How Can We Prove Equipotence for Non-Empty Sets?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jetoso
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving equipotence between non-empty sets A and B, defined by the existence of a bijection. Key points include that A is equipotent with itself through the identity function, and if A is equipotent with B, then B is equipotent with A via the inverse function. Additionally, if A is equipotent with B and B with C, the composition of bijections provides a bijection from A to C. Participants suggest that the proofs for these properties are straightforward, emphasizing that bijective functions are invertible. The conversation concludes with an affirmation of the simplicity of these concepts in set theory.
jetoso
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Hello,
I am trying to prove the following about equipotence:
Let A and B be nonempty sets. We say that A is equipotent with B if there is a bijection between A and B. Then the following hold:
(i) A is equipotent with itself.
(ii) If A is equipotent with B, then B is equipotent with A.
(iii) If A is equipotent with B, and B is equipotent with C, then A is equipotent with C.

Proof:
(i) We can use the identity function Id_A which gives a bijection between A and itself. Shall I need a more formal proof here?

(ii) Let f: A -> B be a 1-1 and onto map. We can use the inverse function f^-1 which will give a bijection between B and A. Same question here, how to give formal proof.

(iii) Let f:A->B, g:B->C be 1-1 and onto. Then the composition h=(g o f) will give a 1-1 and onto map from A onto C. How do you give a formal proof of this?


Hope you guys have some suggestions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i. define the trivial function f(A)=A
ii. if f(a)=b then f-1(b)=a
iii. if f(a)=b g(b)=c then f.g(a)=c
 
Thanks
 
I do'nt see what you consider to be 'not formal' about the first two. A function is bijective if and only if it is invertible. Thus (i) and (ii) are trivialities - the identity is invertible, and the inverse of an invertible function is invertible.

The third is again simple - if f and g are invertible then so is fg, and to prove so you just write down the inverse and explain why it satisfies the definition of 'inverse'.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K