51

Let $X$ be an infinite set of cardinality $|X|$, and let $S$ be the set of all finite subsets of $X$. How can we show that Card($S$)$=|X|$? Can anyone help, please?

James Mitchell
  • 2,456
  • 15
  • 26
yaa09d
  • 1,777

3 Answers3

54

The cardinality is at least $|X|$, since $S$ contains all singletons.

Let $S_n$ be the subset of $S$ consisting of all subsets of cardinality exactly $n$. Then $S$ is the disjoint union of the $S_n$.

Now, for any positive integer $n$, the number of subsets of $X$ of cardinality $n$ is at most $|X|^n = |X|$ (equality since $|X|$ is infinite); because an $n$-tuple of elements of $X$ determines a subset of $X$ of cardinality at most $n$; and every subset with $n$ elements determines only finitely many distinct $n$-tuples of elements of $X$ (namely, $n!$). So $|S_n|\leq n!|X|^n = |X|$ for all $n$.

Therefore: \begin{align*} |X| &\leq |S| = \left|\bigcup_{n=0}^{\infty} S_n\right| = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}|S_n|\\ &= \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}|S_n| \leq \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}|X|\\ &= \aleph_0|X| = |X|, \end{align*} with the last equality since $|X|\geq\aleph_0$.

Thus, $|X|\leq |S|\leq |X|$, so $|S|=|X|$.

Arturo Magidin
  • 417,286
  • 1
    Do I have it right that this requires some choice, as in the absence of AC, the reals could be a countable union of countable sets? – Ross Millikan Mar 15 '11 at 04:02
  • 1
    @Ross: I don't think so. In the absence of AC, you do not know that a countable union of countable sets is countable (the fact that $\mathbb{R}$ may be a countable union of countable sets show shows such unions need not be countable without AC). Here, we are assuming $X$ has a cardinal, and cardinal arithmetic does not usually require AC. Though I worked with $X$, you could simply work with the corresponding cardinals, which are already well-ordered, so that should allow you to avoid AC. But if we don't assume $X$ has a cardinality, I expect $S$ does not either. – Arturo Magidin Mar 15 '11 at 04:05
  • @Arturo: Thank you very much. – yaa09d Mar 15 '11 at 04:22
  • In Schecter's Handbook of Analysis and its Foundations, comparability of all cardinals is equivalent to AC (pg 145) – Ross Millikan Mar 15 '11 at 04:28
  • 1
    @Ross: The statement that for every two sets $X$ and $Y$ there is either an injection from $X$ to $Y$ or an injection from $Y$ to $X$ (sometimes called "comparability of cardinals") is equivalent to AC. However, one defines ordinals without having to have AC, and then one defines cardinals to be ordinals that cannot be bijected with any smaller ordinals. These definitions make sense even in the absence of AC, and all of cardinal arithmetic goes through without needing AC. It is the statement that every set is bijectable with a cardinal (in this sense) that is equivalent to AC. (cont...) – Arturo Magidin Mar 15 '11 at 04:38
  • @ya09d: No; that's not it. – Arturo Magidin Mar 15 '11 at 04:39
  • 1
    @Ross: (cont...) It's the difference between "cardinality" and "cardinals." Cardinals are specific sets, well-defined in ZF. Saying that every set has a cardinality (i.e., is bijectable with a cardinal) is equivalent to AC, as is saying that for every $X$ and $Y$, either $X\preceq Y$ or $Y\preceq X$ ($\preceq=$there is an injection) which is probably what Shecter's saying. (Bernstein's Theorem, aka comparability of cardinals). See also Bergman's handout "The Axiom of Choice, Zorn's Lemma, and all that" at http://math.berkeley.edu/~gbergman/grad.hndts/ – Arturo Magidin Mar 15 '11 at 04:41
  • Thanks. A good set of notes. – Ross Millikan Mar 15 '11 at 05:00
  • 1
    That any two sets are comparable (i.e., there is an injection from one of them into the other) is equivalent to choice. In fact, given any $n\ge 2$, choice is equivalent to the statement that given any $n$ sets, at least 2 are comparable. – Andrés E. Caicedo Mar 15 '11 at 05:02
  • 1
    Arturo, there is at least some choice in this answer. The claim that $|X|\ge\aleph_0$ requires at least countable choice. Furthermore, the cardinality of $X$ is not specified, and Tarski tells us that if for every cardinality $|X|\times |X| = |X|$ then the axiom of choice holds, and you assume even more. So in fact the answer requires full blown choice. – Asaf Karagila Mar 15 '11 at 08:37
  • @Asaf: I always forget the latter; but if we replace $X$ and $|X|$ with an aleph, then surely we don't need countable choice for $\aleph_{\alpha}\geq \aleph_0$. And I'm pretty sure that choice is not required for $\aleph_{\alpha}\times\aleph_{\alpha}=\aleph_{\alpha}$; is it? That's what I meant when I said "replace it with a cardinal". – Arturo Magidin Mar 15 '11 at 12:02
  • @Asaf: Wait: Tarski's Theorem is that |X\times X# bijectable with $X$ for all infinite $X$ is equivalent to AC, right? (I always think of $|X|$ as meaning "the aleph/cardinal to which $X$ is bijectable", but that is probably not standard) – Arturo Magidin Mar 15 '11 at 12:10
  • $\aleph_\alpha\times\aleph_\alpha=\aleph_\alpha$ doesn't require choice, but the fact that $\Sigma_{n\in\omega}\aleph_\alpha$ is well defined requires choice. That is, to show that $|\bigcup_{n<\omega}S_n|=\aleph_0\times|X|$ requires at least some choice: We know that for every $n$ there exist a bijection between $S_n$ and $X$. But to create the couples we need to choose a bijection for every $n$. Thus we need countable choice. – Apostolos Mar 15 '11 at 13:18
  • @Arturo, when you assume that every cardinality is some $\aleph$ number you literally assume choice. Without AC sets which are not well-orderable are not bijectible with any $\aleph$ number (in the sense of initial ordinals at least) and then the point of the $\aleph$'s is somewhat amiss. – Asaf Karagila Mar 15 '11 at 13:43
  • @Asaf: I think we have a clash of nomenclature. I am aware that assuming that every set is bijectable with a cardinal (an aleph) is equivalent to choice. I understand the difference between "equipollence" and "cardinality" is that the latter assumes bijectability with an aleph, while the former does not. With AC, they amount to the same thing, but without AC there are sets that have well-defined "cardinality" (bijectability with alephs) and perhaps others that do not (for which we can talk about equipollence, etc, but not "cardinality"). – Arturo Magidin Mar 15 '11 at 13:47
  • 2
    @Arturo, as far as I've seen the term cardinality means the equivalence class under the relation "there exists a bijection", while assuming AC it reduces to $\aleph$ numbers, and without AC it becomes a different beast altogether. – Asaf Karagila Mar 15 '11 at 13:55
  • 1
    @Asaf: So, I'm using nonstandard terminology. I shall endeavor to stop, then, and stick to "alephs" when I mean cardinals. Thanks! – Arturo Magidin Mar 15 '11 at 14:56
13

