MHB Is $B - A$ always similar to $B$ if $A$ is countable and $B$ is uncountable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dustinsfl
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
If $A$ is a countable set and $B$ is an uncountable set, it is proven that $B - A$ is similar to $B$. In the first case, when $|A|$ is a finite integer, the cardinality of $B - A$ remains $2^{\aleph_0}$, confirming its equinumerous nature to $B$. In the second case, when $|A|$ is countably infinite, the same conclusion holds as $|B - A|$ also equals $2^{\aleph_0}$. The discussion highlights that removing a countable subset from an uncountable set does not change its cardinality. Thus, $B - A$ is indeed similar to $B$.
Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
If $A$ is a countable set and $B$ an uncountable set, prove that $B - A$ is similar to $B$.Case 1: $|A| = n\in\mathbb{Z}^+$
Since $B$ is uncountable, $|B| = 2^{\aleph_0}$.
Then $|B - A| = 2^{\aleph_0} - n = 2^{\aleph_0}$.
Therefore, $B - A$ is equinumerous to $B$, and hence $B - A$ is similar to $B$.Case 2: $|A| = \aleph_0$
Again, we have $|B - A| = 2^{\aleph_0} - \aleph_0 = 2^{\aleph_0}$
Therefore, $B - A$ is equinumerous to $B$, and hence $B - A$ is similar to $B$.

Does this work?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What does "similar" mean?

dwsmith said:
Since $B$ is uncountable, $|B| = 2^{\aleph_0}$.
This is wrong. Also, even for finite sets, |B - A| is not necessarily |B| - |A|.
 
dwsmith said:
If $A$ is a countable set and $B$ an uncountable set, prove that $B - A$ is similar to $B$.
There is completely trivial proof if A is a subset of B.
You know that the union of two countable sets is countable.
You also know that $B=A\cup(B-A)$. What if $B-A$ were countable?
 
Last edited:
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K