10

From Herstein's Topics in Algebra (exercise 14, section 1.2):

If $S$ is infinite and can be brought into one-to-one correspondence with the set of integers, prove that there is one-to-one correspondence between $S$ and $S \times S$.

So far I know there exists some bijection $\sigma : S \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$. If I can define a bijection $\tau : \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}$, then a one-to-one correspondence between $S$ and $S \times S$ is given by $\mu$ such that $s_\mu = (a_{\sigma^{-1}},b_{\sigma^{-1}})$, with $a,b\in \mathbb{Z}$ given by $s_{\sigma \circ \tau} = (a,b)$.

I'm having trouble defining $\tau$. I think a possible way to do so would be to create some kind of spiral (like the Ulam spiral), and assign each point to a different integer. I suppose this would be a one-to-one correspondence but I'm at a loss on how to prove it. Thanks a lot!

t.b.
  • 78,116

4 Answers4

12

It's a little simpler to find a bijection $\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}$ (e.g., think of the usual proof that $\mathbb{Q}$ is countable). There is also an easy bijection $\mathbb{Z}\to\mathbb{N}$, so you can use that to get a bijection $\mathbb{Z}\to\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}$.

A couple of comments, though: Herstein is only asking you to show that such a bijection exists, not to explicitly construct one. You could do so using any number of tools, including some that are in principle constructive but which you may not want to actually carry out. For example, there are obvious and easy embeddings $\mathbb{Z}\hookrightarrow \mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}$. If you also have an embedding $\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}\hookrightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ you get the existence of a bijection between the two by using Cantor-Bernstein. For instance, you could take: $$(a,b)\longmapsto \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 2^a\times 3^b &\text{if $a,b\geq 0$;}\\ 3^b\times 5^{|a|} &\text{if $a\lt 0$, $b\geq 0$;}\\ 2^a\times 7^{|b|} &\text{if $a\geq 0$, $b\lt 0$;}\\ 5^{|a|}\times 7^{|b|} &\text{if $a,b\lt 0$.} \end{array}\right.$$ So with this you know there is a bijection $S\to S\times S$, even if you don't go through the rather annoying work of trying to write it out explicitly.

Also, it might be worth noting that if you drop the clause "and can be brought into one-to-one correspondence with the set of integers", then the resulting statement is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice (this is a result of Tarski's).

