Prove by Induction (Cardinality)

sessomw5098
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
If S1 and S2 are finite sets, show that |S1 x S2| = |S1||S2|.


Here is what I've tried:

Let |S1| = m and |S2| = n.
Let P(k) be true. That is, P(k) = |S1 x S2| = km.

P(1) is true since, if |S1| = 1 and |S2| = 1, |S1 x S2| = 1.

Now, let |S1| = k+1 and |S2| = m. Then, P(k+1) = |S1 x S2| = (k+1)m ??

This is as far as I have gotten.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sessomw5098 said:
Let P(k) be true. (...)
Now, let |S1| = k+1 and |S2| = m. Then, P(k+1) = |S1 x S2| = (k+1)m ??
This is as far as I have gotten.
Well, you just wrote down the thing you want to prove, so you haven't really done anything :P

Somewhere you're going to have to use the definition of the cartesian product. We assume P(k) to be true, so for |S1|=k we have |S1 x S2|=km. Now we want to show that for |S1'|=k+1 we have |S1' x S2|=(k+1)m. Write S_1'=S_1 \cup \{x\}, where x is some element not in S1.

By definition, S_1'\times S_2=\{(a,b)|a\in S_1',b\in S_2\}.

But this is equal to \{(a,b)|a\in S_1,b\in S_2\}\ \cup\ \{(x,b)|b\in S_2\}=(S_1\times S_2)\ \cup\ \{(x,b)|b\in S_2\}, where the union is disjoint. Therefore,

|S_1'\times S_2|=|S_1\times S_2|+|\{(x,b)|b\in S_2\}|=km+m=(k+1)m, where we have applied the induction hypothesis |S_1 \times S_2|=km.

Do you understand this? Are we finished with the induction proof?
 
I understand it now. My problem was that I wasn't using the definition of the Cartesian product.

Thanks!
 
You're welcome. You have used induction on the cardinality of S1. Do you also need to use induction on the cardinality of S2? In other words, do you think the proof is finished now?
 
Well, I think the proof is complete because we hold one constant while "inducting" the other. We can assume the converse is true due to "without loss of generality."

Am I right?
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top