cragar
- 2,546
- 3
Im trying to understand this proof by Cantor.
For every set X, |X|<|P(x)|
Proof. Let f be a function from X into P(x)
the set Y=(x \in X: x \notin f(x) )
is not in the range of f:
if z \in X where such that f(z)=Y, then z \in Y
if and only if z \notin Y, a contradiction. Thus f is not
a function of X onto P(x).
Hence |P(x)|≠|X|, the function
f(x)={x} is a one-to-one function of X into P(x) and so
|X|≤|P(x)|. it follows that
|X|<|P(x)|.
I don't understand why z can't be in Y and f(z).
I guess that's because they defined it that way.
Is it because we want to find a one-to-one function from
the set to the power set, and because we want it to be one-to-one
we want to map every x to a unique element in the power set we don't want x to get mapped to itself. Is that the reason. And do we need z to be in Y and f(z) for it to be onto.
For every set X, |X|<|P(x)|
Proof. Let f be a function from X into P(x)
the set Y=(x \in X: x \notin f(x) )
is not in the range of f:
if z \in X where such that f(z)=Y, then z \in Y
if and only if z \notin Y, a contradiction. Thus f is not
a function of X onto P(x).
Hence |P(x)|≠|X|, the function
f(x)={x} is a one-to-one function of X into P(x) and so
|X|≤|P(x)|. it follows that
|X|<|P(x)|.
I don't understand why z can't be in Y and f(z).
I guess that's because they defined it that way.
Is it because we want to find a one-to-one function from
the set to the power set, and because we want it to be one-to-one
we want to map every x to a unique element in the power set we don't want x to get mapped to itself. Is that the reason. And do we need z to be in Y and f(z) for it to be onto.