Equivalence Relations and Counter Examples for Equinumerous Sets

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of equinumerosity and bijections between sets. The first example presents a bijection between sets A and B, and also between their Cartesian products A x C and B x D. However, the second example presents a counterexample where sets C and D have different cardinalities, thus disproving the statement that C is equinumerous to D. The expert believes that the reasoning in the conversation is valid, but suggests simpler counterexamples using the transitivity of equinumerosity.
  • #1
issacnewton
1,000
29
Homework Statement
(a) Suppose ##A\thicksim B## and ##A\times C \thicksim B\times D##. Must it be the case that ##C \thicksim D## ?
(b)Suppose ##A\thicksim B##, and ##A## and ##C## are disjoint, ##B## and ##D## are disjoint, and ##A \cup C \thicksim B \cup D ##. Must it be the case that ##C \thicksim D## ?
Relevant Equations
Definition of equinumerous sets
(a) I present the following counter example for this. Let ##A = \{0,1,2,\ldots \}## and ##B = \{ 2,4,6, \ldots \} ##. Also, let ##C = \{ 1, 2 \} ## and ##D = \{3 \}##. Now, we can form a bijection ##f: A \longrightarrow B## between ##A## and ##B## as follows. If ##f(x) = 2x + 2##, we can see that this is a bijection from ##A## to ##B##. So, ##A## and ##B## are equinumerous and so we have ##A \thicksim B ##. Now, we have the Cartesian products

$$ A \times C =\big \{(0,1), (0,2), (1,1), (1,2), (2,1), (2,2), \ldots \big \} $$
$$ B \times D = \big \{ (2,3), (4,3), (6,3), \ldots \big \} $$

Now, we can define a function from ##A \times C## to ##B \times D ## as follows. Let the mapping be defines as follows.

$$ (0,1) \longrightarrow (2,3) $$
$$ (0,2) \longrightarrow (4,3) $$
$$ (1,1) \longrightarrow (6,3) $$
$$ (1,2) \longrightarrow (8,3) $$

and so on. From this mapping, it can be seen that this mapping from ##A \times C## to ##B \times D ## is a bijection. So, we have ##A\times C \thicksim B\times D##. But ##C = \{ 1, 2 \} ## and ##D = \{3 \}## and since the cardinality is different for these finite sets, we can not have a bijection from ##C## to ##D##. So, its not true that ##C \thicksim D## .

(b) Here also, I will present the following counter example. Let ##A = \big \{ 0, 10, 20, \ldots \big \} ## , ##B = \big \{ 5, 15, 25, \ldots \big \}##, ##C = \big \{ 1,2 \big \}## and ## D = \big \{6 \big \} ##. Now we have a function ##g: A \longrightarrow B## defined as follows. ## g(x) = x+5##. We can see that this is a bijection, so we have ##A\thicksim B##. It can also be seen that ##A \bigcap C =\varnothing ## and ##B \bigcap D = \varnothing ##. Now, we also have following unions

$$ A \bigcup C = \big \{ 0, 1, 2, 10, 20, \ldots \big \} $$
$$ B \bigcup D = \big \{ 5, 6, 15, 25, \ldots \big \} $$

Let's define the following relation ##h## from ##A \bigcup C## to ##B \bigcup D ##.

$$ h = \big \{ (0,5), (1,6), (2,15), (10, 25), \ldots \big \} $$

We can see that this is a bijection from ##A \bigcup C## to ##B \bigcup D ##. So, we have ## A \bigcup C \thicksim B \bigcup D ##. So, all the conditions given in the problem are satisfied. Now we have ##C = \{ 1, 2 \} ## and ##D = \{3 \}##. Again, these are finite sets with different cardinality. So, we can not have a bijection from ##C = \{ 1, 2 \} ## to ##D = \{3 \}##. So again, its not true that ##C \thicksim D##.
Do you think the reasoning is valid here ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It looks good to me. I think, however, there are simpler counterexamples.
 
  • #3
Thanks PeroK. Can you come up with simpler counterexample ?
 
  • #4
IssacNewton said:
Thanks PeroK. Can you come up with simpler counterexample ?

One idea is to use the transitivity of ##\thicksim## to show that your sets are both countable (equivalent to ##\mathbb{N}##, rather than directly to each other.

Also, using ##A = B## in both cases would simplify things.

For b), for example, you could have ##A = B = \{3, 4, 5 \dots \}##, ##C = \{1, 2 \}##, ##D = \{2 \}##.

Or, perhaps even simpler, ##C = \{1 \}##, ##D = \emptyset##.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Yes, that's indeed very simple. Thanks
 

1. What is an equivalence relation?

An equivalence relation is a mathematical concept that describes a relationship between two objects or sets. It is a binary relation that satisfies three properties: reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. In simpler terms, it means that two objects or sets are equivalent if they share certain characteristics or properties.

2. How do you prove that two sets are equinumerous?

To prove that two sets are equinumerous, you need to show that there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the two sets. This means that every element in one set is paired with exactly one element in the other set, and vice versa. If such a correspondence can be established, then the two sets are considered to be equinumerous.

3. What is a counter example in relation to equinumerous sets?

A counter example is a specific example that contradicts a general statement or theorem. In the context of equinumerous sets, a counter example would be a specific case where two sets appear to be equinumerous, but upon closer examination, it is found that they are not. This can help to disprove a general statement about equinumerous sets.

4. Can two infinite sets be equinumerous?

Yes, two infinite sets can be equinumerous. This is because equinumerosity does not depend on the size or cardinality of the sets, but rather on the existence of a one-to-one correspondence between their elements. For example, the set of all natural numbers and the set of all even numbers are both infinite sets, but they are equinumerous because there is a one-to-one correspondence between them (i.e. every natural number can be paired with its double in the set of even numbers).

5. How are equivalence relations and equinumerous sets related?

Equivalence relations are often used to define and prove the equinumerosity of two sets. The three properties of an equivalence relation (reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity) are essential in establishing a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of two sets. In other words, an equivalence relation can be seen as a tool for proving equinumerosity between sets.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
890
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
509
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
708
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
396
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
264
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
504
Back
Top