2

Definition: $|A|\le |B| \iff$ there exists an injection from $A$ to $B$.

Theorem: For any two sets $A$ and $B$, $|A|\le |B|$ or $|B|\le |A|$.


My attempt:

Assume $|B| \not\le |A|$, I will prove $|A|\le |B|$.

Let $X=\{f:A'\to B \mid A'\subseteq A \text{ and } f\text{ is injective}\}$. We define a partial order $<$ on $X$ by $$f_1<f_2 \iff f_1\subseteq f_2$$

Since $f:\emptyset\to B$ is injective, $f\in X$. Thus $X\neq\emptyset$. For any chain $Y$ from $X$, let $f^\ast=\bigcup Y$.

  1. $f^\ast$ is a mapping

For $(a,b_1),(a,b_2)\in f^\ast$, there are $f_1,f_2 \in Y$ such that $(a,b_1)\in f_1$ and $(a,b_2)\in f_2$. Since $Y$ is a chain, we can safely assume $f_1 < f_2$. It follows that $f_1 \subseteq f_2$. Thus $(a,b_1),(a,b_2)\in f_2$ and consequently $b_1=b_2$ by the fact that $f_2$ is a mapping.

  1. $f^\ast$ is injective

Assume $(a_1,b),(a_2,b)\in f^\ast$. Then there exists $f_1,f_2 \in Y$ such that $(a_1,b) \in f_1$ and $(a_2,b) \in f_2$. Since $Y$ is a chain, we can safely assume $f_1 < f_2$. It follows that $f_1 \subseteq f_2$. Thus $f_1(a_1)=f_2(a_1)$ and consequently $f_2(a_2)=b=f_1(a_1)=f_2(a_1)$. Hence $f_2(a_2)=f_2(a_1)$ and consequently $a_2=a_1$ by the fact that $f_2$ is injective. It follows that $f^\ast$ is injective.

To sum up, $f^\ast$ is injective and thus $f^\ast \in X$. Furthermore, $f^\ast$ is an upper bound of chain $Y$. Thus $X$ satisfies the requirement of Zorn's Lemma and hence has a maximal element $\bar{f}:\bar{A} \to B$. Let $\bar{B}=\operatorname{ran}\bar{f}$. Then $\bar{f}:\bar{A} \to \bar{B}$ is bijective.

I claim that $\bar{B}\subsetneq B$. If not, $\bar{B} = B$. Then $\bar{f}:\bar{A} \to B$ is bijective and thus $\bar{f}^{-1}:B \to \bar{A} \subseteq A$ is bijective. This contradicts our very first assumption that $|B| \not\le |A|$. Hence $\bar{B}\subsetneq B$ and thus $\exists b'\in B\setminus \bar{B}$. It follows that $b'\notin \bar{B}=\operatorname{ran}\bar{f}$.

I claim that $\bar{A}=A$. If not, $A\setminus \bar{A} \neq \emptyset$. Thus there exits $a'\in A\setminus \bar{A}$. It follows that $a'\notin \bar{A} = \operatorname{dom}\bar{f}$. We define $F:\bar{A}\cup\{a'\} \to \bar{B}\cup\{b'\}$ by $F(a)=\bar{f}(a)$ for all $a\in\bar{A}$ and $F(a')=b'$. It's clear that $F$ is a bijection from $\bar{A}\cup\{a'\}$ to $\bar{B}\cup\{b'\}$ and that $\bar{f}\subsetneq F$. Then $F$ is an injection from $\bar{A}\cup\{a'\}$ to $B$ and $\bar{f}\subsetneq F$. This contradicts the maximality of $\bar{f}$. Hence $\bar{A}=A$.

To sum up, $\bar{f}:A \to B$ is injective and thus $|A|\le |B|$.


Does this proof look fine or contain gaps? Do you have suggestions? Many thanks for your dedicated help!

