How Can We Prove Two Open Intervals in $\mathbb{R}$ Are Equinumerous?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    intervals
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Two open intervals in $\mathbb{R}$ are equinumerous, as demonstrated by the bijective function $f: (0,1) \to (a,b)$ defined by $f(t) = (1-t)a + tb$. This function is both injective and surjective, proving that intervals like $(2,9)$ and $(-5,100)$ have the same cardinality. The discussion highlights the importance of ensuring $a \neq b$ for the function to maintain its properties, and it provides a clear method for establishing the bijection between any two open intervals.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of bijections and cardinality in set theory
  • Familiarity with the concept of injective and surjective functions
  • Basic knowledge of real numbers and open intervals
  • Ability to solve linear equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of bijective functions in set theory
  • Learn about cardinality and its implications in mathematics
  • Explore the concept of open intervals and their applications in real analysis
  • Practice solving linear equations to strengthen understanding of function behavior
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying real analysis, educators teaching set theory, and anyone interested in understanding the concept of equinumerosity in mathematics.

evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

Each two open intervals in $\mathbb{R}$ are equinumerous.

It suffices to show that for each $a,b \in \mathbb{R}$ with $a<b$ it holds that $(0,1) \sim (a,b)$
$$f: (0,1) \xrightarrow[\text{surjective}]{\text{1-1}} (a,b)$$
$$f(t)=(1-t)a+b, t \in (0,1)$$

So this means for example that $(2,9) \sim (-5,100)$, right?
What surjective and 1-1 $f: (2,9) \to (-5,100)$ could we pick in order to show that these two intervals have the same cardinality? :confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
evinda said:
$$f: (0,1) \xrightarrow[\text{surjective}]{\text{1-1}} (a,b)$$
$$f(t)=(1-t)a+b, t \in (0,1)$$
It should be $f(t)=(1-t)a+tb$.

evinda said:
What surjective and 1-1 $f: (2,9) \to (-5,100)$ could we pick in order to show that these two intervals have the same cardinality?
You have two bijections: $f_1:(0,1)\to (2,9)$ and $f_2:(0,1) \to (-5,100)$. Then $f_2\circ f_1^{-1}: (2,9) \to (-5,100)$ is also a bijection.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
It should be $f(t)=(1-t)a+tb$.

Oh yes, right! (Nod)
Evgeny.Makarov said:
You have two bijections: $f_1: (0,1)\to (2,9)$ and $f_2: (0,1) \to (-5,100)$. Then $f_2\circ f_1^{-1}: (2,9) \to (-5,100)$ is also a bijection.

I see... Could we prove like that that $f$ is injective? (Thinking)

Let $x_1, x_2 \in (0,1)$ with $x_1 \neq x_2$.

$$x_1 \neq x_2 \Rightarrow bx_1 \neq bx_2 $$

$$x_1 \neq x_2 \Rightarrow -x_1 \neq -x_2 \Rightarrow 1-x_1 \neq 1-x_2 \Rightarrow (1-x_1) a \neq (1-x_2) a$$

$$\Rightarrow (1-x_1)a+x_1 b \neq (1-x_2)a+x_2b \Rightarrow f(x_1) \neq f(x_2)$$In order to prove that $f$ is surjective, we want to prove that $\forall y \in (a,b), \exists x \in (0,1)$ such that $f(x)=y \Rightarrow (1-x)a+xb=y$.
But how could we do this? (Thinking)
 
evinda said:
Could we prove like that that $f$ is injective? (Thinking)

Let $x_1, x_2 \in (0,1)$ with $x_1 \neq x_2$.

$$x_1 \neq x_2 \Rightarrow bx_1 \neq bx_2 $$
This does not follow if $b=0$.

evinda said:
$$x_1 \neq x_2 \Rightarrow -x_1 \neq -x_2 \Rightarrow 1-x_1 \neq 1-x_2 \Rightarrow (1-x_1) a \neq (1-x_2) a$$
Again, the last implication does not hold if $a=0$.

evinda said:
$$\Rightarrow (1-x_1)a+x_1 b \neq (1-x_2)a+x_2b \Rightarrow f(x_1) \neq f(x_2)$$
And this does no hold at all. If you know that $a_1\ne a_2$ and $b_1\ne b_2$, it does not follow that $a_1+b_1\ne a_2+b_2$.

evinda said:
In order to prove that $f$ is surjective, we want to prove that $\forall y \in (a,b), \exists x \in (0,1)$ such that $f(x)=y \Rightarrow (1-x)a+xb=y$.
But how could we do this?
Have you tried solving a linear equation? This could help in proving injection as well.
 
