Let $A$ be an infinite set and B a countable set, show that $vert A cup B vert = vert A vert$ [duplicate] Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Cardinality of the union of infinite and countable setsLet the set S be infinite, and the set T countably infinite. Show that S and S U T have the same cardinalitySize of infinte sets cardinalityIs this proof for $A,B$ countable $implies Acup B$ countable?Trouble with definition of countable, denumerableProperties of Infinite set on co-finite topology and Countable set on co-countable topologyIf A is an infinite set and B is at most countable set, prove that A and $A cup B$ have the same cardinalityProve that if $A$ is any infinite set, the set of all finite subsets of $A$ has the same cardinality as $A$Show that if $ A cup B = A$ and $ Acap B = A$ then $ A = B$Suppose that $A$ is finite and that $f:A to B$ is surjective. Then $B$ is finite and $vertBvert leq vertAvert$Cardinality of the set of infinite binary sequencesPartition an infinite set into countable setsIf $C$ is infinite and $B$ is finite, then $Csetminus B$ is infinite.
Is high blood pressure ever a symptom attributable solely to dehydration?
When to stop saving and start investing?
What's the purpose of writing one's academic bio in 3rd person?
What is the musical term for a note that continously plays through a melody?
Storing hydrofluoric acid before the invention of plastics
Single word antonym of "flightless"
Antler Helmet: Can it work?
Can a non-EU citizen traveling with me come with me through the EU passport line?
List *all* the tuples!
Why don't the Weasley twins use magic outside of school if the Trace can only find the location of spells cast?
Should I call the interviewer directly, if HR aren't responding?
Bonus calculation: Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?
Is there a concise way to say "all of the X, one of each"?
What is the longest distance a 13th-level monk can jump while attacking on the same turn?
What does the "x" in "x86" represent?
Does surprise arrest existing movement?
What happens to sewage if there is no river near by?
Is 1 ppb equal to 1 μg/kg?
Why does Python start at index 1 when iterating an array backwards?
Letter Boxed validator
How do I mention the quality of my school without bragging
How can I fade player when goes inside or outside of the area?
What is a Meta algorithm?
Can inflation occur in a positive-sum game currency system such as the Stack Exchange reputation system?
Let $A$ be an infinite set and B a countable set, show that $vert A cup B vert = vert A vert$ [duplicate]
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Cardinality of the union of infinite and countable setsLet the set S be infinite, and the set T countably infinite. Show that S and S U T have the same cardinalitySize of infinte sets cardinalityIs this proof for $A,B$ countable $implies Acup B$ countable?Trouble with definition of countable, denumerableProperties of Infinite set on co-finite topology and Countable set on co-countable topologyIf A is an infinite set and B is at most countable set, prove that A and $A cup B$ have the same cardinalityProve that if $A$ is any infinite set, the set of all finite subsets of $A$ has the same cardinality as $A$Show that if $ A cup B = A$ and $ Acap B = A$ then $ A = B$Suppose that $A$ is finite and that $f:A to B$ is surjective. Then $B$ is finite and $vertBvert leq vertAvert$Cardinality of the set of infinite binary sequencesPartition an infinite set into countable setsIf $C$ is infinite and $B$ is finite, then $Csetminus B$ is infinite.
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Cardinality of the union of infinite and countable sets
2 answers
Let the set S be infinite, and the set T countably infinite. Show that S and S U T have the same cardinality
1 answer
Can someone please verify if my proof is correct, and add to it if it isn't?
Since we're given that $B$ is countable, we know $B$ is either finite or has the same cardinality as, say, the set $mathbbQ$. So $vert B vert = aleph_0$.
Similarly, if $A$ is infinite, then we know the result $aleph_0 leq vert A vert$.
This implies that $ vert B vert leq vert A vert$.
Then $vert A cup B vert = vert A vert$.