Akira
  • 17,367
  • 1
    Part of growing up, mathematically, is being able to verify your own proofs. – Asaf Karagila Sep 19 '18 at 07:24
  • 3
    @AsafKaragila And part of learning to verify your own proofs is to have your proofs dissected by others in order to know what to even look for. – Arthur Sep 19 '18 at 07:25
  • @AsafKaragila. If that is so, what is the point of the proof verification tag or even peer review? – William Elliot Sep 19 '18 at 07:47
  • 1
    @William: This is not a website for peer review. I don't post my papers from arXiv here to get them checked. The point of the tag, well, that's a different story. What was the point of the [homework] tag back when it existed? Your logic is circular, just because something exists in the system, doesn't mean it's an actual good fit. Proof verification poses "the next" problem to the site, after homework milling. But these are all discussions for [meta]. – Asaf Karagila Sep 19 '18 at 07:49
  • 1
    Looks ok to me. – DanielWainfleet Sep 19 '18 at 08:04
  • Hi @AsafKaragila! Let me tell you my experience that makes me very cautious with my proof even though I initially think that proof sounds good. In this question https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2916466/if-x-is-infinite-then-x-and-x-times-x-are-equinumerous, user Max found a fatal mistake in my proof even though another user Holo commemted that it's good. If I did not post that question, that misunderstanding would follow me for a long time. And I think we all agree that misunderstanding is much more serious than not understanding. – Akira Sep 19 '18 at 08:05
  • @AsafKaragila For you, probably a mathematician or set theorist, these theorems maybe very easy and can not bother you. For you, checking proofs of such elementary theorems are tedious and boring. But for me, a self-studying Mathematics student without any formal class or any formal teacher in Mathematics, proof verification is crucial for me to go forward. If you stand in my situation, i think you will have different comments to my posts. – Akira Sep 19 '18 at 08:05
  • Thank you so much @DanielWainfleet :) – Akira Sep 19 '18 at 08:05
  • @LeAnhDung, the point here is that you've got a comment saying "Yeah, that's good". And you'll get two more. Great. How does this question work for future readers? For someone other than yourself? One thing you might want to learn is that on occasion small mistakes are irrelevant. I made plenty of mistakes over the years, and when you look back, you learn to identify them. Even if you'd think "it's too late", this can be [mentally] fixed. You don't need to post six proof verification questions a day, many of which are somewhat similar. Don't be selfish. Think of others using the site. – Asaf Karagila Sep 19 '18 at 08:16
  • Let me also add that this is not one of those "Oh, pfft, this is easy since I can do it". I had a real struggle learning how to verify my own proofs. And yes, of course it is good to have someone double checking you every now and then. This is why we grade homework, test students, and review papers. But at what point do you say "Okay, I think I can do this now". Stop posting proof verification questions. Instead, post answers to questions (when you find them naturally, don't bump well answered questions from six years ago), and receive feedback on that. – Asaf Karagila Sep 19 '18 at 08:21
  • Hi @AsafKaragila! I must say that less than $5$ of all questions received more than $1$ verification comment. You can check that. Honestly, I have a question for you: How many people actually think Is this question beneficial for other people before they post their question. Most of askers and I participate in MSE with main goal of finding an answer for my and their own questions, not for anyone else. The benefits for the community is just a result of that participation. – Akira Sep 19 '18 at 08:28
  • @AsafKaragila Yes, I must say Typing Latex is time consuming and pain for me besides finding a proof. I DID intended to end this pain of proof-verification posts after I finished building the system of complex numbers. – Akira Sep 19 '18 at 08:28
  • @AsafKaragila I believe that my proof-checking posts do have benefits for other users, not only me. Most of them are well-known theorems. And I presented a detailed proof. They can have a look and learn something. – Akira Sep 19 '18 at 08:31
  • Why are *you* special? The next person who comes looking for a proof of the cardinal comparability will also post a proof verification, and their proof is "just ever so slightly different", and the fifth and the tenth. What do we do with ten practically the same detailed proofs of Zorn's lemma on the site, across 10 different questions? Please, enlighten me, if you think this is "the right way" to go. I understand the importance of this crutch, this helping hand, to learn how to verify your own proofs. But posting these questions helps nobody but yourself. [...] – Asaf Karagila Sep 19 '18 at 08:57
  • [...] This is why I suggested that you post *answers* to questions. There are several questions already asking about comparability. Post this as an answer on one of them. This is not unusual to say "I took this person's answer, and I am writing it in complete detail" (which arguably is still missing some details, because it's not a formal logic derivation, since you want this to be readable by humans). If someone can have a look at your proof and learn something, it's not a question, it's an answer. And why can't you take a look at other answers from years ago, and learn something too? – Asaf Karagila Sep 19 '18 at 08:59
  • Just as we write these comments, tell me how is this question and your similar question are helpful when both are on the site? These are helpful for you specifically, and the OP specifically. Which isn't necessarily bad, but it's a long way from claiming it helps "future readers". There, right there, is a proof that your question did not help enough. – Asaf Karagila Sep 19 '18 at 09:02
  • https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/29119/the-problem-with-proof-verification – Asaf Karagila Sep 20 '18 at 10:28

0 Answers0