3

I was told the following, and am having a lot of trouble understanding how this can be true.

Apparently if we have any two arbitrary functions $f:X \to Y$ and $g: Y \to X$ then there exist subsets $X_1$ and $X_2$ of $X$ and $Y_1, Y_2$ of $Y$ such that $X_1 \cup X_2=X$ , $X_1 \cap X_2= \emptyset$, $Y_1 \cup Y_2= Y, Y_1 \cap Y_2 = \emptyset$ and moreover $f(X_1)=Y_1$ and $g(Y_2)=X_2$.

Finally, this can be used to actually prove the Cantor–Bernstein theorem.

Here are my questions, how do we know that such subsets even exist? What would they have to be? Would it be related to fixed points? And even if it is true, how are we able to prove the theorem just from it?

Thanks all for time and help

bof
  • 82,298
Quality
  • 5,807
  • 8
  • 37
  • 76
  • Check out the proof given on Wikipedia, using sequences of elements alternating from $X$ and from $Y$ ($A$ and $B$ on the page). I think it's very clear. – Dustan Levenstein Oct 24 '16 at 00:48
  • I doubt anyone would say one can prove the Cantor Bernstein theorem "just" from this. It would be one step among others, one idea among others in the proof. – Lee Mosher Oct 24 '16 at 00:49
  • Well the professor said it. He is notorious for being overly difficult and unwilling to respond, so to clarify is not an option. This is for an undergrad course, first course in logic. What he said is verbatim what I wrote above. (Only a few weeks ago we began defining what a set and even a function were). I am very confused because I try my best to keep up, and am completely stuck with this. I dont like to make excuses, but I really am not sure this is possible for me to do with my background and what we have learnt in this course or any other for that matter. – Quality Oct 24 '16 at 00:52
  • I don’t offhand know a proof that starts by proving the existence of such $X_1,X_2,Y_1$, and $Y_2$; it falls out indirectly from the proof that I gave in detail here. On the same webpage Michael Greinecker gives another nice proof of the theorem. – Brian M. Scott Oct 24 '16 at 01:06
  • I think the cited theorem does imply Cantor-Bernstein quite directly. If, as in the hypothesis of the C-B theorem, $f$ and $g$ are one-to one, then, after getting $X_1,X_2,Y_1,Y_2$ as in the cited result, you could map $X$ bijectively to $Y$ by $(f\upharpoonright X_1)\cup((g\upharpoonright Y_2)^{-1})$. – Andreas Blass Oct 24 '16 at 02:11
  • Thanks but I still am not sure how to get the bijection after we assume injectiveness – Quality Oct 27 '16 at 15:37

2 Answers2

7

I. Lemma (Knaster–Tarski Fixed Point Theorem). If a function $\varphi:\mathcal P(A)\to\mathcal P(A)$ satisfies the condition $$X\subseteq Y\implies\varphi(X)\subseteq\varphi(Y)$$ for all $X,Y\subseteq A,$ then $\varphi(S)=S$ for some $S\subseteq A.$

Proof. Let $\mathcal F=\{X:X\subseteq\varphi(X)\}$ and let $S=\bigcup\mathcal F.$ First note that, if $X\in\mathcal F,$ then $X\subseteq S$ and $X\subseteq\varphi(X)\subseteq\varphi(S).$ Since every member of $\mathcal F$ is a subset of $\varphi(S),$ it follows that $S=\bigcup\mathcal F\subseteq\varphi(S),$ that is, $S\in\mathcal F.$ From $S\in\mathcal F$ it follows that $\varphi(S)\in\mathcal F,$ whence $\varphi(S)\subseteq S,$ and so $\varphi(S)=S.$

II. Theorem (Banach Mapping Theorem). For any two functions $f:X\to Y$ and $g:Y\to X$ there exist subsets $X_1,X_2$ of $X$ and $Y_1,Y_2$ of $Y$ such that $X_1\cup X_2=X,\ $$X_1\cap X_2=\emptyset,\ Y_1\cup Y_2=Y,\ Y_1\cap Y_2 = \emptyset$ and moreover $f(X_1)=Y_1$ and $g(Y_2)=X_2$.

Proof. Define a function $\varphi:\mathcal P(X)\to\mathcal P(X)$ by setting $$\varphi(S)=X\setminus g(Y\setminus f(S)),$$ and observe that $S\subseteq T\implies\varphi(S)\subseteq\varphi(T).$ Hence, by the lemma, there is a set $X_1\subseteq X$ such that $X_1=\varphi(X_1)=X\setminus g(Y\setminus f(X_1)),\ $ i.e., $$X\setminus X_1=g(Y\setminus f(X_1)).$$ Let $$Y_1=f(X_1),$$ $$Y_2=Y\setminus Y_1=Y\setminus f(X_1),$$ $$X_2=g(Y_2)=g(Y\setminus f(X_1))=X\setminus X_1,$$ and everything is fine.

