1:1 and onto proof of Z+ and Q+

  • Thread starter takk
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, the conversation discusses a problem about equality in the positive rational numbers and attempts to provide a proof for it by using the grid system and the concept of summation. However, there are some errors and incomplete parts in the proof, making it impossible to fully show the desired properties.
  • #1
takk
1
0

Homework Statement


After exploring this problem a bit out of curiosity I decided to attempt to write a full fledged proof of it for my final exam.
I will try my best to explain what I am doing. i am pretty frustrated with it but I've put so much time into it I don't want to give up and do something else now.

For this theorem Equality in Q+: [itex]\frac{a}{b}[/itex]=[itex]\frac{c}{d}[/itex] [itex]\Leftrightarrow[/itex] a=c, and b=d

now I'm using the grid system, i.e.
1/1 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/6..
2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6..
3/1 3/2 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6..
.
.
but adjusting it to represent the diagonals and defining it as follows
1/1 [itex]\Rightarrow[/itex] p+q=2 (1 element)
1/2 2/1 [itex]\Rightarrow[/itex] p+q=3 (2 elements)
1/3 2/2 3/1 [itex]\Rightarrow[/itex] p+q=4 (3 elements)
etc
as you can see each list represent one diagonal of the grid

next I went to the integers by observing the following number line and looking at the sums that represent the integers

(-----|](--|-----|](---|-----|-----|](---|-----|-----|-----|]-----|-----|
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Representing each section with a summation we get
(0,1]
[itex]\sum^{1}_{k=1}[/itex]k
(1,3]
[itex]\sum^{2}_{k=1}[/itex]k
(3,6]
[itex]\sum^{3}_{k=1}[/itex]k
(6,10]
[itex]\sum^{4}_{k=1}[/itex]k

now I'm trying to show f:Z[itex]^{+}[/itex][itex]\rightarrow[/itex] Q[itex]^{+}[/itex]
f(1) = 1/1

let n[itex]\geq[/itex]2[itex]\in[/itex]Z[itex]^{+}[/itex]
let S[itex]_{n}[/itex]={s[itex]\in[/itex]Z[itex]^{+}[/itex][itex]\leq[/itex][itex]\sum^{j}_{k=1}[/itex]k}

then consider 2n [itex]\sum^{2n}_{k=1}[/itex]k= 1+2+...+n+n+1+...+2n
thus n[itex]\leq[/itex][itex]\sum^{2n}_{k=1}[/itex]k
therefore 2n[itex]\in[/itex]S[itex]_{n}[/itex] therefore S[itex]_{n}[/itex][itex]\neq[/itex][itex]\oslash[/itex]
Then by the well ordering principle [itex]\exists[/itex] m[itex]\in[/itex]S[itex]_{n}[/itex] [itex]\exists[/itex] m[itex]\leq[/itex]j [itex]\forall[/itex]j[itex]\in[/itex]S[itex]_{n}[/itex]

i.e exists a "least" element
Call the least element M

therefore
[itex]\sum^{m-1}_{k=1}[/itex]k<n[itex]\leq[/itex][itex]\sum^{m}_{k=1}[/itex]k
or in other words m[itex]\in[/itex] ([itex]\sum^{m-1}_{k=1}[/itex]k, [itex]\sum^{m}_{k=1}[/itex]k]

so let p= n-[itex]\sum^{m-1}_{k=1}[/itex]k
1[itex]\leq[/itex]p[itex]\leq[/itex]m

then choose a q such that p+q = m+1
q= m+1-p

now f(n) = p/q
That ends the mapping

Now show f:Q[itex]^{+}[/itex][itex]\rightarrow[/itex]Z[itex]^{+}[/itex] is 1:1 and onto.
This is where I can't finish the proof but this is what I have of an attempt on both

