Theorem NBFPS

There exist no bijections from Fin(n)\text{Fin}(n) to a proper subset of itself.

Proof: Do induction on nNn\in\mathbb{N}:

  1. Fin(0)=\text{Fin}(0)=\emptyset has no proper subsets. So, trivially, Fin(0)\text{Fin}(0) has no proper subsets bijective to it.
  2. Now suppose there are no bijections from Fin(n)\text{Fin}(n) to a proper subset of it. Then, by the contrapositive of the previous lemma, Fin(S(n))\text{Fin}(S(n)) has no bijections to a strict subset of it.

Rephrasing the above theorem a little bit, one gets the following: if there is a bijection from Fin(n)\text{Fin}(n) to a subset of itself, then that subset is the whole of Fin(n)\text{Fin}(n).

Corollary NoBijFnFk

There exist no bijections from Fin(n)\text{Fin}(n) to Fin(k)\text{Fin}(k) where k<nk<n.

Corollary ifInjthenBij

If f:Fin(n)YFin(n)f:\text{Fin}(n) \to Y\subseteq\text{Fin}(n) is injective, then it is also surjective and, in fact, Y=Fin(n)Y=\text{Fin}(n).

Proof: By Lemma RSIS, restricting ff's codomain to f(Fin(n))f(\text{Fin}(n)) produces a bijection. So, by the previous theorem, it must be that f(Fin(n))=Fin(n)f(\text{Fin}(n))=\text{Fin}(n). But then, by Lemma ISSI, Fin(n)=f(Fin(n))Y\text{Fin}(n)=f(\text{Fin}(n)) \subseteq Y. Hence, Y=Fin(n)Y=\text{Fin}(n) (as YFin(n)Y\subseteq\text{Fin}(n) by hypothesis), so that f(Fin(n))=Yf(\text{Fin}(n))=Y. But this means precisely that ff is surjective.

Corollary FnFkInjthenSurj

If there is an injection from Fin(n)\text{Fin}(n) to Fin(k)\text{Fin}(k) where knk \leq n, then it also a surjection and, in fact, k=nk=n.

 

There is also a surjective analog of Corollary ifInjthenBij.

Lemma SurjInvBij

Surjection produces Inverted Bijection: If f:Fin(n)Fin(n)f:\text{Fin}(n)\to\text{Fin}(n) is an surjection, then there exists a bijection f:Fin(n)Fin(n)f':\text{Fin}(n)\to\text{Fin}(n) such that f(f(y))=yf(f'(y))=y for yFin(n)y\in\text{Fin}(n).

Proof: By theorem's hypothesis, f1(y)f^{-1}(y)\neq\emptyset and f1(y)Fin(n)Nf^{-1}(y)\subseteq\text{Fin}(n)\subseteq\mathbb{N} for any yFin(n)y\in\text{Fin}(n). Thus by well-ordering, for every yFin(n)y\in\text{Fin}(n), there is a unique element min(f1(y))f1(y)\text{min}(f^{-1}(y)) \in f^{-1}(y). So, the following function is automatically well-defined: f:Fin(n)ymin(f1(y))f1(y)Fin(n) f':\text{Fin}(n) \ni y\mapsto\text{min}(f^{-1}(y)) \in f^{-1}(y)\subseteq\text{Fin}(n)

Next, for any yFin(n)y\in\text{Fin}(n), f(y)=min(f1(y))f1(y)f'(y)=\text{min}(f^{-1}(y)) \in f^{-1}(y). Hence, by definition of the set f1(y)f^{-1}(y), f(f(y))=yf(f'(y))=y.

Finally, to show this function's bijectivity, I will instead show its injectivity. That it is surjective will then follow from Corollary ifInjthenBij. So, suppose for y,yFin(n)y,y'\in\text{Fin}(n) that f(y)=f(y)f'(y)=f'(y'). Then, by the definition of ff', min(f1(y))=min(f1(y))\text{min}(f^{-1}(y))=\text{min}(f^{-1}(y')). So, y=f(min(f1(y)))=f(min(f1(y)))=y y=f(\text{min}(f^{-1}(y)))=f(\text{min}(f^{-1}(y')))=y' since ff, being a function, maps values to unique values.

Corollary ifSurjthenBij

If f:Fin(n)Fin(n)f:\text{Fin}(n)\to\text{Fin}(n) is a surjection, then it is also a bijection.

This result is a straightforward application of the previous lemma and Lemma LInvBijThenBij. I leave it for the readers to fill in the relevant details.

