How can I find an injective function for infinite pairwise disjoint sets?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding an injective function for an infinite union of pairwise disjoint sets, denoted as A1, A2, A3, etc. The original poster attempts to construct a function mapping these sets to their Cartesian product but encounters issues with ensuring injectivity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss various attempts to define the function f and question the mapping of elements from the sets A_i. There is a focus on the implications of the axiom of choice and how it can be applied to ensure injectivity.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing insights and suggestions for refining the function definition. Some participants are exploring the implications of the axiom of choice and how to ensure that the function remains injective despite the challenges presented.

Contextual Notes

There are constraints regarding the use of cardinality comparisons and the requirement to prove the existence of the injective function using the axiom of choice. Participants are also considering the implications of the sets being infinite and pairwise disjoint.

mathboy
Messages
182
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] Find a one-to-one function

Let A1, A2, A3... be infinite pairwise disjoint sets. Find an injective function

f : A1 U A2 U A3 U... -> A1 x A2 x A3 x...

For all i, I choose fixed elements a_i in each A_i. If x is in A_n, I tried

f(x) = (a1, a2,...,a_n-1, x, a_n+1,...).

But this doesn't work because, e.g., f(a1)=f(a2). So I added the extra rule

f(a_n) = (a1, a2,...,a_n-1, b_n, a_n+1,...),

where a_n not= b_n. But this still doesn't work because f(a_n)=f(b_n). Can someone help me find an injective function that works?

Or at least prove that such an injective function exists using the axiom of choice (without simply stating that the cardinality of the domain is smaller than the cardinality of the range, because using this fact is not allowed in my question, unless I prove it using the axiom of choice).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If the cardinality of domain is generally smaller than the cardinality of the range, which is true, there generally is no one-to-one function. Do you just mean an injective function?
 
Yes, injective function.
 
You're almost there. You just need to know where to map the a_i's. That the sets A_i are infinite will be useful here.
 
Use the axiom of choice to pick an element in each A_i. Call that 'a' in the cartesian product. If x is in the union then it belongs to exactly one A_i since they are pairwise disjoint. Define f(x) to be 'a' but only change the ith element.
 
Dick said:
Use the axiom of choice to pick an element in each A_i. Call that 'a' in the cartesian product. If x is in the union then it belongs to exactly one A_i since they are pairwise disjoint. Define f(x) to be 'a' but only change the ith element.

Isn't that what I did in the first post? But it runs into problems, e.g. f(a1)=f(a2).
 
How? 'a'=(a1,a2,a3,a4...). f(a1)=(b1,a2,a3,a4,...). f(a2)=(a1,b2,a3,a4...). ... ... ..., I don't know how many ...'s I need here. I'm leaning on the pairwise disjoint condition.
 
Ok, so for each i, using the axiom of choice, we use a choice function c: P(A_i) -> A_i and define (let's say x is in A_n),

f(x) = (a1, a2,...,a_n-1, c(A_n-{x}), a_n+1,...).

So the nth component has changed. Now suppose x and y are distinct points in A_n (the same A_n). How do we guarantee that f(x) not= f(y)? Perhaps change the domain of the choice function c to subsets of the form A_n-{x} and make the choice function injective somehow?
 
Last edited:
Right. Now you just just need an injective map from A_i->A_i-{a_i}. A_i is infinite. How do you define infinite? If your definition is that A_i can be placed into 1-1 correspondence with a proper subset, that should be pretty easy.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K