Prove by Induction (Cardinality)

In summary, the conversation discusses proving the equation |S1 x S2| = |S1||S2| using induction. The expert summarizer notes that the proof involves using the definition of the Cartesian product and applying induction on the cardinality of S1. They also mention that the proof is complete due to the assumption of the converse being true.
  • #1
sessomw5098
8
0
If S1 and S2 are finite sets, show that |S1 x S2| = |S1||S2|.


Here is what I've tried:

Let |S1| = m and |S2| = n.
Let P(k) be true. That is, P(k) = |S1 x S2| = km.

P(1) is true since, if |S1| = 1 and |S2| = 1, |S1 x S2| = 1.

Now, let |S1| = k+1 and |S2| = m. Then, P(k+1) = |S1 x S2| = (k+1)m ??

This is as far as I have gotten.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
sessomw5098 said:
Let P(k) be true. (...)
Now, let |S1| = k+1 and |S2| = m. Then, P(k+1) = |S1 x S2| = (k+1)m ??
This is as far as I have gotten.
Well, you just wrote down the thing you want to prove, so you haven't really done anything :P

Somewhere you're going to have to use the definition of the cartesian product. We assume P(k) to be true, so for |S1|=k we have |S1 x S2|=km. Now we want to show that for |S1'|=k+1 we have |S1' x S2|=(k+1)m. Write [tex]S_1'=S_1 \cup \{x\}[/tex], where x is some element not in S1.

By definition, [tex]S_1'\times S_2=\{(a,b)|a\in S_1',b\in S_2\}[/tex].

But this is equal to [tex]\{(a,b)|a\in S_1,b\in S_2\}\ \cup\ \{(x,b)|b\in S_2\}=(S_1\times S_2)\ \cup\ \{(x,b)|b\in S_2\}[/tex], where the union is disjoint. Therefore,

[tex]|S_1'\times S_2|=|S_1\times S_2|+|\{(x,b)|b\in S_2\}|=km+m=(k+1)m[/tex], where we have applied the induction hypothesis [tex]|S_1 \times S_2|=km[/tex].

Do you understand this? Are we finished with the induction proof?
 
  • #3
I understand it now. My problem was that I wasn't using the definition of the Cartesian product.

Thanks!
 
  • #4
You're welcome. You have used induction on the cardinality of S1. Do you also need to use induction on the cardinality of S2? In other words, do you think the proof is finished now?
 
  • #5
Well, I think the proof is complete because we hold one constant while "inducting" the other. We can assume the converse is true due to "without loss of generality."

Am I right?
 

Related to Prove by Induction (Cardinality)

What is the purpose of using induction to prove cardinality?

The purpose of using induction to prove cardinality is to show that a set has the same number of elements as another set. It is a powerful mathematical tool used to prove statements about infinite sets.

What is the general process of proving by induction?

The general process of proving by induction involves three steps: the base case, the inductive hypothesis, and the inductive step. The base case establishes the statement is true for some initial value. The inductive hypothesis assumes the statement is true for some k and uses it to prove the statement is also true for k+1 in the inductive step.

Why is the base case important in a proof by induction?

The base case is important in a proof by induction because it serves as the foundation for the rest of the proof. It establishes that the statement is true for a specific value and allows for the inductive step to be valid.

What is the difference between strong induction and weak induction?

The difference between strong induction and weak induction lies in the inductive hypothesis. In strong induction, the inductive hypothesis assumes the statement is true for all values up to k, while in weak induction it only assumes the statement is true for k.

How do you know when to use induction to prove cardinality?

Induction is typically used to prove cardinality when the sets in question are infinite and have a recursive structure, meaning the elements can be defined in terms of previous elements. It is also helpful when the sets have a natural ordering or when the statement being proved involves the number of elements in the set.

Similar threads

Back
Top