- #1

- 18

- 0

[itex]\left|\:A\:\right|\:\leq\:\left|\:A\:\times\:B\:\right|\: if\: B\neq\phi[/itex]

In English,

The cardinality of a set [itex]A[/itex] is less than or equal to the cardinality of Cartesian product of A and a non empty set [itex]B[/itex].

- Thread starter sujoykroy
- Start date

- #1

- 18

- 0

[itex]\left|\:A\:\right|\:\leq\:\left|\:A\:\times\:B\:\right|\: if\: B\neq\phi[/itex]

In English,

The cardinality of a set [itex]A[/itex] is less than or equal to the cardinality of Cartesian product of A and a non empty set [itex]B[/itex].

- #2

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,916

- 19

- #3

tiny-tim

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 25,832

- 251

In problems like this, just write out the definition, and then plug the problem into it.

So … what is the definition of "cardinality of P ≤ cardinality of Q"?

oh … and … what is the definition of "non empty set"?

- #4

- 18

- 0

I think, if you pick up a binary relation [itex]f[/itex] in such way that [itex]f\left(\:a\:\right)\:=\:\left(\:a\:,\:b\:)[/itex] for some [itex]b\:\in\:B[/itex] for all [itex]a\:\in\:A[/itex], then [itex]f[/itex] will be a one-to-one function with [itex]dom\:f\:=\:A[/itex] and [itex]ran\:f\:\subset\:A\:\times\:B[/itex], hence proving that [itex]\left|\:A\:\right|\:\leq\:\left|\:A\:\times\:B\:\right|\: if\: B\neq\phi[/itex], but i am not sure if the approach is right or not.

considered?

Below is the definition of cardinality that i am using,

In problems like this, just write out the definition, and then plug the problem into it.

So … what is the definition of "cardinality of P ≤ cardinality of Q"?

oh … and … what is the definition of "non empty set"?

The cardinality of a set [itex]A[/itex] is less than or equal to the cardinality of a set [itex]B[/itex] if there is a one-to-one function [itex]f[/itex] on [itex]A[/itex] into [itex]B[/itex]

- #5

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,916

- 19

Well, try formalizing it. If you wind up with a valid proof, then your approach is right.but i am not sure if the approach is right or not.

- #6

- 18

- 0

Thanks. Actually i was trying to understand/prove the use/existence of Infinite Sequence used in various proof of Cantor-Schroder-Bernstein i.e. if [itex]\left|X\right|\:\leq\:\left|Y\right|[/itex] and [itex]\left|Y\right|\:\leq\:\left|X\right|[/itex] then [itex]\left|X\right|\:=\:\left|Y\right|[/itex] and current problem was a doorway to open up the logical window towards it. So, formalization was not really my problem, i just needed to get confirmation if the logic is correct.Well, try formalizing it. If you wind up with a valid proof, then your approach is right.

- #7

tiny-tim

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 25,832

- 251

Hi sujoykroy!Below is the definition of cardinality that i am using,

"The cardinality of a set A is less than or equal to the cardinality of a set B if there is a one-to-one function f on A into B"

Yes, that's the one … so, in this case, you need to define a one-to-one f on A into A x B.

And to do that, answer the question: what is the definition of "non empty set"?

(it may sound a daft question … but sometimes maths is like that! )

- #8

- 1

- 0

What does [tex]\left|A\right|[/tex] = [tex]\left|A \times \aleph\right|[/tex]for any set A, tell you about A?

I hope to use this to find an injective function from [tex]\aleph^{A}[/tex]to [tex]\left\{0,1\right\}^{A}[/tex]

- #9

CRGreathouse

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 2,820

- 0

- #10

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,916

- 19

I think you misread the problem.

- #11

- 1

- 0

Yes, that I did

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 10K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 10K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 761

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 4K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 5K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 4K