Lemma BFxSABFSxSS

Bijection from Fin(n)\text{Fin}(n) to Set Ascends to Bijection from Fin(S(n))\text{Fin}(S(n)) to Superset: Fix an nNn\in\mathbb{N}. If for an arbitrary set XX one has a bijection f:Fin(n)Xf:\text{Fin}(n) \to X, then for arbitrary yUy\in\mathcal{U} such that yXy \notin X, one has a bijection f~:Fin(S(n))X{y}\tilde{f}:\text{Fin}(S(n)) \to X\cup\{y\}.

Proof Sketch: Define f~:Fin(S(n))X{y}\tilde{f}:\text{Fin}(S(n)) \to X\cup\{y\} thus: f~(x)={f(x)if x<nyif x=n \tilde{f}(x)=\begin{cases} f(x) &\text{if } x<n \\ y &\text{if } x=n \end{cases} Now, every xFin(S(n))x\in\text{Fin}(S(n)) is either less that nn or is nn. If x<nx<n, f~(x)\tilde{f}(x) refers to the unique value f(x)f(x) in XX since ff is a well-defined by hypothesis. If x=nx=n, f~(x)\tilde{f}(x) obviously refers to the unique value yX{y}y \in X\cup\{y\}. In both cases, f~\tilde{f} maps each value in its domain to a unique value in its codomain, making the function well-defined. A proof of bijectivity is left to the reader.

Theorem SFnBSFk

Subset of Fin(n)\text{Fin}(n) is Bijective to Some Fin(k)\text{Fin}(k): Fix an nNn\in\mathbb{N}. For every UFin(n)U\subseteq\text{Fin}(n), there is a knk \leq n with some bijection from Fin(k)\text{Fin}(k) to UU.

Proof: Do induction on nNn\in\mathbb{N}:

  1. If UFin(0)=U\subseteq\text{Fin}(0)=\emptyset, then U=U=\emptyset. So, there is a kk, namely 00, and a bijection, namely id:=Fin(k)=Fin(0)xxU= \text{id}_\emptyset:\emptyset=\text{Fin}(k)=\text{Fin}(0) \ni x\mapsto x \in U=\emptyset This function is vacuously well-defined and vacuously bijective.
  2. Now suppose the claim is true for Fin(n)\text{Fin}(n). Consider any UFin(S(n))U\subseteq\text{Fin}(S(n)). If nUn \notin U, then certainly UFin(n)U\subseteq\text{Fin}(n). So immediately, the inductive hypothesis gives a kn<S(n)k \leq n<S(n) and a bijection Fin(k)U\text{Fin}(k) \to U. Now, suppose nUn \in U. Here, U{n}Fin(n)U\setminus\{n\}\subseteq\text{Fin}(n) and the inductive hypothesis gives a kn<S(n)k \leq n<S(n) and a bijection f:Fin(k)U{n}f:\text{Fin}(k) \to U\setminus\{n\}. Lift this smaller bijection to a bigger bijection from fU:Fin(S(k))f^U:\text{Fin}(S(k)) to UU as per the lemma above. Note furthermore that as k<S(n)k<S(n), S(k)S(n)S(k) \leq S(n). Hence, this bijection satisfies the theorem's requirements as applied to Fin(S(n))\text{Fin}(S(n)).

Corollary SFnBSUFk

Subset of Fin(n)\text{Fin}(n) is Bijective to Some Unique Fin(k)\text{Fin}(k): Fix an nNn\in\mathbb{N}. For every UFin(n)U\subseteq\text{Fin}(n), there is exactly one knk \leq n with some bijection from Fin(k)\text{Fin}(k) to UU.

Proof: Continuing from the end of the previous proof, only the uniqueness part remains to be shown. For this, the reader should keep in their minds results about functions shown earlier. So, suppose there is some other k~N\tilde{k}\in\mathbb{N} with a bijection Fin(k~)U\text{Fin}(\tilde{k}) \to U. Now, totality gives either k~k\tilde{k} \leq k or kk~k\leq\tilde{k}. Assume w.l.o.g. that k~k\tilde{k} \leq k; the other case is handled similarly. Continuing, the bijection associated with k~\tilde{k} induces a left inverse ϕ:UFin(k~)\phi:U\to\text{Fin}(\tilde{k}) that is also a bijection. Composing, one gets a bijectiion (ϕf):Fin(k)Fin(k~)(\phi \circ f):\text{Fin}(k)\to\text{Fin}(\tilde{k}). Since k~k\tilde{k} \leq k, it must be that Fin(k~)Fin(k)\text{Fin}(\tilde{k})\subseteq\text{Fin}(k). But Fin(k)\text{Fin}(k) is not bijective to any of its proper subsets. Hence, Fin(k~)=Fin(k)\text{Fin}(\tilde{k})=\text{Fin}(k), so that k~=k\tilde{k}=k.

results matching ""

    No results matching ""