Gödel's Incompleteness TheoremsWhat is the limit of mathematical knowledge?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the cardinality of any set K is strictly less than the cardinality of the set of all functions F* defined on K. The user demonstrates an initial proof showing that card K is less than or equal to card F* by constructing an invertible function. The key insight is establishing a bijection between the power set of K and the set of functions from K to {0,1}, which is a proper subset of F*. This leads to the conclusion that no bijection exists between K and F*, confirming that card K < card F*.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of cardinality and set theory concepts
  • Familiarity with functions and bijections
  • Knowledge of power sets and their properties
  • Basic grasp of mathematical proofs, including injections and surjections
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of cardinality in set theory, focusing on Cantor's theorem
  • Learn about the properties of power sets and their implications on set sizes
  • Explore the definitions and examples of injections, surjections, and bijections
  • Investigate Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems and their relation to mathematical logic
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of mathematics, and anyone interested in set theory and the foundations of mathematical logic.

bobby2k
Messages
126
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



Let K be any set and let F* be the set of all functions with domain K. Prove that card K < card F*.

The Attempt at a Solution



I am first able to show that card K <= card F*, by creating an invertible function from K into F*.
let f: K -> F*
be defined so that if k is an element of K, then f(k) = {(i,k): i is an element of K}.
Basically we create a function with function value of k in all points.

But this only shows <= , I am not sure of to prove <. Then I think I must assume that there is a bijection, but that this leads to a contradiction. How do I do that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bobby2k said:

Homework Statement



Let K be any set and let F* be the set of all functions with domain K. Prove that card K < card F*.


The Attempt at a Solution



I am first able to show that card K <= card F*, by creating an invertible function from K into F*.
let f: K -> F*
be defined so that if k is an element of K, then f(k) = {(i,k): i is an element of K}.
Basically we create a function with function value of k in all points.

But this only shows <= , I am not sure of to prove <. Then I think I must assume that there is a bijection, but that this leads to a contradiction. How do I do that?

You don't need to use a proof by contradiction.

Show that there exists a bijection from the power set of [itex]K[/itex] to the set of functions from [itex]K[/itex] to [itex]\{0,1\}[/itex]. This set is a proper subset of [itex]F^{*}[/itex], since the codomain of a function in [itex]F^{*}[/itex] can be any non-empty set.

Why does this imply that there is no bijection from [itex]K[/itex] to [itex]F^{*}[/itex]?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
pasmith said:
You don't need to use a proof by contradiction.

Show that there exists a bijection from the power set of [itex]K[/itex] to the set of functions from [itex]K[/itex] to [itex]\{0,1\}[/itex]. This set is a proper subset of [itex]F^{*}[/itex], since the codomain of a function in [itex]F^{*}[/itex] can be any non-empty set.

Why does this imply that there is no bijection from [itex]K[/itex] to [itex]F^{*}[/itex]?
Ok, I'll try, I was not able to find an bijection from P(K) to the functions, but an injection, but I think it still works.

Lemma: card (P(K)) <= card L
L is the set of functions with codomain {0,1}, and domain K.
Define F2: P(K)-> L
F2(K') = {(i,j) : i is an element of K: j = 1 if i is an element of K', else j = 0}
K' is a subset of K.
F2 gives a function which has domain K, and this new function is 1 only if it is evaluated in K'.
it is must be invertible because if F2(K')=F2(K''), then K'=K''.Now we have that:

Card K < Card(P(K)) <= card(L) <= card(F*), since L is a subset of F*.
We can't have a bijection from K to F*, because then we could create an injection from P(K) to K, which is impossible.

Out of curiosity, how would you make the F2 function also surjective?

EDIT:
Haha, I see that the function I defined is actually surjective. Thanks for the help, it was a very smart trick!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K