Equal sets and bijective correspondence

  • Thread starter Thread starter mizunoami
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that two equal sets, [n] and [m], are bijectively correspondent. The user has defined a function f that maps elements from [n] to [m], asserting that if [n] equals [m], then each element in [n] corresponds uniquely to an element in [m]. To demonstrate that f is both surjective and injective, the user seeks guidance on how to use the equality of the sets in their proof. Participants clarify the distinction between "equal" and "equivalent" sets, emphasizing that equal sets contain the same elements. The consensus is that a straightforward approach is to show that the function f is both "one-to-one" and "onto" through rigorous proof.
mizunoami
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



If [n] and [m] are equal, then they are bijective correspondent.

I define f \subset\{(n,m)\mid n \in [n], m\in [m]\}. Suppose [n]=[m]. Let(n,m_1),(n,m_2)\in f. Because [n]=[m], then m_1=m_2. So for all n \in [n], there exists a unique m\in [m] such that f(n)=m. So f is a function.

Next I want to prove f is surjective and injective. But I'm stuck. How can I make use of the supposition [n]=[m] to prove surjectivity and injectivity?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you mean "equal" or "equivalent"? In order to be equal, sets A and B must be identical- they contain exactly the same elements. In order to be equivalent, they must have the same cardinality- contain exactly the same number of elements. In either case, there is an obvious bijection.
 
I mean equal - so both sets contain the same elements.

Yeah, there is obviously a bijection. But how can I show that using a rigorous mathematical proof?
 
The obvious way- show that f, from [m] to [n], defined by f(x)= x, is both "one-to-one" and "onto". And that should be easy- if f(a)= f(b), what must be true of a and b? Let c be a member of [n]. What member of [m] is mapped to c?
 
Thread 'Use greedy vertex coloring algorithm to prove the upper bound of χ'
Hi! I am struggling with the exercise I mentioned under "Homework statement". The exercise is about a specific "greedy vertex coloring algorithm". One definition (which matches what my book uses) can be found here: https://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~laci/HANDOUTS/greedycoloring.pdf Here is also a screenshot of the relevant parts of the linked PDF, i.e. the def. of the algorithm: Sadly I don't have much to show as far as a solution attempt goes, as I am stuck on how to proceed. I thought...
Back
Top