable, as are sets of the form (a_{n1, n2, ..., nν}) where n₁, n₂, ..., n_ν, and ν are positive integers. Cantor's second result uses indexed numbers: a set of the form (a_{n1, n2, ..., nν}) is the range of a function from the ν indices to the set of real numbers. His second result implies his first: let ν = 2 and a_n1, n2 = n₁/n₂. The function can be quite general—for example, a_{n1, n2, n3, n4, n5} = (n₁/n₂)^1/n₃ + tan(n₄/n₅).

Dedekind replied with a proof of the theorem that the set of all algebraic numbers is countable. To obtain this result from Cantor's theorem about indexed numbers, Dedekind had to remove the restriction to positive integer indices and realize that the ordering produced can order the polynomials that have integer coefficients.

In his reply, Cantor did not claim to have proved Dedekind's result. He did indicate how he proved his theorem about indexed numbers: "Your proof that (n) [the set of positive integers] can be correlated one-to-one with the field of all algebraic numbers is approximately the same as the way I prove my contention in the last letter. I take n₁² + n₂² + ··· + n_ν² = ${\mathfrak {N}}$ and order the elements accordingly." Cantor's ordering cannot handle indices that are 0.

Dedekind's second contribution is his proof of Cantor's second theorem. Dedekind sent Cantor this proof in reply to Cantor's letter that announced the uncountability theorem and proved it using infinitely many sequences. Before Dedekind's proof arrived, Cantor wrote that he had found a simpler proof that did not use infinitely many sequences. So Cantor had a choice of proofs and chose to publish Dedekind's.

Cantor thanked Dedekind privately for his help: "… your comments (which I value highly) and your manner of putting some of the points were of great assistance to me." However, he did not mention Dedekind's help in his article. In previous articles, he had acknowledged help received from Kronecker, Weierstrass, Heine, and Hermann Schwarz. Cantor's failure to mention Dedekind's contributions damaged his relationship with Dedekind. Dedekind stopped replying to his letters and did not resume the correspondence until October 1876.

The legacy of Cantor's article

Cantor's article introduced the uncountability theorem and the concept of countability. Both would lead to significant developments in mathematics. The uncountability theorem demonstrated that one-to-one correspondences can be used to analyze infinite sets. In 1878, Cantor used them to define and compare cardinalities. He also constructed one-to-one correspondences to prove that the n-dimensional spaces Rⁿ (where R is the set of real numbers) and the set of irrational numbers have the same cardinality as R.

In 1883, Cantor extended the natural numbers with his infinite ordinals. This extension was necessary for his work on the Cantor–Bendixson theorem. Cantor discovered other uses for the ordinals—for example, he used sets of ordinals to produce an infinity of sets having different infinite cardinalities. His work on infinite sets together with Dedekind's set-theoretical work created set theory.

The concept of countability led to countable operations and objects that are used in various areas of mathematics. For example, in 1878, Cantor introduced countable unions of sets. In the 1890s, Émile Borel used countable unions in his theory of measure, and René Baire used countable ordinals to define his classes of functions. Building on the work of Borel and Baire, Henri Lebesgue created his theories of measure and integration, which were published from 1899 to 1901.

Countable models are used in set theory. In 1922, Thoralf Skolem proved that if conventional axioms of set theory are consistent, then they have a countable model. Since this model is countable, its set of real numbers is countable. This consequence is called Skolem's paradox, and Skolem explained why it does not contradict Cantor's uncountability theorem: although there is a one-to-one correspondence between this set and the set of positive integers, no such one-to-one correspondence is a member of the model. Thus the model considers its set of real numbers to be uncountable, or more precisely, the first-order sentence that says the set of real numbers is uncountable is true within the model. In 1963, Paul Cohen used countable models to prove his independence theorems.

