1
$\begingroup$

If the symbol $A\sim B $signifies that there is a bijection between A and B, and We take our sets to be dedekind infinite, then is the following correct? If not, what is the counter example?:$$A \sim B \Rightarrow A \sim B\cup\{x\}$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Which of the definitions of Dedekind-infinite are you using? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 6 at 13:44
  • $\begingroup$ If A is dedekind infinite,then there is an injection (which is not surjective), from A to itself. $\endgroup$ – ArminAshrafi Jan 6 at 13:47
0
$\begingroup$

Assuming the axiom of choice, cardinality is a total order; equivalently, every set is well ordered. Now think of ordinals and each element associated with exactly one ordinal.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The axiom of choice has no business being involved here. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 6 at 13:44
  • $\begingroup$ It could not, but I can. And it works. $\endgroup$ – Lucas Henrique Jan 6 at 13:45
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila isn't it the case that AC is somewhat involved here? math.stackexchange.com/a/1396713 $\endgroup$ – Stupid Questions Inc Jan 7 at 6:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StupidQuestionsInc: No, choice is involved in making sure every infinite set is Dedekind infinite. But here it is given, thus no choice is needed. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 7 at 7:52
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila thank you $\mathsf{AC}$ master $\endgroup$ – Stupid Questions Inc Jan 7 at 9:21
0
$\begingroup$

Let $f : A \to B$ be a bijection, and fix an injection $g : \mathbb{N} \to A$, which exists since $A$ is Dedekind-infinite, and let $a_n=g(n)$ for each $n \in \mathbb{N}$.

Define $f' : A \to B \cup \{ x \}$ by letting $$f'(a) = \begin{cases} f(a) & \text{if } a \not\in \mathrm{im}(g) \\ x & \text{if } a=a_0 \\ f(a_{n-1}) & \text{if } a=a_n \text{ for some } n>0 \end{cases}$$ You need to prove that $f'$ is a bijection.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for answering. This question was asked as I was trying to reason about the Schröder-Bernstein theorem. I unfortunately fail to see the insight(The idea of why you use the methods you do). $\endgroup$ – ArminAshrafi Jan 6 at 13:44
  • $\begingroup$ @user13910: I came up with the solution by thinking about what I knew about Dedekind-infinite sets, and pondering whether any of the things I knew might help me answer this question. The goal was to find a way of turning a bijection $A \to B$ into a bijection $A \to B \cup \{ x \}$. A set $A$ is Dedekind-infinite if and only if there is an injection $\mathbb{N} \to A$, and so 'bumping' all the elements of $A$ in this function opened up a 'gap' that I could fill with $x$. And then fleshing out the details to make this precise led to the function $f'$ that you see in my answer. $\endgroup$ – Clive Newstead Jan 6 at 13:51
  • $\begingroup$ P.S. I've changed the notation in the answer slightly to make it more readable. $\endgroup$ – Clive Newstead Jan 6 at 13:53

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.