One to one:
x[itex]_{1}[/itex][itex]\neq[/itex]x[itex]_{2}[/itex] [itex]\Rightarrow[/itex] f(x[itex]_{1}[/itex])[itex]\neq[/itex]f(x[itex]_{2}[/itex])
or
f(x[itex]_{1}[/itex])=f(x[itex]_{2}[/itex])[itex]\Rightarrow[/itex] x[itex]_{1}[/itex]=x[itex]_{2}[/itex]

suppose f(n[itex]_{1}[/itex])=f(n[itex]_{2}[/itex])

then [itex]\frac{p_{1}}{q_{1}}[/itex]=[itex]\frac{p_{2}}{q_{2}}[/itex]
I have no idea how to get from here to n[itex]_{1}[/itex]=n[itex]_{2}[/itex]

Onto:
consider p+q
the diagonals the p/q is in has the property that the # of elements in that diagonal is p+q-1 (referring way back to the beginning)
or in other words ([itex]\sum^{p+q-2}_{k=1}[/itex]k, [itex]\sum^{p+q-1}_{k=1}[/itex]k]
then let n= p+[itex]\sum^{p+q-2}_{k=1}[/itex]k

and then I get hung up again
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You seem to prove some unnecessary or trivial stuff while other parts are wrong.

For this theorem Equality in Q+: [itex]\frac{a}{b}[/itex]=[itex]\frac{c}{d}[/itex] [itex]\Leftrightarrow[/itex] a=c, and b=d
So ##\frac{1}{2}=\frac{2}{4} \Leftrightarrow## 1=2 and 2=4? That is wrong.

Representing each section with a summation
What does that mean?

let S[itex]_{n}[/itex]={s[itex]\in[/itex]Z[itex]^{+}[/itex][itex]\leq[/itex][itex]\sum^{j}_{k=1}[/itex]k}
I guess the sum is supposed to run up to n instead of j?
Okay, so as an example:
S3 = {1,2,3,4,5,6}
It is obvious that Sn is not empty (as an example, it always contains 1) and that it has a smallest element (it always contains 1 and 1 is the smallest number in Z+).

[itex]\sum^{m-1}_{k=1}[/itex]k<n[itex]\leq[/itex][itex]\sum^{m}_{k=1}[/itex]k
Why should ##n \leq \sum^{1}_{k=1} k = 1## be true?

This plus the wrong way to start make it impossible to finish your mapping or show that it has the desired properties.
 

What is a 1:1 and onto proof?

A 1:1 and onto proof is a type of mathematical proof that shows the relationship between two sets. It is used to prove that there is a one-to-one correspondence (also known as a bijection) between the elements of the two sets. This means that each element in one set is paired with exactly one element in the other set, and every element in the other set has a corresponding element in the first set.

What is the significance of proving Z+ and Q+ are 1:1 and onto?

Proving that Z+ (the set of positive integers) and Q+ (the set of positive rational numbers) are 1:1 and onto is significant because it shows that these two sets have the same cardinality, or the same number of elements. This may seem counterintuitive, as the set of rational numbers is often thought of as "larger" than the set of integers, but this proof demonstrates that they are actually the same size.

What are some common methods for proving 1:1 and onto?

There are several common methods for proving 1:1 and onto, including direct proof, proof by contradiction, and proof by construction. In a direct proof, the bijection between the two sets is explicitly described and proven. In a proof by contradiction, it is assumed that there is no bijection between the two sets, and a contradiction is then derived. In a proof by construction, a bijection is constructed by showing how each element in one set can be paired with an element in the other set.

Why is it important to prove that a function is onto?

Proving that a function is onto is important because it ensures that every element in the range of the function has a corresponding element in the domain. This is important in many areas of mathematics, such as in solving equations, finding inverse functions, and understanding the behavior of functions. It also helps to establish the surjective property of a function, which is a key concept in understanding functions.

Can a set be both 1:1 and onto?

Yes, a set can be both 1:1 and onto. This is known as a bijective set, and it means that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the set and itself. In other words, every element in the set is paired with exactly one other element in the set, and every element has a corresponding element. Bijective sets are useful in many areas of mathematics, such as in defining inverse functions and understanding the structure of sets.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
550
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
216
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
477
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
416
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
915
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
605
Back
Top