Suppose were a surjective function. Form the subset
Since belongs to the power set, surjectivity would give for some . But then holds if and only if , a contradiction. Thus no such function is surjective, and in particular there is no bijection from to its power set. This is Cantor theorem; the argument also applies when is empty.
For infinite binary sequences, use the bijection
with , taking . Conversely, a subset determines its sequence of membership indicators. The power set is infinite, since it contains all singletons, and Cantor theorem rules out a bijection with . Hence it is an uncountable set, as is the set of infinite binary sequences. Equivalently, a proposed enumeration is defeated by the sequence , which differs from its th listed sequence at position . This is the Cantor diagonal argument.
Write and enumerate . Each injective function is determined by the finite tuple . Thus these functions form a subset of the finite Cartesian product . A finite Cartesian power of a countable set is countable: for example, group the index tuples by the maximum of their coordinates, obtaining a countable union of countable sets consisting of finite groups.
There are also infinitely many such injective functions, since
defines pairwise distinct examples. Therefore is a countably infinite set.
Again let with , and enumerate . For each infinite binary sequence , define a function by
The first values make every a surjective function, while the remaining values recover uniquely. Hence is an injective function from the uncountable set of binary sequences into . This proves is an uncountable set, an instance of uncountability of surjections onto a nontrivial finite set.
Partition the enumeration of into the pairs , for . An infinite binary sequence determines a bijection : leave the th pair fixed when , and interchange its two elements when . Each element stays in its own pair, so this function is a bijection, indeed its own inverse.
Different binary sequences give different bijections, since a changed bit changes the action on the corresponding pair. We have therefore embedded an uncountable set into . Hence is uncountable, proving uncountability of permutations of a countably infinite set.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.