Set Theory Q: Is |P(A)| = |P(B)| iff A=B? Hints Needed

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the cardinalities of power sets and the equality of the original sets, specifically whether |P(A)| = |P(B)| implies A = B. Participants explore implications for finite and infinite sets and seek clarification on related concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether |P(A)| = |P(B)| iff A = B is true and requests hints for proving the direction |P(A)| => |P(B)|.
  • Another participant asserts that if |A| denotes the cardinality of A, the statement is false, providing an example of two distinct sets with equal power set cardinalities.
  • A different participant confirms that if A = B, then |P(A)| = |P(B)|, but argues that the reverse does not hold, citing examples of distinct sets with equal power set cardinalities.
  • One participant inquires whether |P(A)| = |P(B)| implies |A| = |B| for infinite sets without the Continuum Hypothesis (CH).
  • Another participant suggests that the statement might be equivalent to the Singular Cardinal Hypothesis (SCH) and questions its validity.
  • A participant provides a detailed argument that if |P(A)| = |P(B)|, then there exists a bijection between A and B, using a specific mapping approach.
  • One participant challenges the assumption that the restriction of the bijection to the sets A_s and B_s would hold, providing a counterexample involving equal sets.
  • A later reply acknowledges the correction regarding the bijection, indicating a reconsideration of the earlier claim.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the implications of power set cardinalities on the equality of original sets, with no consensus reached on the validity of the original statement or its implications for infinite sets.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the implications of the Continuum Hypothesis and the Singular Cardinal Hypothesis, indicating that the discussion may depend on these unresolved mathematical concepts.

JonF
Messages
621
Reaction score
1
If P(X) denotes the power set of X. Is |P(A)| = |P(B)| iff A=B true? If so, I have no idea how to prove the |P(A)| => |P(B)| iff A=B direction, so any hints would be great.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
does |A| mean the cardinality of A? If so, it is clearly false. For example: the sets {0,1,2} and {3,4,5} have power sets with the same cardinality but they are not equal.
 
No.

If A = B, then P(A) = P(B) so of course we have |P(A)| = |P(B)|.

But if |P(A)| = |P(B)|, A need not be equal to B.
Just take say A = {1}, B = {2}, then P(A) = {{},{1}} and P(B) = {{}, {2}}, so |P(A)| = |P(B)| but A != B.
 
Does |P(A)| = |P(B)| imply |A| = |B| for infinite sets without the CH?
 
Ok never mind on help trying to prove this, is it even true? I suspect it might be equivalent to the SCH.
 
CRGreathouse said:
Does |P(A)| = |P(B)| imply |A| = |B| for infinite sets without the CH?

Yes.

Any set [tex]A[/tex] is equinumerous to the set [tex]A_s = \{ \{x\} \in P(A) | x \in A \}[/tex]

For any set [tex]A[/tex] Let [tex]f_A[/tex] denote the bijective map from [tex]A[/tex] to [tex]A_s[/tex].

If [tex]|P(A)| = |P(B)|[/tex] then there is a bijection [tex]g[/tex] from [tex]P(A)[/tex] to [tex]P(B)[/tex] and the restriction of [tex]g[/tex] to the set [tex]A_s[/tex], is a bijection from [tex]A_s[/tex] to [tex]B_s[/tex]. Thus a bijection from [tex]A[/tex] to [tex]B[/tex] is given by the composition of functions

[tex]f_B^{-1} \circ g|A_s \circ f_A[/tex]

Where [tex]g|A_s[/tex] is the restriction of g to the set [tex]A_s[/tex] and [tex]f_B^{-1}[/tex] is the inverse of the function mapping [tex]B[/tex] onto [tex]B_s[/tex].
 
Last edited:
CrankFan said:
the restriction of [tex]g[/tex] to the set [tex]A_s[/tex], is a bijection from [tex]A_s[/tex] to [tex]B_s[/tex]
Why do you know that? That's false for most bijections [itex]\mathcal{P}(A) \rightarrow \mathcal{P}(B)[/itex].

For example, suppose that A and B actually are both equal to the set {0, 1}. Then, one example of a bijection [itex]\mathcal{P}(A) \rightarrow \mathcal{P}(B)[/itex] is:

g({}) = {0}
g({0}) = {}
g({1}) = {0, 1}
g({0, 1}) = {1}

Here, the image of [itex]g \circ f_A[/itex] never takes values in [itex]B_s[/itex].
 
I guess I said that because I wasn't thinking clearly. Thanks for the correction.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K