Prove that every subset ##B## of ##A=\{1,...,n\}## is finite

  • Thread starter Thread starter zenterix
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Real analysis
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that every subset ##B## of the set ##A=\{1,...,n\}## is finite. Participants are exploring various proof techniques and reasoning related to the properties of finite sets and subsets.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts a proof by constructing a bijection based on the smallest elements of ##B##. Some participants suggest using induction as a potentially simpler method. Others discuss the necessity of finding a surjection from a finite set to ##B## and question the complexity of constructing such a set.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with different proof strategies, with some expressing uncertainty about the original proof's correctness. There is no explicit consensus on the best approach, but multiple lines of reasoning are being explored, including direct bijections and induction.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the challenge of constructing a finite set ##S## to establish a surjection, indicating that this aspect may be a critical point of discussion.

zenterix
Messages
774
Reaction score
84
Homework Statement
Prove that every subset ##B## of ##A=\{1,...,n\}## is finite.
Relevant Equations
Note that the definition of a finite set is that either a set is empty or there exists a bijection between the set and ##\{1,2,...,n\}## for some ##n\in\mathbb{N}##.
I am very unsure about the proof below. I'd like to know if it is correct.

If ##B## is empty then it is finite by definition.

If ##B## is non-empty then since ##B\subset\mathbb{N}## it has a smallest element ##b_1##.

If ##B \backslash \{b_1\}## is non-empty then it has a smallest element ##b_2##.

If ##B \backslash \{b_1, b_2\}## is non-empty then it has a smallest element ##b_3##

If we keep repeating this procedure, we will eventually reach the empty set after a maximum of ##n## steps.

The reason for this is that we obtain an element of ##B## in each step (the smallest element in that step), and if we were to obtain more than ##n## elements then ##B## would have more elements than ##\{1, 2, ..., n\}## of which ##B## is a subset.

Suppose that we reach the empty set after ##m\leq n## steps. We have ##b_1, b_2, ..., b_m## elements obtained from these steps.

Define ##g:B\to\{1,...,m\}## by

##g(b_i)=i## for ##i=1,2,...,m##

Claim: ##g## is a bijection.

Proof

Suppose ##g(b_i)=g(b_j)## for any ##b_i, b_j\in B##.

Then by definition of ##g## we have ##i=j## and hence ##b_i=b_j##

Thus, ##g## is injective.

Now, let ##i\in\{1,...,m\}##. Then ##g(b_i)=i## and so ##g## is surjective.

Thus we have obtained a bijection between ##B## and ##\{1,...,m\}## and so ##B## is finite.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Using induction might be simpler.
 
For non-empty B it suffices to find a surjection \phi : S\to B for some finite S, since then |B| \leq |S| with equality iff \phi is a bijection.
 
pasmith said:
For non-empty B it suffices to find a surjection \phi : S\to B for some finite S, since then |B| \leq |S| with equality iff \phi is a bijection.
Doesn't finding such a finite ##S## have to go through some procedure like the one in my OP?

That is, don't we have to somehow construct ##S## and isn't that precisely the part of the proof that is the trickiest?

Instead of finding a surjection I found a bijection directly.
 
Induction must be the way to go.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K