We have . Are the three sets the
same size? Section 3.1 made “same size” mean “there is a
bijection”, and for these sets a bijection is fiddly to
write down:
has two endpoints that lacks, and is unbounded. An
injection, on the other hand, is easy
in both directions: the inclusion goes one way, and
squeezing
into the middle of goes the other. This section turns
injections into a way of comparing sizes, and proves the
theorem that makes the comparison useful: injections
both ways give a bijection.
Comparing
sizes with injections
An injection places a copy of inside : distinct elements of
go to distinct
elements of , so
has room for all
of . For finite
sets this is the pigeonhole principle read the other way
round (Corollary 3.1.3).
It deserves a name for all sets.
is at most
as big as when
fits into without
collisions.
Definition
3.5.1 (Comparing Sizes)
Let and be sets. We write ,
and say that is at most as big as
, if
there exists an injection . We write ,
and say that is strictly smaller
than , if
and not :
there is an injection , and there is no bijection
.
In words: “”
asks for one injection, of our choosing. “” asks for an
injection and rules out every
bijection, which is a statement about all functions
at once. As
with in Section 3.1 (Definition 3.1.1),
the symbols and
are relations between the sets and . No object is defined for
an infinite set, and nothing here compares two
numbers.
Examples.
- Subsets. If , the inclusion is an
injection ,
so . In particular .
- The degenerate case. For every set , : the empty function (Proposition 1.4.2
(a)) is injective, vacuously, since there are no to
test.
- Finite sets. Let have elements and have elements (Definition 3.1.2).
Then exactly when . If , take bijections
and ; the inclusion
is injective, so is injective by Theorem 1.4.4
(a),
being a bijection (Theorem 1.5.4).
If , there
is no injection by Corollary 3.1.3
(a). So the relation agrees with the count of elements,
which is why it is allowed to borrow the symbol .
- Countable sets. By Theorem 3.2.2,
(i) (ii), a
set is countable
if and only if . “Countable” means “at most as big
as ”.
- Power sets. For every set , . The map is an
injection , since gives
, so
. And
there is no bijection , because by Theorem 3.4.2
there is not even a surjection. In particular .
Non-example by minimal change.
Replace “injection” by “function” in the definition.
Then any set would be “at most as big as” any non-empty
set, by a constant map: would put below a one-element
set. The clause that carries the meaning is “no two
elements collide”.
Warning.
does not mean “there is an injection
that is not
a bijection”. The map is an injection that misses
, and yet .
For infinite sets one injection that fails to be onto
proves nothing about strictness;
needs every map to fail to be a
bijection, which is why Cantor’s theorem, a statement
about every , is the source of our strict
inequalities.
The relation behaves like an order in two of the
three ways. The third is the content of this section’s
theorem.
Proposition
3.5.1 (Comparing Sizes Is Reflexive and
Transitive)
For all sets ,
, :
- (a) ;
- (b) if and
, then .
Proof.
(a) The identity
is injective,
since says .
(b) Let and
be
injections. Then is injective by Theorem 1.4.4
(a). This proves the proposition.
As with equinumerosity (Section 3.1, after Proposition 3.1.1),
we do not call this a partial order: there is no set of
all sets for it to be a relation on (Theorem 1.1.4).
And antisymmetry, the clause (PO2) of Definition 2.6.1,
would say “if and ,
then ”, which
is false: and , while . The right
replacement for “” is “”. That is the Schröder–Bernstein
Theorem below.
Before it, one more way to read . A countable set was
defined by a surjection from , and Theorem 3.2.2
turned that into an injection into . The same exchange
works for all sets, with one exception and one
price.
Proposition
3.5.2 (Injections and Surjections)
Let and be sets with . Then
if and only if there is a surjection
.
The hypothesis is needed for only. For
and
, the
empty function is an injection , but
there is no function at all (Proposition 1.4.2
(b)), let alone a surjection. The proof shows where the
hypothesis enters: a left inverse must
send somewhere in
. The choice in
is
genuine in general, but not for : a surjection
from has least
preimages, a rule, which is how Theorem 3.2.2
went from (i) to (ii) without the axiom.
Quick check. Is ? Give an injection, and
say whether your answer needed Proposition 3.5.2.