Arturo Magidin
  • 398,050
  • Arturo, actually Tarski's result is that if every infinite set $A$ is equinumerous to $A\times A$ then AC holds. However the bijection from $\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}$ to $\mathbb{N}$ is explicitly defined (as in my answer) – Asaf Karagila Jan 06 '11 at 21:16
  • @Asaf: Notice that I said "if you drop the clause". Take the quoted statement by the OP, and delete the words "and can be brought into one-to-one correspondence with the set of integers"; you get "If $S$ is infinite, prove that there is a one-to-one correspondence between $S$ and $S\times S$"; this implication is equivalent to AC, and the fact that this is equivalent to AC is Tarski's theorem; I thought that the syntax of my sentence made it clear this is what I meant to say. – Arturo Magidin Jan 06 '11 at 21:22
  • Arturo, you are absolutely right! Sorry :-) – Asaf Karagila Jan 06 '11 at 21:24
  • For my intro analysis course, I remember we were asked to prove Cantor-Bernstein. Now that was fun. – TNi Jan 06 '11 at 22:21
  • @TNi: Analysis? Interesting. We prove the theorem in introduction to logic and set theory. – Asaf Karagila Jan 06 '11 at 23:31
  • @Asaf: at least in the US, real analysis courses are often the first place where undergraduates are exposed to set theory; they tend to form the beginning of pure math sequences. – Qiaochu Yuan Jan 07 '11 at 01:22
  • @Qiaochu: In here I'd say that most engineering students (or at least non-math but still scientific students) are usually taking calculus and linear algebra at the same time, and from a high enough level they are required a course in discrete math as well (which is usually given on the second semester). I think, however, that only math level (i.e. math, comp. sci. and the usual derivatives of those) are exposed to Cantor-Bernstein and such. Even electrical engineering students don't go that far, and they are hardly aware that $|\mathbb{R}|>|\mathbb{Q}|=|\mathbb{N}|$ anyway. – Asaf Karagila Jan 07 '11 at 05:50
  • @Asaf: I'll add another datapoint: for math majors at the National University in Mexico, the first course were we discussed $|\mathbb{R}|\gt|\mathbb{Q}|$ was Calculus I; Cantor-Bernstein and the rudiments of cardinality were covered in what is called Higher Algebra I, also a first semester course. (Higher Algebra begins with basic propositional and quantifier logic, basic set theory, basic combinatorics, then natural numbers and induction, integers and congruences, rationals, polynomials, reals, complex numbers; all constructed from the previous one along the lines of Birkhoff-Mac Lane. – Arturo Magidin Jan 07 '11 at 19:09
  • @Arturo: You know, little by little I'm starting to believe that the program in my university is so very different (apparently - even from the most of universities in Israel) but it has a lot more balance in it. Although when you think about it, it's pretty obvious I'm biased :-) – Asaf Karagila Jan 07 '11 at 19:41
  • @Asaf: Which university is it? The Technion? (The program at the National University in Mexico for math majors is, as far as I know, pretty unique; but the situation is (or at least was) very different from elsewhere; in Mexico, you get breadth in the equivalent of High School; once you get to college, you concentrate on your major and your major only, generally to the exclusion of everything else). – Arturo Magidin Jan 07 '11 at 19:45
  • @Arturo: There's hardly any set theory going on in the Technion, and you couldn't have been further (geographically speaking), it's Ben-Gurion, as my profile might suggest. Also I didn't have to take any course outside mathematics (except intro to computer science, and I took another course in theoretical comp. sci). I know it's more or less the same in most degrees in Israel. And yet we study algebra in Algebra, calculus in Calculus and set theory and logic in Set theory & Logic, and discrete mathematics in the Discrete Mathematics course. Not random course titles with plenty of curriculum... – Asaf Karagila Jan 07 '11 at 19:59
  • @Asaf: Yes, I could have checked your profile rather than ask... The reason we did $|\mathbb{R}|\gt|\mathbb{Q}|$ in Calculus was that we started from essentially "what is a real number?" in Calculus; as for "Higher Algebra", it's the equivalent of the transition course of "learning to do proofs", with emphasis on some basic algebra (systems of linear equations, congruences, polynomials, etc). They became less apparently random past the first semester. – Arturo Magidin Jan 07 '11 at 20:02
  • @Arturo: Well, we study those courses together, so it's less of a problem. I think, however, that only in the second year you start to see what is a real number and all that. The first year, as my TA in calculus II said, is very high-level technical for the most of it. – Asaf Karagila Jan 07 '11 at 20:09
8

You can do it the following way:

  1. Define $f\colon\mathbb{Z}\to\mathbb{N}$ to be any bijection (for example, $f(x) = 2x$ if $x\ge 0$ and $f(x) = -2x+1$ otherwise)
  2. Define $g\colon\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N}$ your favourite bijection (e.g. $f(a,b) = \frac{(a+b+1)(a+b)}{2}+a$)
  3. Assume $\sigma$ is a bijection of $S$ with $\mathbb{Z}$ then define: $\tau(s_1,s_2) = \sigma^{-1}(f^{-1}(g(f(\sigma(s_1)),f(\sigma(s_2)))))$

The proof that $\tau$ is a bijection is pretty straightforward, I think.

Of course you can skip many a step in this crazy composition by using Cantor-Schroeder-Bernstein theorem.

Edit:
I think I should expand a bit on the second part, as Arturo said in the comments to the original question. Assume $f\colon\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}\to\mathbb{Z}$ a bijection, and $\sigma\colon S\to\mathbb{Z}$ then you have $\tau(s_1,s_2) = f(\sigma(s_1),\sigma(s_2))$ a bijection from $S\times S$ to $\mathbb{Z}$ and therefore you have both $S$ and $S\times S$ equinumerous with the integers, and therefore with each other.

Asaf Karagila
  • 393,674
1

In addition to Arturo's answer, recall that if you have a bijection between A and B, and one between B and C, you have a bijection between A and C by composition.

0

Hint

The OP's idea of employing the Ulam bijection

$\tag 1 \mu: \Bbb N \leftrightarrow\Bbb Z \times \Bbb Z$

can be used starting with a bijecive correspondence $S \cong \Bbb N$.

The only missing ingredient is to set up a bijective correspondence between $\Bbb Z$ and $\Bbb N$; see this mathstackexchange link for different methods.

CopyPasteIt
  • 11,366