Equivalence between a set and the subset of its subset

  • Thread starter Thread starter batballbat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Equivalence Set
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the equivalence relation between a set A and its subset A1, specifically questioning whether A's lack of equivalence to A1 implies A's lack of equivalence to any subset of A1. It is established that the truth of this statement depends on the chosen equivalence relation, such as bijection or other criteria like parity. When using bijections, the statement holds true; however, under different equivalence relations, it may not. The conversation reflects on the complexities of understanding these relationships, referencing Cantor-Bernstein's theorem as a learning experience. Ultimately, the nuances of equivalence relations significantly influence the validity of the original claim.
batballbat
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
Is it true that: If A is not equivalent to its subset A1. Then A is not equivalent to any subset of A1?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You should consider also informing us about the relevant equivalence relation, as the truth or falsity of your statement heavily depends on that information.

For example, if you for your eq.rel. use existence of a bijection, the statement is true, but other relations, like having same parity, will render your statement false.
 
actually this is trivial. I just learned all this the complicated way, .i.e. proving cantor bernstein without the well ordering theorem.
 

Thread 'Value of intuitionistic logic'

I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
View full post »

Thread 'Formal derivation of statement from Peano Arithmetic system'

I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Is there a "smallest" infinite subset of the naturals?
Replies
24
Views
4K
B ##A \subset B \iff \exists x \in B \land x \not\in A##?
Replies
15
Views
1K
I Subset definition: universal quantifier over which set?
Replies
33
Views
4K
MHB Topology Munkres Chapter 1 exercise 2 b and c- Set theory equivalent statements
Replies
1
Views
2K
MHB ZFC and the Axiom of Power Sets ....
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Sets, Subsets, Possible Relations
Replies
1
Views
1K
MHB Proving A Subset B & C $\Rightarrow$ A Subset (B $\cup$ C)
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Are These Rules new Conjectures in Set Theory?
2
Replies
57
Views
7K
I Computable reals and r.e./Diophantine
Replies
4
Views
1K
I The set of nonzero values of pmf is at most countable
Replies
3
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top