play and relax: games for kids games
  Cut the knot: learn to enjoy mathematics
A math books store at a unique math study site. Learn to enjoy mathematics.
Google
Web CTK
Try our no ads browsing

Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents
Terms of use
Awards

Interactive Activities
CTK Exchange
CTK Insights - a blog

Games & Puzzles
What Is What
Arithmetic/Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Outline Mathematics
Make an Identity
Book Reviews
Eye Opener
Analog Gadgets
Inventor's Paradox
Did you know?...
Proofs
Math as Language
Things Impossible
Visual Illusions
My Logo
Math Poll
Cut The Knot!
MSET99 Talk
Other Math sites
Front Page
Movie shortcuts
Personal info
Privacy Policy

Guest book
News sites

Recommend this site

Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents

Education & Parenting

Manifesto: what CTK is about Buying a book is a commitment to learning Table of content Try our no ads browsing Things you can find on CTK Chronology of updates Email to Cut The Knot Recommend this page

The set of all subsets of a given set is bigger than the set itself

Let there be a set X. Notation 2X stands for the set of all subsets of X. Two sets X and Y are said to be equivalent or have the same cardinality if there exists between them a 1-1 correspondence. We say that X is bigger than Y if they are not equivalent but there exists a 1-1 correspondence between Y and a subset of X. If X is bigger than Y than Y is smaller than X.

We show that 2X is bigger than X in two steps. Firstly, let's consider one element subsets of X: {x}, where xX. Then f(x)={x} is a 1-1 correspondence of X onto the subset of 2X that consists of one element subsets of X. Secondly, assume that X and 2X are equivalent, i.e. there exists a 1-1 g: X2X. Let's show that this assumption leads to a contradiction.

It must be noted that for every xX, g(x)2X. In other words, g(x) is a subset of X, g(x)X. Thus, either xg(x) or not. Let's define the set A={xX: xg(x)}. Now we have an interesting situation. Since we assumed g is a 1-1 correspondence between X and 2X there exists aX such that g(a)=A. It's legitimate to ask whether aA. Let's check this.

If aA={xX: xg(x)} then ag(a)=A. Contradiction.

If ag(a), then obviously, by the definition of A, we have to conclude that aA=g(a). Contradiction again.

The only conclusion we may draw is that our original assumption that X and 2X are equivalent, leads to a contradiction. Hence it's false.

Self-reference and apparent self-reference

  1. Does It Blink?
  2. Apparent paradox
  3. Set of all subsets
  4. An Impossible Page
  5. Russell's paradox
  6. An Impossible Machine
  7. A theorem with an obvious proof

Copyright © 1996-2008 Alexander Bogomolny

29713959Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


Search:
Keywords:


Latest on CTK Exchange
try this puzzle ?/?? + ?/?? + ?/? ...
Posted by albert1950
2 messages
03:40 PM, Aug-26-08

Numbers raised to the power of 0
Posted by Chris Tolley
20 messages
12:17 PM, Aug-25-08

Arbelos : 1) Geometrical Construc ...
Posted by Sundar Krishnan
12 messages
06:29 AM, Aug-12-08

concerning pi
Posted by Lloyd Marks
4 messages
08:25 AM, Aug-22-08

Triangles With Equal Area
Posted by Bui Quang Tuan
5 messages
07:20 PM, Aug-26-08

Coxeter Introduction to Geometry
Posted by WiZaRd
1 messages
09:15 AM, Aug-23-08

site questions
Posted by madisonv
2 messages
04:24 PM, Aug-26-08