This is an old post, but because Arturo's otherwise good answer is a bit cavalier on choice usage and the comments don't make the exact level of choice needed entirely clear, I thought I'd explain my own approach to the question in a ZF framework.

We can establish the following with no well-orderability assumptions:

Lemma: If $X$ is a nonempty set and $X\times X\approx X$ (meaning there is a bijection from $X\times X$ to $X$), then $\bigcup_{n\in\omega}X^n\approx\omega\times X$.

Proof: Fix a bijection $f:X\times X\to X$ and $x_0\in X$. Then we can define

$$g_0:x\in X^0\mapsto x_0$$ $$g_{n+1}:x\in X^{n+1}\mapsto f(g_n(x\restriction n), x_n)$$

Then by induction we have that $g_n$ is an injection from $X^n$ to $X$, and then $$h:x\in\bigcup_{n\in\omega}X^n\mapsto \langle \operatorname{dom}x,g_{\operatorname{dom}x}(x)\rangle$$

is an injection from $\bigcup_{n\in\omega}X^n$ to $\omega\times X$. (We use that $X^n$ for different $n$ are disjoint because $x\in X^n$ implies $x:n\to X$ so that $\operatorname{dom}x=n$.) For the reverse inequality, define

$$j:n\in\omega,x\in X\mapsto(z\in n+1\mapsto x).$$

Then if $j(n,x)=j(m,y)$ we have $(z\in n+1\mapsto x)=(z\in m+1\mapsto y)$ so the domains of the functions are equal, i.e. $n+1=m+1\Rightarrow n=m$, and also $x=j(n,x)(0)=j(m,y)(0)=y$.


Adding an assumption of well-ordering allows us to simplify the statement to what we are after:

If $X$ is an infinite well-orderable set, then the set $[X]^{<\omega}$ of finite subsets of $X$ is equipollent to $X$.

Proof: Since singletons are in $[X]^{<\omega}$ and naturally bijective with $X$, $X\preceq[X]^{<\omega}$. For the converse, we have $X\times X\approx X$ because $X$ is infinite well-orderable, so by the lemma $$\bigcup_{n\in\omega}X^n\approx\omega\times X\preceq X\times X\approx X;$$ thus $\bigcup_{n\in\omega}X^n$ is also well-orderable, so we can reverse the surjection $f:\bigcup_{n\in\omega}X^n\to[X]^{<\omega}$ which maps each function to its range to get an injection. Thus, $X\preceq [X]^{<\omega}\preceq\bigcup_{n\in\omega}X^n\preceq X$.

1

The following arguments require the employment of the axiom of choice,
but no further elaboration is given.

Let $X$ be an infinite set and let $S$ be the set of all finite subsets of $X$.

We can write

$$\tag 1 S = \{\emptyset\} \cup \displaystyle \bigcup_{k\ge1} S_k, \quad S_k = \{A \in \mathcal P(X) \mid |A| = k\}$$

We'll show using induction that each $S_k$ is equipotent to $X$.

The singleton mapping shows that $S_1$ equipotent to $X$.

For the inductive step, assume $S_k$ is equipotent to $X$.
Since there exists an injection of $S_k$ into $S_{k+1}$, $|X| \le |S_{k+1}|$.
Moreover, there also exists a surjection of $S_k \times X$ onto $S_{k+1}$. But then by our inductive hypothesis, $|S_{k+1}| \le |X \times X|$. Since $|X \times X|= |X|$, we've shown that $S_{k+1}$ is equipotent to $X$ and we've completed the inductive step.

Since we know that the cardinality of a countable union of equinumerous infinite sets does not increase, we conclude that

$$ |S| = |X|$$


Note: I worked on this question wearing 'bijective blinders', but the solution might appear too close to Arturo Magidin's accepted answer to merit a posting, so I've made it Community wiki.

CopyPasteIt
  • 11,870