Solution. Yes. Send a sequence
to the set . If two sequences give the same set, they
take the value at
the same places, and so the value at the same places too;
hence they are equal (Proposition 1.4.1),
and the map is injective. No appeal to Proposition 3.5.2
is needed: the definition asks for an injection, and we
wrote one down. (The map is in fact a bijection, with
inverse ; this is the correspondence of Section
1.4, recalled after Corollary 3.4.3.)
The
Schröder–Bernstein Theorem
Here is the replacement for antisymmetry. To show two
sets are the same size, it is enough to fit each into
the other.
Theorem
3.5.3 (Schröder–Bernstein Theorem)
Let and be sets. If and
, then .
Idea. Let and
be
the two injections. We want a bijection , and at
each there
are two candidates: go forward, , or go back
along : let be the unique with . Going back is
possible only for . So a point of not hit by
must be
sent forward by .
Then the point is used up, and must not go back
to it, or would
collide; so
must also be sent forward, and then , and so on
along the chain. Everything reached this way goes
forward; everything else goes back.
Step roadmap.
① Build the set of points that are forced forward:
, , .
② Define on ,
and let be the
unique with off .
③ Show is
injective; the only case with content is one point of
each kind.
④ Show is
onto: for ,
look at and
ask whether it lies in .
Before reading on: in step ④, why is , and what
does that buy?
Proof. Let and
be
injections.
Step 1. By Theorem 2.3.1,
applied with the set , the
starting value and the function
from to , there are
sets , for , with Here and are
images (Definition 1.6.1).
Let (Definition 1.2.4).
Two facts about
will be used.
(F1) If ,
then .
Indeed
for some ;
then , so .
(F2) If , there is exactly one with . It exists
because and , so . It is unique
because is
injective.
Step 2. Define by Each falls under exactly one case, and in each
case the value exists and is unique (in the second case
by (F2)), so is a
function. Note that whenever .
Step 3.
Proof of Claim. Let with
.
Case 1: . Then , and because is injective.
Case 2: . Then .
Case 3: and . Then ,
so . By (F1), , so , a
contradiction. So this case does not occur.
The case , is Case 3 with the roles of and swapped. Hence
in every
case that occurs.
Step 4.
Proof of Claim. Let , and consider
.
Case 1: . Then is the unique
element of whose
image under is
, and is such an element. So
.
Case 2: . Then for some . Since , we have , so . By Lemma 2.1.1
(c), , and . By Definition 1.6.1
there is with , and
then with
. As
is injective,
.
Since , .
In both cases
is a value of .
By the two claims, is a bijection, so . This
proves the theorem.
The answer to the prompt: is a value of , and consists exactly of
the points of
that are not values of . That is what pushes
the index of Case
2 up to at least ,
so that has a
predecessor in its chain, and is reached by from that
predecessor.
Every value of
is given by a rule, so the proof makes no use of
Axiom 3.3.1:
Step 1 is a recursion with an explicit step, and Step 2
picks the unique preimage, where there is nothing to
choose. The case split “ or ” is an instance of excluded middle, the
classical step discussed in Logic and Proof,
Section 8.7; nothing in the proof decides which case
holds for a given , and nothing needs
to.
Each hypothesis is used. Without the injection , the conclusion fails:
, , is an injection, and by Theorem 3.4.2.
In the proof, injectivity of is used once, in Case 1
of Step 3, and injectivity of twice, in (F2) and in
Case 2 of Step 4.
Intervals
of real numbers
The theorem’s first use is the question of the
opening frame.
Example
(The closed and the open unit interval)
Show that : first with Theorem 3.5.3,
then by writing down a bijection.
Solution. With the
theorem. The inclusion is an
injection. In the other direction let
for .
If ,
then , so , and is a function . It is
injective: gives . By Theorem 3.5.3,
.
A bijection. The two extra points and are absorbed by a
Hilbert’s hotel (Example (Hilbert’s Hotel))
run on the points . Define by The cases do not overlap, since , and in the
second case
is determined by ;
so is a
function, with values in because . Let and . Then
maps onto : , and
runs through .
It is injective on , since forces , and . Off it is the identity of
. Since both unions disjoint, is a bijection,
and . For instance ,
, .
The first route took two lines and the second took a
paragraph. That is the point of the theorem: we never
had to find .
