My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Real Analysis

Real Analysis Real Analysis Math Forum


Thanks Tree2Thanks
  • 1 Post By mathman
  • 1 Post By Maschke
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
July 9th, 2019, 01:33 PM   #1
Newbie
 
Joined: Jul 2019
From: Brazil

Posts: 1
Thanks: 0

Definition and sets

The following sentence, a set is infinite if and only if the set have a bijection with itself, the negation of the affirmation is true?
A set is finite if only if there doesn't exist any bijection with itself?

The idea is what is a better definition of a bijection in this case.
(Sorry, guys, I don't know English very well.)

Last edited by skipjack; July 9th, 2019 at 03:29 PM.
phytonguy is offline  
 
July 10th, 2019, 06:27 PM   #2
Global Moderator
 
Joined: May 2007

Posts: 6,786
Thanks: 708

Any finite set can have a bijection with itself. For example the elements form a finite list. Reverse the order to form another list. The two lists are in one to one correspondence.
Thanks from topsquark
mathman is offline  
July 10th, 2019, 06:37 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,342
Thanks: 731

Quote:
Originally Posted by phytonguy View Post
The following sentence, a set is infinite if and only if the set have a bijection with itself, the negation of the affirmation is true?
A set is finite if only if there doesn't exist any bijection with itself?

The idea is what is a better definition of a bijection in this case.
(Sorry, guys, I don't know English very well.)

The definition is: A set is infinite if and only if it has a bijection with a proper subset of itself. So for example the set of positive integers is infinite because it can be bijected with the even positive integers via the map $f(n) = 2n$.

Since this is a DEFINITION, it's automatically reversible. A set is finite if (and only if) there is NO bijection with a proper subset of itself.

For example there is certainly no bijection between a set of five elements and any set of 1, 2, 3, or 4 elements. By generalizing that idea, we can prove that each of the usual counting numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, ... are finite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phytonguy View Post
The idea is what is a better definition of a bijection in this case.
A bijection is a one-to-one correspondence. Likewise it's both injective (one-to-one) and surjective (onto). It means you can pair the elements of one set to the elements of another so that each element in one set corresponds to each element of the other set, and vice versa.

For completeness I'll mention that this definition of infinity, that a set has a bijection to a proper subset of itself, is technically called Dedekind-infinite.

There are other definitions of infinite sets that may or may not be equivalent to Dedekind-infinite sets, depending on which axioms of set theory you choose.
Thanks from topsquark

Last edited by Maschke; July 10th, 2019 at 06:40 PM.
Maschke is offline  
July 10th, 2019, 06:41 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,342
Thanks: 731

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathman View Post
Any finite set can have a bijection with itself. For example the elements form a finite list. Reverse the order to form another list. The two lists are in one to one correspondence.
Do infinite sets have bijections with themselves? If they did, would that make them finite?
Maschke is offline  
July 11th, 2019, 01:46 PM   #5
Global Moderator
 
Joined: May 2007

Posts: 6,786
Thanks: 708

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maschke View Post
Do infinite sets have bijections with themselves? If they did, would that make them finite?
Yes, no.

Simple example: infinite set: $a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4....$ Rearrange to $a_2,a_1,a_4,a_3,...$ Bijection by matching by place in sequence.
mathman is offline  
July 11th, 2019, 02:35 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,342
Thanks: 731

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathman View Post
Yes, no.

Simple example: infinite set: $a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4....$ Rearrange to $a_2,a_1,a_4,a_3,...$ Bijection by matching by place in sequence.
So every infinite set is order-isomorphic to the usual order on the natural numbers? How would this work for, say, an amorphous set?
Maschke is offline  
July 12th, 2019, 12:18 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,342
Thanks: 731

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathman View Post
Yes, no.

Simple example: infinite set: $a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4....$ Rearrange to $a_2,a_1,a_4,a_3,...$ Bijection by matching by place in sequence.
Do you think that perhaps the identity function would serve as a better example of a bijection that every set, no matter how weird or exotic, must have with itself?

And what is the relevance of that to the OP's question?
Maschke is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Real Analysis

Tags
definition, sets



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sets, Circularity, and Definition of Set zylo Topology 10 February 1st, 2016 01:14 PM
Open sets and closed sets Luiz Topology 3 July 15th, 2015 05:31 AM
Open Sets and Closed Sets fienefie Real Analysis 6 February 24th, 2015 02:14 PM
minor sets sets problem Jamsisos Advanced Statistics 1 June 21st, 2012 01:11 PM
dx definition. Sawyier Calculus 2 February 10th, 2012 06:17 AM





Copyright © 2019 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.