Am I missing something here?
proof-verification elementary-set-theory proof-writing alternative-proof
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by Asaf Karagila♦
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
Mar 27 at 10:50
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Cardinality of the union of infinite and countable sets
2 answers
Let the set S be infinite, and the set T countably infinite. Show that S and S U T have the same cardinality
1 answer
Can someone please verify if my proof is correct, and add to it if it isn't?
Since we're given that $B$ is countable, we know $B$ is either finite or has the same cardinality as, say, the set $mathbbQ$. So $vert B vert = aleph_0$.
Similarly, if $A$ is infinite, then we know the result $aleph_0 leq vert A vert$.
This implies that $ vert B vert leq vert A vert$.
Then $vert A cup B vert = vert A vert$.
Am I missing something here?
proof-verification elementary-set-theory proof-writing alternative-proof
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by Asaf Karagila♦
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
Mar 27 at 10:50
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
$begingroup$
Please include the original question in the body of your question.
$endgroup$
– coreyman317
Mar 26 at 7:51
$begingroup$
The answer to this question will be practically the same as the answer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/3162848/… .
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Mar 26 at 7:52
$begingroup$
Can explain how you jumped from $|B| leq |A|$ to $|Acup B|=|A|$?
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Mar 26 at 7:54
$begingroup$
Probably quite a few more questions of this nature are to be found elsewhere around the site.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Mar 27 at 10:51
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Cardinality of the union of infinite and countable sets
2 answers
Let the set S be infinite, and the set T countably infinite. Show that S and S U T have the same cardinality
1 answer
Can someone please verify if my proof is correct, and add to it if it isn't?
Since we're given that $B$ is countable, we know $B$ is either finite or has the same cardinality as, say, the set $mathbbQ$. So $vert B vert = aleph_0$.
Similarly, if $A$ is infinite, then we know the result $aleph_0 leq vert A vert$.
This implies that $ vert B vert leq vert A vert$.
Then $vert A cup B vert = vert A vert$.
Am I missing something here?
proof-verification elementary-set-theory proof-writing alternative-proof
$endgroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Cardinality of the union of infinite and countable sets
2 answers
Let the set S be infinite, and the set T countably infinite. Show that S and S U T have the same cardinality
1 answer
Can someone please verify if my proof is correct, and add to it if it isn't?
Since we're given that $B$ is countable, we know $B$ is either finite or has the same cardinality as, say, the set $mathbbQ$. So $vert B vert = aleph_0$.
Similarly, if $A$ is infinite, then we know the result $aleph_0 leq vert A vert$.
This implies that $ vert B vert leq vert A vert$.
Then $vert A cup B vert = vert A vert$.
Am I missing something here?
This question already has an answer here:
Cardinality of the union of infinite and countable sets
2 answers
Let the set S be infinite, and the set T countably infinite. Show that S and S U T have the same cardinality
1 answer
proof-verification elementary-set-theory proof-writing alternative-proof
proof-verification elementary-set-theory proof-writing alternative-proof
edited Mar 26 at 7:51
5xum
92.7k394162
92.7k394162
asked Mar 26 at 7:49
Yousaf05Yousaf05
414
414
marked as duplicate by Asaf Karagila♦
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
Mar 27 at 10:50
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Asaf Karagila♦
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
Mar 27 at 10:50
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
$begingroup$
Please include the original question in the body of your question.
$endgroup$
– coreyman317
Mar 26 at 7:51
$begingroup$
The answer to this question will be practically the same as the answer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/3162848/… .
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Mar 26 at 7:52
$begingroup$
Can explain how you jumped from $|B| leq |A|$ to $|Acup B|=|A|$?
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Mar 26 at 7:54
$begingroup$
Probably quite a few more questions of this nature are to be found elsewhere around the site.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Mar 27 at 10:51
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Please include the original question in the body of your question.
$endgroup$
– coreyman317
Mar 26 at 7:51
$begingroup$
The answer to this question will be practically the same as the answer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/3162848/… .
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Mar 26 at 7:52
$begingroup$
Can explain how you jumped from $|B| leq |A|$ to $|Acup B|=|A|$?