If $a=0 \wedge b=0$ then we wouldn't take the function $f(t)=(1-t)a+tb$ since it wouldn't be injective, right?
In this case we could take the function $f(x)=x$, right?Now if $b=0, a \neq 0$ then $f(t)=(1-t)a$.

We pick $x_1, x_2 \in (0,1) $ with $x_1 \neq x_2$.

$x_1 \neq x_2 \Rightarrow -x_1 \neq -x_2 \Rightarrow 1-x_1 \neq 1-x_2 \Rightarrow (1-x_1) a \neq (1-x_2)a \Rightarrow f(x_1) \neq f(x_2)$

Now if $a=0, b \neq 0$ then $f(t)=tb$

We pick $x_1, x_2 \in (0,1) $ with $x_1 \neq x_2$.$x_1 \neq x_2 \Rightarrow bx_1 \neq bx_2 \Rightarrow f(x_1) \neq f(x_2)$

Now we consider the case $a \neq 0, b \neq 0$.

We pick $x_1, x_2 \in (0,1) $ with $x_1 \neq x_2$.

Suppose that $f(x_1)=f(x_2) \Rightarrow (1-x_1)a+bx_1=(1-x_2)b+b x_2 \Rightarrow b(x_1-x_2)=a(x_1-x_2) \overset{x_1 \neq x_2}{\Rightarrow} a=b$

When $a=b$ then $f(t)=a$ and that would mean that $f$ is not surjective, but we will show that it is.$$(1-x)a+xb=y \Rightarrow a-xa+xb=y \Rightarrow (b-a)x+a=y$$

$$a<y<b \Rightarrow a<(b-a)x+a<b \Rightarrow 0<(b-a)x<b$$Can we use this inequality to show that $f$ is surjective? (Thinking)
 
$(0,1)$ and $(a,b)$ are not equinumerous when $a=b$.

evinda said:
We pick $x_1, x_2 \in (0,1) $ with $x_1 \neq x_2$.

Suppose that $f(x_1)=f(x_2) \Rightarrow (1-x_1)a+bx_1=(1-x_2)b+b x_2 \Rightarrow b(x_1-x_2)=a(x_1-x_2) \overset{x_1 \neq x_2}{\Rightarrow} a=b$
This is a proof of injectivity when $a\ne b$ regardless of whether $a=0$ or $b=0$.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
$(0,1)$ and $(a,b)$ are not equinumerous when $a=b$.

Oh yes, right! (Nod)

Evgeny.Makarov said:
This is a proof of injectivity when $a\ne b$ regardless of whether $a=0$ or $b=0$.
It always holds that $a \neq b$, so doing it like that we come to a contradiction, right? (Thinking)
 
Yes.
 
Nice! (Smile)

And could we prove like that that $f$ is surjective? (Thinking)We want to show that $\forall y \in (a,b) \exists x \in (0,1)$ such that $f(x)=y$.
$f(x)=y \Rightarrow (1-x)a+bx=y \Rightarrow a-ax+bx=y \Rightarrow (b-a)x=y-a \overset{b \neq a}{\Rightarrow} x=\frac{y-a}{b-a}$

$$a<y<b \Rightarrow 0<y-a<b-a \overset{b-a>0}{\Rightarrow} 0< \frac{y-a}{b-a}<1 \Rightarrow 0<x<1$$So we see that we have shown that what we wanted to, therefore $f$ is surjective.
 
  • #10
Yes, that's correct.
 
  • #11
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Yes, that's correct.

Great! Thank you very much! (Happy)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
534
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K