The cardinality of the set of integers is obviously limitless since the integers go indefinitely in **both directions**. The natural number set and the whole number set are both valid subsets of the integers. In **this case**, we'll express the numbers as Z =...

-1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,...

There are also positive integers and negative integers. Positive integers can be expressed as > 0 while negative integers must be expressed as < 0. There are no positive integers less than zero but there are negatives of all sizes. For example, -4 < 4 and -9 < 9.

The cardinality of the set of positive integers is called the positive integer hoarder's problem and was first discussed by **Edward Kasner** around 1920. It was proved to have an unlimited solution in 1969 by **Ralph Merritt Rice**. In his proof, he used the term "transfinite number of size omega" to describe the positive integer hoarder's problem. Since then, this problem has become known as **the omega problem** or the rice puzzle.

The cardinality of the set of negative integers is called the negative integer hoarder's problem and was first discussed by David Hilbert around 1900. It was proved to have an unlimited solution in 1976 by László Kalmár.

The cardinality of natural numbers and positive integers is the same. Proof. Assume P is a collection of positive integers. The rule f(n) = n + 1 defines f: N-P. Since N contains all the members of N-P, the range of f is N-P. Therefore, P is a subset of N-P, which implies that P has the same cardinality as N-P.

If A contains a limited number of elements, the cardinality of A is just the number of elements in A. For instance, if A = 2,4,6,8,10, A = 5. If A does not have **a fixed size**, then its cardinality is more than one but less than infinity, and it is denoted by 1 < |A| < ∞.

Thus, the cardinality of A is equal to the number of elements in **the set A.**

The word "cardinal" comes from **the Latin cardo**, meaning "to divide into ranks," which is how this value was first described. The Romans used a system of numerals to write numbers larger than one thousand, which led to the use of labels instead. The term "cardinal number" was later adopted to describe **these numbers**.

For example, let's say we want to know the cardinality of the set {1,2,3}. We could write a program that adds 1 to itself and prints the result, which would be easy to do because there are only three elements in the set. The output would be 2. This shows that the cardinality of our set is exactly equal to 3.

# = 0 is written. We believe that cardinality should be defined as the number of items in a collection. This works for finite-number-of-element sets but fails for infinite-number-of-element sets. Therefore, we define # = 0 to mean that the set in question has **no elements** at all.

Natural numbers are all entire numbers... 1, 2, 3, and so on.

The cardinality of **real numbers**, often known as the continuum, is c. According to the continuum hypothesis, c = aleph-one, the next cardinal number; that is, no sets of cardinality between...

Yes, every natural number is a whole number because integers are numbers that range from 0 to infinity, positive and negative, whereas natural numbers go from 1 to infinite **positive values**. Positive integers are all natural numbers. Negative integers are all natural numbers.

However, there are some integers that aren't natural numbers such as -1, 2, 3, 4, 5..

The reason why these integers aren't natural numbers is because they can be divided by two without leaving a remainder! If you divide **any integer** by two and leave a remainder of 1 then you have found **a prime number**. -1 is a prime number because it can be divided by two without leaving a remainder.

2 isn't a prime number because it can be divided by two and left with a remainder of 1. Therefore, 2 = 11 - 1 - 1. All integers other than zero or one are divisible by two.

3 isn't a prime number because it can be divided by 2 and left with a remainder of 1. Therefore, 3 = 13 - 1 - 1.

4 isn't a prime number because it can be divided by two and left with a remainder of 1. Therefore, 4 = 16 - 1 - 1.