Why doesn't it come from a cartesian product of sets?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between a specific set defined as $I_A$ and the Cartesian product of sets. Participants explore why $I_A$, which consists of pairs of identical elements from a set $A$, does not arise from a Cartesian product when the cardinality of $A$ is greater than one.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants illustrate that $I_A$ contains only pairs of the form $(a,a)$, while the Cartesian product $A \times A$ includes all possible pairs $(a_1,a_2)$ where $a_1, a_2 \in A$.
  • One participant expresses confusion about why $I_A$ does not come from a Cartesian product and requests further clarification.
  • Another participant argues that if $|A| > 1$, then $I_A$ cannot equal a Cartesian product of two sets, providing a reasoning based on the inclusion of distinct elements in $B$ and $C$ that would lead to pairs not present in $I_A$.
  • A later reply confirms understanding of the explanation provided regarding the relationship between $I_A$ and Cartesian products.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the distinction between $I_A$ and the Cartesian product, but there is some confusion regarding the reasoning behind this distinction, particularly among those seeking clarification.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves assumptions about the nature of sets and the definitions of Cartesian products, which may not be fully articulated by all participants.

evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

There is the following sentence in my notes:

Let $A$ be a set. We define the set $I_A=\{ <a,a>, a \in A \}$.

$$A \times A=\{ <a_1,a_2>: a_1 \in A \wedge a_2 \in A \}$$

Then $I_A$ is a relation, but does not come from a cartesian product of sets.

Could you explain me the last sentence? (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To illustrate with an example. Let $A = \{a_1,a_2\}$ then $I_A = \{(a_1,a_1),(a_2,a_2)\}$ and $A \times A = \{(a_1,a_1),(a_1,a_2),(a_2,a_1),(a_2,a_2)\}$. Clearly they're not the same and as you mentioned $I_A$ does not come from a cartesian product. Look at how $I_A$ is defined, it only contains the couples where both elements are the same. The cartesian product contains all the possible couples.
 
I still haven't understood why $I_A$ does not come from a cartesian product of sets.. (Sweating)
Could you explain it further to me? (Thinking)
 
evinda said:
I still haven't understood why $I_A$ does not come from a cartesian product of sets..
It apparently means that $I_A$ is not equal to a Cartesian product of two sets if $|A|>1$. Indeed, suppose that $a,b\in A$ and $a\ne b$. Then $\langle a,a\rangle\in I_A$ and $\langle b,b\rangle\in I_A$. Suppose now that $I_A=B\times C$. Then $B$ must contain all first elements of pairs from $I_A$; in particular, $a,b\in B$. Similarly, $C$ contains all second elements of pairs from $I_A$; in particular, $a,b\in B$. But then $\langle a,b\rangle\in B\times C$ even though $\langle a,b\rangle\notin I_A$.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
It apparently means that $I_A$ is not equal to a Cartesian product of two sets if $|A|>1$. Indeed, suppose that $a,b\in A$ and $a\ne b$. Then $\langle a,a\rangle\in I_A$ and $\langle b,b\rangle\in I_A$. Suppose now that $I_A=B\times C$. Then $B$ must contain all first elements of pairs from $I_A$; in particular, $a,b\in B$. Similarly, $C$ contains all second elements of pairs from $I_A$; in particular, $a,b\in B$. But then $\langle a,b\rangle\in B\times C$ even though $\langle a,b\rangle\notin I_A$.

I understand... Thank you very much! (Smile)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K