The second interval computation turns an unbounded
set into a bounded one.
Example
(The real line and its intervals)
Show that is a bijection . Deduce
that every open interval with is equinumerous with , and then that every
interval with more than one point is.
Solution. The bijection.
Let for ; the denominator is at least , so is defined, and
, so . For
let
; here . We check that is a two-sided inverse.
For ,
, so For , , so By Theorem 1.5.4,
is a bijection
.
For example and .
Open intervals. The map is a
bijection , with inverse . For , the map is
a bijection , with inverse , since . Composing
the three bijections (Theorem 1.4.4
(c)) gives a bijection , so .
Every interval with more than one point. Let
be an interval
(bounded or not, with or without its endpoints)
containing two points . An interval contains every number between
two of its points, so . The inclusion is an
injection . In the other direction, let be the bijection just built; then restricted to is an injection . By Theorem 3.5.3,
, and , so by
Proposition 3.1.1.
This covers ,
, , and itself at once.
In particular every interval with more than one point
is uncountable: it is equinumerous with , which is uncountable
by Theorem 3.4.4,
and a set equinumerous with a countable set is countable
(compose a surjection from with the bijection,
Proposition 3.2.4).
Warning. Injections both ways do
not make either injection a bijection. On , is an
injection in both directions, and it is not onto:
is never a value.
Theorem 3.5.3
builds a new map out of and ; it says nothing about
or themselves. In Example (The closed and the open unit interval),
misses , and the bijection is a different map.
Quick check. Give an injection
and an injection .
What does Theorem 3.5.3
conclude?
Solution. is
injective, by the characteristic property of pairs (Definition 1.3.1).
is injective, as shown in the proof of Theorem 3.2.6.
So , and is
countably infinite (Definition 3.2.2).
Section 3.2 showed only that is
countable; the theorem gives a bijection with directly, with no
listing at all.
Exercises
A. Check your
understanding
Exercise
(A1)
These parts are about the proof of Theorem 3.5.3.
- (a) In Step 4, Case
2, why is , and what would go wrong without it?
- (b) Run the
construction for and . Compute , and , and the values .
- (c) Where is the
injectivity of
used?
- (d) Give the idea of
the proof in two sentences.
Solution.
(a)
consists of the points that are not values of , and is a value of . Without it the index
with could be
, and then there
would be no
to find a predecessor in, so no with .
(b) , so
is the set of odd numbers. . In general
, so by induction on , and is the set of numbers
with and odd. Now:
- ,
since
for odd ( and ). So is the with : , a fixed
point.
- , so
.
- : for
, is not odd; for , . So
is the with : .
- , so
.
- , so .
(c) In Step 3,
Case 1: from with it concludes .
(d) Points of
that does not reach must be
sent forward by ,
and so must everything reached from them by repeating
; this is
the set . Every
other point of is
a value of and is
sent back to its unique preimage, and the two halves fit
together into a bijection.
B. Practice
Exercise
(B1: Injections both ways)
Prove each of the following by giving an injection in
each direction and applying Theorem 3.5.3.
- (a) .
- (b) .
- (c) .
Solution.
(a) The inclusion
is
injective. In the other direction, is a bijection by Example (The real line and its intervals),
so it is an injection , as .
(b) is an
injection , by the characteristic property of pairs
(Definition 1.3.1).
In the other direction, let be
for and
for . Its values are in , even for and odd for ; since no
natural number is both even and odd (Theorem 2.2.3,
uniqueness), forces and to have the same
sign, and then . So is injective, and so is
. Following it by the injection
from the proof of Theorem 3.2.6
gives an injection (Theorem 1.4.4
(a)).
(c) The inclusion
is injective. The map is
injective and sends into .
Hence, by Theorem 3.5.3,
the three equalities hold.
Exercise
(B2: A proper subset of the same size)
Give an example of sets with , such
that is
uncountable and is uncountable. Check each property, and list
the properties any answer must have.
Solution. An answer must
have: (1) ; (2) ; (3) a bijection
, or
injections both ways; (4) uncountable; (5)
uncountable. (Then is uncountable too,
since it contains , by Proposition 3.2.3.)