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Mar 26 at 7:54
$begingroup$
Probably quite a few more questions of this nature are to be found elsewhere around the site.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Mar 27 at 10:51
$begingroup$
Please include the original question in the body of your question.
$endgroup$
– coreyman317
Mar 26 at 7:51
$begingroup$
Please include the original question in the body of your question.
$endgroup$
– coreyman317
Mar 26 at 7:51
$begingroup$
The answer to this question will be practically the same as the answer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/3162848/… .
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Mar 26 at 7:52
$begingroup$
The answer to this question will be practically the same as the answer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/3162848/… .
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Mar 26 at 7:52
$begingroup$
Can explain how you jumped from $|B| leq |A|$ to $|Acup B|=|A|$?
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Mar 26 at 7:54
$begingroup$
Can explain how you jumped from $|B| leq |A|$ to $|Acup B|=|A|$?
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Mar 26 at 7:54
$begingroup$
Probably quite a few more questions of this nature are to be found elsewhere around the site.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Mar 27 at 10:51
$begingroup$
Probably quite a few more questions of this nature are to be found elsewhere around the site.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Mar 27 at 10:51
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I am not at all expert in large cardinals, but as far as my understanding goes, once you have proved $|B| = aleph_0$, you then have (assuming that $A$ and $B$ are disjoint) $|Acup B| = |A| + |B| = |A| + aleph_0$, and the arithmetic cardinals is such that adding $aleph_0$ to any infinite cardinal does not change said cardinal.
That being said, this "arithmetic" property is no less than what you are asked to show here, and I think the point of the question is to make you prove that. As @5xum suggested in his comment, you can define an injection $A to Acup B$ together with a surjection $Ato Acup B$ and use the Cantor-Bernstein theorem.
To get a feel for how to do that, I would suggest to try to understand how a bijection between $mathbbN$ and $mathbbN^2$ works.
Also note that without loss of generality, you can assume $B = mathbbQ$ ou $mathbbN$. Indeed since $|mathbbQ| = |mathbbN| = aleph_0$, you have bijections $BtomathbbN$ and $BtomathbbQ$. So if you get a bijection $Ato Acup mathbbN$, you can then use the fact that the composition of bijections is a bijection.
Finally you can assume that $mathbbNsubset A$ (more precisely, there is a subset of $A$ which is in bijection with $mathbbN$). This should help you mimic the construction of the case $mathbbN^2$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The first sentence is self evident. Since large cardinals are a certain type of set theoretic axioms which have a technical meaning to them.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Mar 27 at 10:49
$begingroup$
I must have seen this at some point and forgot about it, hence my confusion thinking large cardinals were infinite cardinals in ZFC...
$endgroup$
– Thibaut Benjamin
Mar 27 at 10:54
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are missing something, yes. You only wrote down the following relations:
$|B|=aleph_0$, a relation that is not even true! There is nothing in the question that prevents $B$ from being a finite set.- $|B|leq |A|$
- $aleph_0leq |A|$
There is nothing here for you to conclude that $|Acup B|=|A|$. For that, you would have to prove that $|A|leq |Acup B|$ (this should be easy) and that $|Acup B|leq |A|$ (this one should prove a little harder, as you need a surjection from $A$ to $Acup B$ to prove this inequality).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks! I see but what if we are given $B$ is a countably infinite set. Would that be enough to say $|B|=aleph_0$?
$endgroup$
– Yousaf05
Mar 26 at 8:09
$begingroup$
@Yousaf05 Since $|mathbb Q|=aleph_0$, yes, of course. But that still leaves you with a lot of work to do.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Mar 26 at 8:10
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I am not at all expert in large cardinals, but as far as my understanding goes, once you have proved $|B| = aleph_0$, you then have (assuming that $A$ and $B$ are disjoint) $|Acup B| = |A| + |B| = |A| + aleph_0$, and the arithmetic cardinals is such that adding $aleph_0$ to any infinite cardinal does not change said cardinal.
