If S has the same number of elements as T, then T has the same number as S....

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter VoNemo19
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elements
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof that if two sets S and T have the same number of elements, then T has the same number of elements as S. This is established through a pairing function π that pairs each element of S with a unique element of T, and vice versa. The formal definitions and properties of the pairing function are crucial, particularly the unique existence of elements in both sets as expressed through existential quantifiers. The complexity of constructing a formal proof is emphasized, highlighting the difference between intuitive understanding and rigorous mathematical proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory and the definition of cardinality.
  • Familiarity with functions and their properties, particularly bijections.
  • Knowledge of formal mathematical proofs and quantifiers.
  • Basic understanding of the pigeonhole principle.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of bijective functions in set theory.
  • Learn about formal proofs in mathematics, focusing on existential and universal quantifiers.
  • Explore the pigeonhole principle and its applications in combinatorics.
  • Investigate the implications of pairing functions in proving set cardinality.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, computer scientists, and students studying set theory or formal logic who seek to deepen their understanding of cardinality and formal proof construction.

VoNemo19
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi. The proof that I'm working is in the title. The Defition of "same number as" is given as follows: (1)Two sets S and T are said to have the same nuber of elements if each element of S can be paired with precisely one element ofT in such a way that every element ofT is paired with precisely one element of S.

Notation: If \pi is a pairing of the elements of Swith with those of Tand the element sof S is paired in \pi to the element tof T, we shall write s\overbrace{\leftrightarrow}^{\pi}{t} (I don't know how to put the \pi above the \leftrightarrow without the \overbrace).
I don't really understand the book's proof: Since S has the same number of elements as T, we can select a pairing between the elements of Sand T in accordance with (1).We define a pairing as follows: Ifs is paired with t by the selected pairing \pi, then pairt with s. That is if s\overbrace{\leftrightarrow}^{\pi}{t}, thent is paired with s to form the pairing of the elements T with those of S. If the original pairing satisfied (1),then so will the new pairing. Specifically, since\pihad each elementT paired with a unique element of S, then the second pairing also has this property. Therefore, T has the same number of elements asS.

Please help me to understand why this proposition is not trivial, and also the procedure of the proof.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
VoNemo19 said:
(I don't know how to put the \pi above the \leftrightarrow without the \overbrace).
\stackrel{\pi}{\leftrightarrow} or \overset{\pi}{\leftrightarrow} gives $\overset{\pi}{\leftrightarrow}$.

VoNemo19 said:
Please help me to understand why this proposition is not trivial
It is trivial to people because we have a great deal of intuition concerning the number of elements in a set and one-to-one correspondences between sets. Some of these intuitions probably come from visual images. If one has to construct a formal proof, for example, in order to convince a computer, which does not have these intuitions, then the task becomes more challenging.

For example, it is an obvious corollary of the pigeonhole principle that if f : {1, ..., m} -> {1, ..., n} and m > n, then there exist i1 and i2 such that 1 ≤ i1 < i2 ≤ m and f(i1) = f(i2). But if we have a formal proof of this fact, we can do more. We can mechanically extract a program that, given f, would compute such i1 and i2. Writing such program from scratch, though not hard, does not seem so trivial, especially if we are not allowed to use arrays. This implies to me that in considering the original fact obvious, we are cheating and coming up with some arguments that are different from a formal mathematical proof.

This problem is still simple enough, and it means that we are expected to provide a rather detailed proof.

VoNemo19 said:
Two sets S and T are said to have the same nuber of elements if each element of S can be paired with precisely one element ofT
This just means that there exists a function $\pi:S\to T$...

VoNemo19 said:
in such a way that every element ofT is paired with precisely one element of S.
Formally, this means

$\forall y\in T\,\exists! x\in S\,\pi(x)=y~(1)$

Here $\exists!x$ means that there exists a unique x. If, given y, we denote the x whose existence is guaranteed in (1) by $\pi'(y)$, then (1) expresses the following two facts.

$\forall y\in T\, \pi(\pi'(y))=y~(2)$
$\forall y\in T\,\forall x'\in S.\,\pi x'=y\to x'=\pi'(y)~(3)$

Now we need to show that $\pi'$ establishes a pairing that shows that T has the same number of elements as S. We already have that $\pi'$ is a function from T to S, so we need to check

$\forall x\in S\,\exists! y\in T\,\pi'(y)=x~(4)$

Of course, given x, we let $y = \pi(x)$. Now the unique existential quantifier results in the following two facts to prove.

$\forall x\in S\,\pi'(\pi(x))=x~(5)$
$\forall x\in S\,\forall y'\in T.\,\pi'(y')=x\to y'=\pi(x)~(6)$

Hmm, the first attempt to prove (5) would be to use (2), but it has functions in the wrong order. It does not seem so trivial now, does it? Hint: (5) is proved using (3) and (6) is proved using (2).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K