I'm studying set theory and met with the following problem: Let set $E=\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty A_i$ be of cardinality $\aleph_1$; show that one of $A_i$ must also have cardinality $\aleph_1$.

I've come up with a proof using basic definitions. But I heard from a friend a very short proof via cardinality arithmetic:

Suppose each $A_i$ has cardinality $<\aleph_1$. Clearly they cannot all be countable. Therefore, we have $$ \aleph_1=\operatorname{card}\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty A_i\right)\leq\operatorname{card}\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty\bigcup_{a\in A_i}(i,a)\right)\color{red}{\leq}\aleph_0\times\max_i\operatorname{card}(A_i)\leq\max_i\operatorname{card}(A_i)\times\max_i\operatorname{card}(A_i)<\aleph_1, $$ which is a contradiction.

Is the proof correct? I don't believe in this proof myself because I highly doubt the validity of the less-or-equal sign marked red.

Edit: I find this less-or-equal sign correct now, because there's clearly an injective function from $\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty\bigcup_{a\in A_i}(i,a)$ to $\mathbb N\times\operatorname{argmax}\operatorname{card}(A_i)$. However, the proof is incorrect, since we are not sure whether there is a maximum cardinality among $\operatorname{card}(A_i)$. Henno Brandsma also points out some important points here (see comments).

  • $\begingroup$ The cardinal after $\color{red}{\le}$ should simply be $\aleph_0 \times \aleph_0 = \aleph_0$ as we can estimate each $\operatorname{card}({A_i})$ by $\aleph_0$. "Clearly they cannot all be countable" is false, it's exactly what follows if you assume $\forall i \operatorname{A_i} < \aleph_i$. In fact that's where we get our contradiction from. $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Sep 27 '20 at 16:35

Well, if $\operatorname{card}(A_i) < \aleph_1$ we know $\operatorname{card}(A_i) \le \aleph_0$. So if the conclusion would not hold all $A_i$ would be at most countable but then $\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty A_i$ would also be at most countable which is a contradiction with it having cardinality exactly $\aleph_1$. That's all.

  • $\begingroup$ Yes, if the first statement is true then the problem is quite easy. But we are not allowed to use the continuum hypothesis here. $\endgroup$ – Jeffrey Wang Sep 27 '20 at 16:36
  • $\begingroup$ @JeffreyWang We're not using CH: $\aleph_1$ is by definition the first/smallest uncountable ordinal, so having a strictly smaller cardinality than $\aleph_1$ implies immediately that it must be at most countable. $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Sep 27 '20 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ @JeffreyWang The continuum hypothesis says that $\operatorname{card}(\Bbb R)= \aleph_1$ but we're not talking about the size of $\Bbb R$ here. CH is irrelevant. $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Sep 27 '20 at 16:39
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm... CH states that there is no set whose cardinality is strictly between that of the integers and the real numbers. I assume that your first statement follows from this. If not, then how? Thanks :) $\endgroup$ – Jeffrey Wang Sep 27 '20 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ @JeffreyWang From minimality of $\aleph_1$ as I said! $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Sep 27 '20 at 16:42

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.