Example: , . (1) and (2):
and . (3): is a bijection , with
inverse . (4) and (5): and
are intervals with more than one point, hence
equinumerous with by Example (The real line and its intervals),
hence uncountable, as shown after it.
Another correct answer: , , with uncountable. Any
answer can be checked against (1)–(5).
Exercise
(B3: Interleaving two sequences)
Prove that by an explicit bijection.
Hint: put one sequence in the even places and the
other in the odd places.
Solution. Every is or for exactly one
, and not
both (Theorem 2.2.3
with divisor , the
quotient in , as
in the proof of Proposition 3.2.5).
So for we may define by Define by
with and . Then : its coordinates
and are
and by Proposition 1.4.1,
so the pairs are equal (Definition 1.3.1).
And
agrees with at
every even place
and every odd place , which are all the places, so (Proposition 1.4.1).
By Theorem 1.5.4,
is a
bijection.
C. Going deeper
Exercise
(C1: The real line and the subsets of )
Prove that , using the decimal facts
(D1)–(D3) of Section 3.4.
- (a) For let be its
decimal expansion that does not end in all s, and let . Show that is a well-defined
injection .
- (b) For let be the number with
decimal expansion , where if
and if
, for
. Show
that
is a well-defined injection .
- (c) Conclude.
Solution (Hint 1). The tools are
the decimal facts (D1)–(D3), and Theorem 2.2.3
with divisor for
reading digits back out of .
Solution (Hint 2). Begin (a) with:
“By (D1), has an
expansion that does not end in all s, and by (D3) it has
only one.”
Solution.
- (a) Well
defined. By (D1), has an expansion not
ending in all s.
It has only one: if two different expansions of both failed to end in
all s, (D3) would
make one of them end in all s. So is
determined by ,
and because .
Injective. By Theorem 2.2.3
with divisor ,
the number , with , has quotient and remainder , and these are
unique. So for each , the only element of with quotient is , and determines every
digit . If , then
and have the same
expansion , and by the uniqueness half of (D2) a
digit sequence is an expansion of exactly one number; so
.
- (b) Well
defined. By (D2), the digit sequence is an
expansion of exactly one . With as in Definition 3.4.1,
,
so .
Injective. Let , say or .
Then the two digit sequences differ at place . Neither contains a
or a , so neither ends in all
s or in all s. If , the
number would have two different expansions, and by (D3)
one would end in all s, which is false. So
.
The index shift is there so that
whether is
recorded too, in the first digit.
- (c) By (a), (b) and
Theorem 3.5.3,
. By Example (The real line and its intervals),
, an interval
with more than one point, has . By Proposition 3.1.1,
.
Marking scheme. (10 points) - 2:
shows the expansion in (a) is unique, citing (D1) and
(D3), so is a
function. - 2: shows is injective: the set
determines each digit, and one digit sequence names one
number (D2). - 2: shows exists, is unique and
lies in . -
2: shows is injective, using that the digits avoid
and and (D3). - 2: applies
Theorem 3.5.3
and passes from to
with a cited bijection or injections both ways. Fatal
errors (0 for the step): treating “the expansion of
” as unique
without (D1) and (D3); concluding from
different digit sequences without ruling out the
case.
Exercise
(C2: Find the error)
Here is a proof that .
Proof. (1) Let , .
For
we have , so
does map into . (2) If , then , so ; hence
is injective. (3) The inclusion is injective. (4) So there are injections in
both directions between and . (5) Therefore is a bijection, and
.
Is the conclusion true? Does the argument prove it?
If not, name the line that fails, say why, and give a
counterexample to the step it takes.
Solution. The conclusion is
true: Example (The closed and the open unit interval)
proves it twice.
The argument does not prove it. Lines
(1)–(4) are correct. Line (5) fails: it infers that a
particular injection is a bijection from the existence
of injections both ways. The step cites a general
“fact”, that injections both ways make a given injection
a bijection. That fact is neither proved nor a school
fact, and it is false, so the line cites nothing: entry
(N9) of Logic and Proof, Example (What is not allowed).
And is in fact
not onto: is not a value, since every value lies
in .
Counterexample to the step. Take and .
These are injections both ways, and the step would
conclude that is a bijection ; but is not a value.
Repair. Replace line (5) by: “By Theorem 3.5.3,
.” The theorem produces a bijection, but a
different one, built from both and .