Next: The proof of Cantor's
Up: Finiteness09february2012
Previous: Relations: partial orders, equivalences
For the proof of Cantor's Bijection Theorem, we study the equivalence relation generated by an injection.
So let
be a non-empty set and let
be an injection.
Regard
as a subset of
, so
is a relation on
and denote by
the equivalence relation determined by
.
Proof:
Write
.
Then it is clear from the definition of
that
.
Also it is clear that
.
Since we have that
is the smallest equivalence relation continuing
, we just have to show that
is itself an equivalence relation.
It is clear that
is symmetric and reflexive, so we just have to show that
is transitive.
Since
is symmetric and reflexive, to prove transitivity, it suffices to show that
and
, whenever
,
and
are pairwise distinct elements of
(i.e.
,
and
).
So here it suffices to show that if we have
and
, with
,
and
pairwise distinct, then
.
To prove this, first note that
if and only if
, where
is the ordinary
-fold composition of
with itself; also note that
is an injection.
Similarly
if and only if
.
So now we have four cases to consider:
-
and
, for some
and
in
.
Then
and
, so we get
.
-
and
, for some
and
in
.
Then
and
, so
, so we get
.
-
and
, for some
and
in
.
Then
and
.
Also
, since otherwise, by the injectivity of
we would get
, contrary to hypothesis.
- If
, then
, so we get
, since
is injective, so
.
- If
, then
, so we get
, since
is injective, so
.
-
and
, for some
and
in
.
Then
and
.
Again we have
, since otherwise
, contrary to hypothesis.
- If
, then
, so we get
.
- If
, then
, so we get
.
In all cases we find that
and we are done,
is an equivalence relation, so
.
Now we see that for
and
in
, we have
if and only if
if and only if either
, or
, or
, for some integer
.
So we have that the equivalence class of
is:
Note that
: if
, then
, since:
- If
, then
.
- If
, with
, then
.
- If
, with
, then if
, we have
, so
; alternatively, if
we have
with
, so
.
Also we have
: if
, for some
, then
, since:
- If
, then
, so
- If
, for
, then, if
, we have
, since
is injective; alternatively, if
, we have
, so
and
; in either case, we have
.
- If
, for
, then we have
, so
.
We now make the following definition:
- A progenitor for an equivalence class
, for
is an element
, such that no
exists with
.
Note that an equivalence class may not have a progenitor.
If an equivalence class
has a progenitor
, either
, or
, for some
, since
, with
is impossible (since either
, so
, a contradiction, or
, so
, again a contradiction).
So the equivalence classes with a progenitor
take the form:
(In particular the progenitor of any equivalence class is unique, if it exists).
If an equivalence class does not have a progenitor then the restriction of
to the equivalence class is a bijection, since the restriction is both injective and surjective.
Next: The proof of Cantor's
Up: Finiteness09february2012
Previous: Relations: partial orders, equivalences
George A. J. Sparling
2012-02-09