MHB Why do we show in this way that it is not the image of the function?

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Image
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the proof that no set is equinumerous with its power set, focusing on the function f from a set A to its power set P(A). The key argument involves defining a set D that contains elements of A not included in their corresponding f images. By assuming there exists an element a in A such that f(a) equals D, a contradiction arises when analyzing the membership of a in D. This contradiction demonstrates that D cannot be an image of f, proving that f is not surjective and thus establishing that the power set cannot be equinumerous with the original set. The proof effectively illustrates the fundamental concept of cardinality in set theory.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

Theorem:
No set is equinumerous with its power set.

Proof:

Let $A$ be a set. We want to show that if $f: A \to \mathcal{P}A$ (a random function) then $f$ is not surjective.We define the set $D=\{ x \in A: x \notin f(x)\}$ and obviously $D \in \mathcal{P}A$.

We assume that there is a $a \in A$ such that $f(a)=D$.Then we have:

$$a \notin D \leftrightarrow a \notin f(a) \leftrightarrow a \in D, \text{ contradiction}$$

Therefore for each $x \in A, f(x) \notin D$, i.e. $f$ is not surjective.Could you explain me the proof from the point where we assume that there is an $a \in A$ such that $f(a)=D$?We have show that $D \in \mathcal{P}A$ and we want to show that $D \notin f(A)$ in order to show that $\mathcal{P}A$ isn't the image of $f$.
Why do we do it like that? (Worried)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I got it.. We want to show that $D \notin f(A)$.
So we suppose that $D \in f(A)$. That means that there is an $a \in A$ such that $f(a)=D$.

$$a \in D \leftrightarrow a \notin f(a) \leftrightarrow a \notin D$$

So we have found a contradiction..
 
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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K