III. Corollary. (Cantor—Bernstein Theorem). If there are injections $f:X\to Y$ and $g:Y\to X,$ then there is a bijection $h:X\to Y.$

Proof. With $X_1,X_2,Y_1,Y_2$ as above, let $h=(f\upharpoonright X_1)\cup(g\upharpoonright Y_2)^{-1}.$

bof
  • 82,298
1

Let $f:X\to Y$ and $g:Y\to X$ be injections. For $p\in X,$ consider the sequence $$(p,g^{-1}(p), f^{-1}g^{-1}(p), g^{-1}f^{-1}g^{-1}(p),...)$$ which may terminate after finitely many terms (when an inverse fails to exist), or may continue without end.

Let $O$ be the set of $p\in X$ for which the sequence has an odd number of terms. Let $E$ be the set of $p\in X$ for which the sequence has an even number of terms. Let $I$ be the set of $p\in X$ for which the sequence has no end.

Now let $h(p)=f(p)$ if $p\in O,$ and $h(p)=g^{-1}(p)$ if $p\in E \cup I.$

(1A).Clearly if $\{p_1,p_2\}\subset O$ or if $\{p_1,p_2\}\subset E$ then $h(p_1)=h(p_2)\implies p_1=p_2.$

(1B).Suppose $p_1\in O$ while $p_2\in E\cup I.$ Then $$h(p_1)=h(p_2)\implies f(p_1)=g^{-1}(p_2)\implies p_1=f^{-1}g^{-1}(p_2).$$ But if $p_2 \in E\cup I$ and if $ f^{-1}g^{-1}(p_2)$ exists then $f^{-1}g^{-1}(p_2)\in E\cup I,$ so $p_1\in E\cup I, $ a contradiction to $p_1\in O.$

(1C).Therefore $h:X\to Y$ is an injection.

(2A). For $q\in Y,$ if $g(q)\in E\cup I$ then $h(g(q))=g^{-1}g(q)=q.$

(2B).If $g(q)=x\in O,$ then $g^{-1}(x)$ exists and the sequence $(x,g^{-1}(x), ...)$ has an odd number of terms. So $f^{-1}g^{-1}(x)$ exists, and it also belongs to $O.$ So $h(f^{-1}g^{-1}(x))=f(f^{-1}g^{-1}(x))=g^{-1}(x)=g^{-1}(g(q))=q.$

(2C). Therfore $h:X\to Y$ is a surjection.

I think that drawing a heuristic picture, with $X$ and $Y$ as parallel lines, may help you to grasp this.

  • Hi @Daniel! Let $SE(p)$ is the sequence of $p$. In (1B) $SE(p_2)=(p_2,g^{-1}(p_2), f^{-1}g^{-1}(p_2)=p_1,...) \implies card(SE(p_1))+2= card(SE(p_2))$. This implies $card(SE(p_1))$ is even, or $card(SE(p_1))=\infty \implies p_1 \in E\cup I$ (Contradiction). Is my reasoning correct? – Akira Apr 19 '18 at 11:04
  • @DungLe. Yes. Correct. – DanielWainfleet Apr 19 '18 at 21:55
  • Your solution is a very nice variant of Julius König's proof :) – Akira Apr 20 '18 at 05:16
  • @DungLe. See "Introduction To Topology And Modern Analysis" by Simmons. (His notation differs.).... Textbooks seem to vary between this proof and another, which is long & complicated, that I have never tried to read all of.... You may notice that I said "or may continue without end" rather than "or is an infinite sequence" so it is valid in the absence of the Axiom of Infinity – DanielWainfleet Apr 20 '18 at 16:21
  • I'm just recently exposed to set theory. Regarding "or is an infinite sequence", I think that when we mention "infinite sequence", we implicitly appeal to the set of natural numbers $\mathbb{N}$, and in turn appeal to Axiom of Infinity. But I still not get why "or may continue without end" need not to appeal to Axiom of Infinity? Please explain this point in a bit more detail! – Akira Apr 21 '18 at 03:07
  • @DungLe. To explain it in detail would be about a chapter of a book..... – DanielWainfleet Apr 21 '18 at 03:37
  • Anyway, thank you so much @Daniel ^^ – Akira Apr 21 '18 at 03:38