Is Every Set That Maps Surjectively from Omega Countable?

  • MHB
  • Thread starter evinda
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Set
In summary, we are looking at the proof of a proposition that states $X$ is at most countable if and only if there exists a surjective function $f: \omega \rightarrow X$. The proof is divided into two parts: proving the implication $\Rightarrow$ and proving the implication $\Leftarrow$. In the first part, we show that if $X$ is infinite, then there is a surjective function $f: \omega \rightarrow X$. If $X$ is finite, then we can define an extension of a function $g$ to create a surjective function $f: \omega \rightarrow X$. In the second part, we assume that $f: \omega \rightarrow X$ is a surjective function
  • #1
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
3,836
0
Hello! (Wave)

I am looking at the proof of the following proposition:

Let $X \neq \varnothing$. $X$ is at most countable iff there is a $f: \omega \overset{\text{surjective}}{\rightarrow} X$.

Proof:

"$\Rightarrow$" If $X$ is infinite, then obviously there is a $f: \omega \overset{\text{surjective}}{\rightarrow} X$.

If $X$ is finite then $X \sim n$ for some $n \in \omega, n \neq 0$ since $X \neq \varnothing$.

We define the extension $f$ of $g$ at $\omega$:

$$f(k)=g(k) \text{ for } k<n \\ f(k)=g(0) \text{ for } k \geq n$$

and obviously $f: \omega \overset{\text{surjective}}{\rightarrow} X$
"$\Leftarrow$" We assume that $f: \omega \overset{\text{surjective}}{\rightarrow} X$.

For each $a \in A$ we define $S_a=f^{-1}(\{a\})$.

Since $f: \omega \overset{\text{surjective}}{\rightarrow} X$ the set $S_a$ is nonempty for each $a \in X$.
So there is the $\min S_a$ for each $a \in X$. We define $h(a)=\min S_a$ for all $a \in X$.

For $a \neq b$ with $a,b \in X$ we have $h(a) \neq h(b)$ since $S_a \neq S_b$. So $h: X \overset{1-1}{\rightarrow} \omega$

Thus, $X$ is at most coutable.

I haven't understood why we can define $S_a=f^{-1}(\{a\})$.

We know that if $n \in \omega$ and $x \in X$, it can be $f(n)=x$.

But in this case we take $f(S_a)=\{a\}$.

Do we assume that $\{a\} \in X$ ? :confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Hello! It seems like you are trying to understand the proof of the proposition, so I will try to explain it to you. First, let's define what $f^{-1}(\{a\})$ means. This notation means the preimage of the set $\{a\}$ under the function $f$. In other words, it is the set of all elements in the domain of $f$ that map to $a$.

Now, in the proof, we are assuming that $f: \omega \rightarrow X$ is a surjective function. This means that for every element $a \in X$, there exists at least one element $n \in \omega$ such that $f(n)=a$. In other words, every element in $X$ has at least one preimage under $f$. This is why we can define $S_a=f^{-1}(\{a\})$ for every $a \in X$.

I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.
 

FAQ: Is Every Set That Maps Surjectively from Omega Countable?

What does it mean for a set to be at most countable?

Being at most countable means that the set has either a finite number of elements or can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the set of positive integers.

How is the concept of countability used in mathematics?

The concept of countability is used to classify sets based on their cardinality or the number of elements they contain. It helps in understanding the size and properties of different sets and is important in various branches of mathematics such as set theory, analysis, and topology.

Can an uncountable set also be at most countable?

No, an uncountable set, by definition, cannot be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the set of positive integers. Therefore, it cannot be considered at most countable.

How do you prove that a set is at most countable?

To prove that a set is at most countable, we need to show that it either has a finite number of elements or can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the set of positive integers. This can be done by constructing a function that maps each element of the set to a unique positive integer or by using other methods such as Cantor's diagonal argument.

Why is the concept of countability important in the study of infinite sets?

The concept of countability helps in distinguishing between different types of infinite sets and understanding their properties. It also plays a crucial role in the study of cardinality and the continuum hypothesis, which deals with the existence of different sizes of infinite sets.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top