Equivalence Relations and Counter Examples for Equinumerous Sets

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around equivalence relations and counterexamples related to equinumerous sets, specifically examining the relationships between various sets and their cardinalities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster presents counterexamples involving sets A, B, C, and D, demonstrating bijections between certain pairs while questioning the validity of equinumerosity between finite sets C and D. Participants discuss the potential for simpler counterexamples and explore the implications of transitivity in equivalence relations.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original examples, with some expressing agreement and suggesting simpler alternatives. There is an ongoing exploration of the concepts without a definitive consensus on the best approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering the implications of cardinality and bijections, particularly in the context of finite sets with differing sizes. The discussion also reflects on the conditions set forth in the original problem statement.

issacnewton
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
37
Homework Statement
(a) Suppose ##A\thicksim B## and ##A\times C \thicksim B\times D##. Must it be the case that ##C \thicksim D## ?
(b)Suppose ##A\thicksim B##, and ##A## and ##C## are disjoint, ##B## and ##D## are disjoint, and ##A \cup C \thicksim B \cup D ##. Must it be the case that ##C \thicksim D## ?
Relevant Equations
Definition of equinumerous sets
(a) I present the following counter example for this. Let ##A = \{0,1,2,\ldots \}## and ##B = \{ 2,4,6, \ldots \} ##. Also, let ##C = \{ 1, 2 \} ## and ##D = \{3 \}##. Now, we can form a bijection ##f: A \longrightarrow B## between ##A## and ##B## as follows. If ##f(x) = 2x + 2##, we can see that this is a bijection from ##A## to ##B##. So, ##A## and ##B## are equinumerous and so we have ##A \thicksim B ##. Now, we have the Cartesian products

$$ A \times C =\big \{(0,1), (0,2), (1,1), (1,2), (2,1), (2,2), \ldots \big \} $$
$$ B \times D = \big \{ (2,3), (4,3), (6,3), \ldots \big \} $$

Now, we can define a function from ##A \times C## to ##B \times D ## as follows. Let the mapping be defines as follows.

$$ (0,1) \longrightarrow (2,3) $$
$$ (0,2) \longrightarrow (4,3) $$
$$ (1,1) \longrightarrow (6,3) $$
$$ (1,2) \longrightarrow (8,3) $$

and so on. From this mapping, it can be seen that this mapping from ##A \times C## to ##B \times D ## is a bijection. So, we have ##A\times C \thicksim B\times D##. But ##C = \{ 1, 2 \} ## and ##D = \{3 \}## and since the cardinality is different for these finite sets, we can not have a bijection from ##C## to ##D##. So, its not true that ##C \thicksim D## .

(b) Here also, I will present the following counter example. Let ##A = \big \{ 0, 10, 20, \ldots \big \} ## , ##B = \big \{ 5, 15, 25, \ldots \big \}##, ##C = \big \{ 1,2 \big \}## and ## D = \big \{6 \big \} ##. Now we have a function ##g: A \longrightarrow B## defined as follows. ## g(x) = x+5##. We can see that this is a bijection, so we have ##A\thicksim B##. It can also be seen that ##A \bigcap C =\varnothing ## and ##B \bigcap D = \varnothing ##. Now, we also have following unions

$$ A \bigcup C = \big \{ 0, 1, 2, 10, 20, \ldots \big \} $$
$$ B \bigcup D = \big \{ 5, 6, 15, 25, \ldots \big \} $$

Let's define the following relation ##h## from ##A \bigcup C## to ##B \bigcup D ##.

$$ h = \big \{ (0,5), (1,6), (2,15), (10, 25), \ldots \big \} $$

We can see that this is a bijection from ##A \bigcup C## to ##B \bigcup D ##. So, we have ## A \bigcup C \thicksim B \bigcup D ##. So, all the conditions given in the problem are satisfied. Now we have ##C = \{ 1, 2 \} ## and ##D = \{3 \}##. Again, these are finite sets with different cardinality. So, we can not have a bijection from ##C = \{ 1, 2 \} ## to ##D = \{3 \}##. So again, its not true that ##C \thicksim D##.
Do you think the reasoning is valid here ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks good to me. I think, however, there are simpler counterexamples.
 
Thanks PeroK. Can you come up with simpler counterexample ?
 
IssacNewton said:
Thanks PeroK. Can you come up with simpler counterexample ?

One idea is to use the transitivity of ##\thicksim## to show that your sets are both countable (equivalent to ##\mathbb{N}##, rather than directly to each other.

Also, using ##A = B## in both cases would simplify things.

For b), for example, you could have ##A = B = \{3, 4, 5 \dots \}##, ##C = \{1, 2 \}##, ##D = \{2 \}##.

Or, perhaps even simpler, ##C = \{1 \}##, ##D = \emptyset##.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that's indeed very simple. Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K