Is the following Proof Correct ? In particular can the argument below be shortened and made more concise.?

NOTE: The argument below makes use of the following notation and theorems.

  • $I_n = \{i\in\mathbf{Z^+}|i\leq n\}$

  • $A\thicksim B\Leftrightarrow$ There is a bijection from A to B

  • A is finite $\Leftrightarrow\exists n\in\mathbf{N}(A\thicksim I_n)$

  • $4.6.6$ Suppose A is a set and $\mathcal{F}$ is a partition of $A$. Then there is an equivalence relation R on A such that $A\backslash R$ = $\mathcal{F}$.

  • (8) If $n\in \mathbf{N}$ and $A\subseteq I_n$, then $A$ is finite and $|A| ≤ n$.

  • (19) Given that $n$ is a positive integer and for each $i\in I_n$, $A_i$ is a finite set and $\forall i\in I_n\forall j\in I_n(i\neq j \implies A_i\cap A_j = \varnothing)$, $\cup_{i\in I_n}A_i$ is finite and $$|\cup_{i\in I_n}A_i| = \sum_{i=1}^{n}|A_i|$$

Theorem. Given that $A$ is finite and $R$ is an equivalence relation on $A$ such that $\forall x\in A(|[x]_R| = n)$, then $A\backslash R$ is finite and $|A\backslash R| = \frac{|A|}{n}$.

Proof. Since $A$ is finite it follows that for some $n\in\mathbf{Z^+}$ there exists a bijection $f:I_n\to A$. Consider now the function $\phi:A\backslash R\to I_n$ defined as follows. $$\phi(X) = \operatorname{min}\left(f^{-1}(X)\right)\ \operatorname{where}\ f^{-1}(X) = \{a\in I_n|f(a)\in X\}$$ The above definition makes sense since given any $Y = [y]_R\in A\backslash R$ the surjectivity of $f$ implies that for some $\alpha\in I_n$, $f(\alpha) = y,$ this together with the reflexivity of $R$ implies $f(\alpha)\in Y$, consequently $\alpha\in f^{-1}(Y)$ so $f^{-1}(Y)\neq\varnothing$, furthermore the Well-Ordering-Principle guarantees the existence of the minimum element.

Assume now that for some $X_1,X_2\in A\backslash R$ such that $\phi(X_1) = \phi(X_2)$. Since $\phi(X_1) = \phi(X_2)$ it follows that $X_1\cap X_2\neq\varnothing$ from theorem $\textbf{4.6.6}$ we know that $\mathcal{F} = A\backslash R$ is a partition on $A$ and is therefore pair-wise dijoint implying that $X_1=X_2$ thus $\phi$ is injective and consequently $A\backslash R \thicksim \operatorname{range}(\phi)$ but $\operatorname{range}(\phi)\subseteq I_n$ thus by appealing to (8) it follows that $A\backslash R$ is finite.

Now having established that $A\backslash R$ is finite , we may invoke the existence of the bijection $h:I_{|A\backslash R|}\to A\backslash R$ and then by appealing to theorem $4.6.6$ in conjunction with 19 we have $$|A| = |\cup_{x\in A}[x]_R| = |\cup_{j\in I_{A\backslash R}}h(j)| = \sum_{j=1}^{|A\backslash R|}|h(j)| = \sum_{x\in A}[x]_R| = |A\backslash R|\cdot n$$ consequently $|A\backslash R| = \frac{|A|}{n}$.


I couldn't follow the whole length of your proof.
I suppose the main reason is poor phrase construction, and for that you have some of my sympathy.
Anyway, you mention, for example the Well-Ordering principle where you're trying to produce a proof about finite sets: there is no need for that and it is clear an overkill.
Below, I present a more concise proof instead.

Given that all equivalence classes have the same number of elements, you have $$A/R = \{ A_1, \ldots, A_k \},$$ where $|A_i| = n$, for $1 \leq i \leq n$ (that is, I'm naming the equivalence classes of $R$ as $A_1, \ldots, A_k$).
It follows that $|A/R| = k$ (the number of equivalence classes) and $$A = \bigcup_{i=1}^k A_i.$$ Since the equivalence classes are pair-wise disjoint, $$|A| = \sum_{i=1}^k |A_i| = \sum_{i=1}^k n = kn,$$ whence $$|A/R| = k = \frac{|A|}{n}.$$


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.