Previously, we showed that bijections preserve sets in a rather friendly manner. We almost have the necessary groundwork to discuss cardinality.
The idea is that cardinality should match (i.e. be consistent) with our notion of size as “number of items” is a consistent (i.e. well-defined) notion, at least for finite sets.
Lemma 1. For any , if
, then
implies
.
Proof. We will prove this result by induction.
Base case: Suppose . If
, then the transitivity of
yields
. Let
denote a bijection, which must be the empty function
defined by
. In particular,
. Now, if
, then
contains the element
and thus
, a contradiction. This means that
, as required.
Induction step: Fix . Suppose
and
. We need to show that
. Firstly,
implies that
, otherwise
, a contradiction. Let
be relevant bijections. In particular, there exists
such that
.
Define and
. Then
via the bijection
defined by
By construction and the transitivity of ,
. By the induction hypothesis, since
, we have
, which simplifies to
, as required.
Now, we are ready to define cardinality. Define for any
, and
, pronounced aleph-naught.
Definition 1. Let be a countable set. Suppose
for sets
of the form
or
. Define the cardinality of
by
.
Theorem 1. For any and distinct elements
,
.
Proof. Construct the bijection by
.
All this shows us is that finite cardinality makes sense. What about infinite cardinality? This is where the fun begins.
—Joel Kindiak, 6 Nov 24, 1121H
Leave a comment