This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: LECTURE 24: CARDINALITY ( Â§ 10.110.2) We have too many high sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them. Abigail Adams 1. Cardinality Revisited We have used  A  to denote the number of elements in A . But for infinite sets this is not precise. Instead, we will measure the size of sets in a more precise way. Notice that A = { a,b,c,d } and B = { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 } have the same number of elements. One way to see this is to create a bijection between them. We can do a similar thing with infinite sets. Definition 1. Two sets A and B are said to have the same cardinality if there is a bijection f : A â†’ B . Note that f 1 : B â†’ A is also a bijection, so this relation is symmetric. We write  A  =  B  . If A and B have no bijections between them, we write  A  6 =  B  . Theorem 2. The relation of having the same cardinality is an equivalence relation. Proof. First we show this relation is reflexive. Let A be a set. We want a bijection from A to itself....
View
Full
Document
This note was uploaded on 03/08/2011 for the course MATH 334 taught by Professor Smith during the Spring '11 term at Vanderbilt.
 Spring '11
 Smith
 Sets

Click to edit the document details