Set Theory, One to One Correspondence

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around establishing a one-to-one correspondence defined by the function f(m,n) = 2^m(2n+1)-1, which maps pairs of natural numbers (w x w) to natural numbers (w). The original poster questions the nature of one-to-one correspondences and bijections, particularly in relation to the function's injectivity and surjectivity. Additionally, they explore a related problem of finding a correspondence between the closed interval [0,1] and the open interval (0,1) in the real numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to use induction to prove the injectivity of the function but expresses uncertainty about the next steps. They also raise questions about the necessity of surjectivity in the context of the second problem regarding intervals. Other participants suggest methods for finding the inverse of the function and discuss the implications of prime factorization in establishing a bijection.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring various approaches to proving the function's properties. Some guidance has been provided regarding the method to find the inverse, and there is acknowledgment of the challenges in establishing a rigorous proof. The exploration of the bijection between the intervals [0,1] and (0,1) has led to a proposed method that appears to be well-received.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of proving the function's properties and the reliance on unique prime factorization. There is also a mention of the challenges posed by the definitions of one-to-one correspondences and bijections in the context of different types of sets.

moo5003
Messages
202
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Show that the equation f(m,n) = 2^m(2n+1)-1 defines a one-to-one correspondence between w x w to w.

Where w (omega) is a symbol used to represent the 0,1,2,3,4,5,6...

Question: The book defines a one to one correspondence as a one to one function from A onto B. Is this in effect a bijection since its also onto?

Further Question: The next question asks to find a one to one correspondence between [0,1] and (0,1) in the reals. This leads me to believe that the function does not have to be onto since I don't believe it is possible to have a bijection between a closed dense set to an open one. What do you make of this?


The Attempt at a Solution



I keep coming back to induction though it gets messy quickly and I can't seem to resolve some of my problems.

f(m,n) = 2^m(2n+1)-1
Induction on m
Base: Let m = 0 then f(0,n) = 2n

Must show that if f(m',n') = f(0,n) then m' = 0 and n'=n

Proof by induction on n

Base: Let n = 0 then f(0,0) = 0
Suppose by contradiction that m' or n' do not equal 0
Implying that 2n'+1 >or= 3 or 2^m' >= to 2
Implying f(m',n') >or= 1 > 0 Contradiction thus m'=n'=0

Induction Step: n implies n^+ (Successor operation also read as n+1)
f(0,n^+) = 2n^+ = 2n+2 = f(0,n)+2 I'm unsure where to go from here, I assume I need to use my induction hypothesis somehow.

Ie: If f(m',n') = f(0,n) then m' = 0 and n' = n.


ALSO NOTE: This is only to prove that the function is injective, any ideas on how to prove its onto (If needed?)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try to describe a method to find the inverse. If I give you N, how would you try to find an m and n such that N=f(m,n)? Hint: think about the prime factorization of N+1. Once you get that, you may be able to answer the 'onto' question as well.
 
Well if its even then m = 0 and n is given by 2n = N

If its odd then remove as many factors of 2 from N+1 and then n is dictated by whatever odd number is left (or 0).

Problem: I'm not sure how this can be a rigorous proof, we have not proved prime factorization nor do I believe I can just say "remove all factors of 2".

I'll think about it

Well I got the bijection between [0,1] and (0,1)

[0,1] -> [0,1)
1/n for all n in w to 1/(n+1)
Leave the rest

[0,1) -> (0,1)
n/(n+1) for all n in w to (n+1)/(n+2)
Leave the rest

Compose them.
 
Last edited:
Right. That is a perfectly rigorous proof. You've given a perfectly deterministic and unique way of finding m and n given N. And, sure, it depends on unique prime factorization. But I don't think you can do it any other way.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K