See also

• Cantor's theorem

Bibliography

• Arkhangel'skii, A. V.; Fedorchuk, V. V. (1990), "The basic concepts and constructions of general topology", in Arkhangel'skii, A. V.; Pontryagin, L. S. (eds.), General Topology I, Springer-Verlag, pp. 1–90, ISBN 978-0-387-18178-3.
• Audin, Michèle (2011), Remembering Sofya Kovalevskaya, Springer, ISBN 978-0-85729-928-4.
• Bell, Eric Temple (1937), Men of Mathematics, Simon & Schuster, ISBN 978-0-671-62818-5.
• Birkhoff, Garrett; Mac Lane, Saunders (1941), A Survey of Modern Algebra, Macmillan, ISBN 978-1-56881-068-3.
• Burton, David M. (1995), Burton's History of Mathematics (3rd ed.), William C. Brown, ISBN 978-0-697-16089-8.
• Cantor, Georg (1874), "Ueber eine Eigenschaft des Inbegriffes aller reellen algebraischen Zahlen", Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik, 1874 (77): 258–262, doi:10.1515/crll.1874.77.258.
• Cantor, Georg (1878), "Ein Beitrag zur Mannigfaltigkeitslehre", Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik, 1878 (84): 242–258, doi:10.1515/crll.1878.84.242.
• Cantor, Georg (1879), "Ueber unendliche, lineare Punktmannichfaltigkeiten. 1.", Mathematische Annalen, 15: 1–7, doi:10.1007/bf01444101.
• Chowdhary, K. R. (2015), Fundamentals of Discrete Mathematical Structures (3rd ed.), PHI Learning, ISBN 978-81-203-5074-8.
• Cohen, Paul J. (1963), "The Independence of the Continuum Hypothesis", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 50 (6): 1143–1148, doi:10.1073/pnas.50.6.1143, PMC 221287, PMID 16578557.
• Dasgupta, Abhijit (2014), Set Theory: With an Introduction to Real Point Sets, Springer, ISBN 978-1-4614-8853-8.
• Dauben, Joseph (1979), Georg Cantor: His Mathematics and Philosophy of the Infinite, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-34871-4.
• Dauben, Joseph (1993), "Georg Cantor and the Battle for Transfinite Set Theory" (PDF), 9th ACMS Conference Proceedings.
• Edwards, Harold M. (1989), "Kronecker's Views on the Foundations of Mathematics", in Rowe, David E.; McCleary, John (eds.), The History of Modern Mathematics, Volume 1, Academic Press, pp. 67–77, ISBN 978-0-12-599662-4.
• Ewald, William B., ed. (1996), From Immanuel Kant to David Hilbert: A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics, Volume 2, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-850536-5.
• Ferreirós, José (1993), "On the relations between Georg Cantor and Richard Dedekind", Historia Mathematica, 20 (4): 343–363, doi:10.1006/hmat.1993.1030.
• Ferreirós, José (2007), Labyrinth of Thought: A History of Set Theory and Its Role in Mathematical Thought (2nd revised ed.), Birkhäuser, ISBN 978-3-7643-8349-7.
• Fraenkel, Abraham (1930), "Georg Cantor", Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 39: 189–266.
• Grattan-Guinness, Ivor (1971), "The Correspondence between Georg Cantor and Philip Jourdain", Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 73: 111–130.
• Gray, Robert (1994), "Georg Cantor and Transcendental Numbers" (PDF), American Mathematical Monthly, 101 (9): 819–832, doi:10.2307/2975129, JSTOR 2975129, MR 1300488, Zbl 0827.01004.
• Hardy, Godfrey; Wright, E. M. (1938), An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers, Clarendon Press, ISBN 978-0-19-921985-8.
• Hawkins, Thomas (1970), Lebesgue's Theory of Integration, University of Wisconsin Press, ISBN 978-0-299-05550-9.
• Jarvis, Frazer (2014), Algebraic Number Theory, Springer, ISBN 978-3-319-07544-0.
• Kanamori, Akihiro (2012), "Set Theory from Cantor to Cohen" (PDF), in Gabbay, Dov M.; Kanamori, Akihiro; Woods, John H. (eds.), Sets and Extensions in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–71, ISBN 978-0-444-51621-3.
• Kaplansky, Irving (1972), Set Theory and Metric Spaces, Allyn and Bacon, ISBN 978-0-8284-0298-9.
• Kelley, John L. (1991), General Topology, Springer, ISBN 978-3-540-90125-9.
• LeVeque, William J. (1956), Topics in Number Theory, I, Addison-Welsey, ISBN 978-0-486-42539-9. (Reprinted by Dover Publications, 2002.)
• Noether, Emmy; Cavaillès, Jean, eds. (1937), Briefwechsel Cantor-Dedekind, Hermann.
• Perron, Oskar (1921), Irrationalzahlen, de Gruyter.
• Sheppard, Barnaby (2014), The Logic of Infinity, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-107-67866-8.
• Spivak, Michael (1967), Calculus, W. A. Benjamin, ISBN 978-0914098911.
• Stewart, Ian (2015), Galois Theory (4th ed.), CRC Press, ISBN 978-1-4822-4582-0.
• Stewart, Ian; Tall, David (2015), The Foundations of Mathematics (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-870644-1.
• Weisstein, Eric W., ed. (2003), "Continued Fraction", CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Chapman & Hall/CRC, ISBN 978-1-58488-347-0.