Definition of $S_n$ for Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein Theorem

  • MHB
  • Thread starter evinda
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Definition
In summary, the definition of $S_n$ in the proof of the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem is given inductively, with $S_0$ starting as $A-g(B)$ and $S_{n+1}$ being defined as $g[f[S_n]]$ for all $n \in \omega$.
  • #1
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
3,836
0
Hi! (Smile)

I am looking at the proof of the theorem of Cantor- Schröder-Bernstein, that states the following:

Let $A,B$ be sets. If $A$ is equinumerous with a subset of $B$ and $B$ is equinumerous with a subset of $A$ then $A, B$ are equinumerous. Or equivalently, if $f: A \overset{1-1}{B}$ and $g: B \overset{1-1}{A}$ then there is a $h: A \overset{\text{surjective}}{\to}B$.

Proof:

Let $f: A \overset{1-1}{\to}B$ and $g: B \overset{1-1}{\to}A$.
We define recursively the following sequence of sets:

$$S_0:=A-g(B)\\S_{n+1}=g[f[S_n]]\\ \text{ for all } n \in \omega \\ \dots$$

We define $S:=\bigcup_{n \in \omega} S_n$ and the function $h: A \to B$ as follows:

$$f(x)=x \text{ if } x \in S \\ h(x)=g^{-1}(x) \text{ if } x \in A-S$$
Could you explain me the definition of $S_n$?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
evinda said:
Hi! (Smile)

I am looking at the proof of the theorem of Cantor- Schröder-Bernstein, that states the following:

Let $A,B$ be sets. If $A$ is equinumerous with a subset of $B$ and $B$ is equinumerous with a subset of $A$ then $A, B$ are equinumerous. Or equivalently, if $f: A \overset{1-1}{B}$ and $g: B \overset{1-1}{A}$ then there is a $h: A \overset{\text{surjective}}{\to}B$.

Proof:

Let $f: A \overset{1-1}{\to}B$ and $g: B \overset{1-1}{\to}A$.
We define recursively the following sequence of sets:

$$S_0:=A-g(B)\\S_{n+1}=g[f[S_n]]\\ \text{ for all } n \in \omega \\ \dots$$

We define $S:=\bigcup_{n \in \omega} S_n$ and the function $h: A \to B$ as follows:

$$f(x)=x \text{ if } x \in S \\ h(x)=g^{-1}(x) \text{ if } x \in A-S$$
Could you explain me the definition of $S_n$?
Hi evinda.

You have defined $S_n$ inductively by declaring:

$$S_0:=A-g(B)\\S_{n+1}=g[f[S_n]]\\ \text{ for all } n \in \omega \\ \dots$$

Where exactly are you facing a problem?
 

FAQ: Definition of $S_n$ for Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein Theorem

What is the definition of $S_n$ in the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein Theorem?

In the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein Theorem, $S_n$ refers to the set of all possible combinations of elements from two sets, $A$ and $B$, such that each combination contains exactly $n$ elements. These combinations are called $n$-tuples.

How is $S_n$ used in the proof of the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein Theorem?

In the proof of the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein Theorem, $S_n$ is used to show that if there is a one-to-one mapping between sets $A$ and $B$ using $n$-tuples, then there must also be a one-to-one mapping between the power sets of $A$ and $B$. This is a key step in demonstrating the existence of a bijection between the two sets.

Can you give an example of $S_n$ in the context of the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein Theorem?

For example, if we have two sets $A = \{1,2,3\}$ and $B = \{a,b,c\}$, then $S_2$ would consist of the following 2-tuples: $\{(1,a),(1,b),(1,c),(2,a),(2,b),(2,c),(3,a),(3,b),(3,c)\}$. This set represents all possible combinations of elements from $A$ and $B$ in pairs.

How does the definition of $S_n$ relate to the concept of cardinality?

The definition of $S_n$ is closely related to the concept of cardinality, as it represents the different ways in which elements from two sets can be combined. In the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein Theorem, $S_n$ is used to demonstrate that if there is a one-to-one mapping between sets $A$ and $B$ using $n$-tuples, then the two sets must have the same cardinality.

Why is $S_n$ an important part of the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein Theorem?

$S_n$ is an important part of the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein Theorem because it allows us to show the existence of a bijection between two sets, which is essential in proving that the two sets have the same cardinality. Without the use of $S_n$, it would be much more difficult to demonstrate the existence of this bijection and ultimately prove the theorem.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
915
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
729
Back
Top