MHB Is $B - A$ always similar to $B$ if $A$ is countable and $B$ is uncountable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dustinsfl
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
If $A$ is a countable set and $B$ is an uncountable set, it is proven that $B - A$ is similar to $B$. In the first case, when $|A|$ is a finite integer, the cardinality of $B - A$ remains $2^{\aleph_0}$, confirming its equinumerous nature to $B$. In the second case, when $|A|$ is countably infinite, the same conclusion holds as $|B - A|$ also equals $2^{\aleph_0}$. The discussion highlights that removing a countable subset from an uncountable set does not change its cardinality. Thus, $B - A$ is indeed similar to $B$.
Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
If $A$ is a countable set and $B$ an uncountable set, prove that $B - A$ is similar to $B$.Case 1: $|A| = n\in\mathbb{Z}^+$
Since $B$ is uncountable, $|B| = 2^{\aleph_0}$.
Then $|B - A| = 2^{\aleph_0} - n = 2^{\aleph_0}$.
Therefore, $B - A$ is equinumerous to $B$, and hence $B - A$ is similar to $B$.Case 2: $|A| = \aleph_0$
Again, we have $|B - A| = 2^{\aleph_0} - \aleph_0 = 2^{\aleph_0}$
Therefore, $B - A$ is equinumerous to $B$, and hence $B - A$ is similar to $B$.

Does this work?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What does "similar" mean?

dwsmith said:
Since $B$ is uncountable, $|B| = 2^{\aleph_0}$.
This is wrong. Also, even for finite sets, |B - A| is not necessarily |B| - |A|.
 
dwsmith said:
If $A$ is a countable set and $B$ an uncountable set, prove that $B - A$ is similar to $B$.
There is completely trivial proof if A is a subset of B.
You know that the union of two countable sets is countable.
You also know that $B=A\cup(B-A)$. What if $B-A$ were countable?
 
Last edited:
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top