That being said, this "arithmetic" property is no less than what you are asked to show here, and I think the point of the question is to make you prove that. As @5xum suggested in his comment, you can define an injection $A to Acup B$ together with a surjection $Ato Acup B$ and use the Cantor-Bernstein theorem.
To get a feel for how to do that, I would suggest to try to understand how a bijection between $mathbbN$ and $mathbbN^2$ works.
Also note that without loss of generality, you can assume $B = mathbbQ$ ou $mathbbN$. Indeed since $|mathbbQ| = |mathbbN| = aleph_0$, you have bijections $BtomathbbN$ and $BtomathbbQ$. So if you get a bijection $Ato Acup mathbbN$, you can then use the fact that the composition of bijections is a bijection.
Finally you can assume that $mathbbNsubset A$ (more precisely, there is a subset of $A$ which is in bijection with $mathbbN$). This should help you mimic the construction of the case $mathbbN^2$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The first sentence is self evident. Since large cardinals are a certain type of set theoretic axioms which have a technical meaning to them.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Mar 27 at 10:49
$begingroup$
I must have seen this at some point and forgot about it, hence my confusion thinking large cardinals were infinite cardinals in ZFC...
$endgroup$
– Thibaut Benjamin
Mar 27 at 10:54
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not at all expert in large cardinals, but as far as my understanding goes, once you have proved $|B| = aleph_0$, you then have (assuming that $A$ and $B$ are disjoint) $|Acup B| = |A| + |B| = |A| + aleph_0$, and the arithmetic cardinals is such that adding $aleph_0$ to any infinite cardinal does not change said cardinal.
That being said, this "arithmetic" property is no less than what you are asked to show here, and I think the point of the question is to make you prove that. As @5xum suggested in his comment, you can define an injection $A to Acup B$ together with a surjection $Ato Acup B$ and use the Cantor-Bernstein theorem.
To get a feel for how to do that, I would suggest to try to understand how a bijection between $mathbbN$ and $mathbbN^2$ works.
Also note that without loss of generality, you can assume $B = mathbbQ$ ou $mathbbN$. Indeed since $|mathbbQ| = |mathbbN| = aleph_0$, you have bijections $BtomathbbN$ and $BtomathbbQ$. So if you get a bijection $Ato Acup mathbbN$, you can then use the fact that the composition of bijections is a bijection.
Finally you can assume that $mathbbNsubset A$ (more precisely, there is a subset of $A$ which is in bijection with $mathbbN$). This should help you mimic the construction of the case $mathbbN^2$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The first sentence is self evident. Since large cardinals are a certain type of set theoretic axioms which have a technical meaning to them.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Mar 27 at 10:49
$begingroup$
I must have seen this at some point and forgot about it, hence my confusion thinking large cardinals were infinite cardinals in ZFC...
$endgroup$
– Thibaut Benjamin
Mar 27 at 10:54
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not at all expert in large cardinals, but as far as my understanding goes, once you have proved $|B| = aleph_0$, you then have (assuming that $A$ and $B$ are disjoint) $|Acup B| = |A| + |B| = |A| + aleph_0$, and the arithmetic cardinals is such that adding $aleph_0$ to any infinite cardinal does not change said cardinal.
That being said, this "arithmetic" property is no less than what you are asked to show here, and I think the point of the question is to make you prove that. As @5xum suggested in his comment, you can define an injection $A to Acup B$ together with a surjection $Ato Acup B$ and use the Cantor-Bernstein theorem.
To get a feel for how to do that, I would suggest to try to understand how a bijection between $mathbbN$ and $mathbbN^2$ works.
Also note that without loss of generality, you can assume $B = mathbbQ$ ou $mathbbN$. Indeed since $|mathbbQ| = |mathbbN| = aleph_0$, you have bijections $BtomathbbN$ and $BtomathbbQ$. So if you get a bijection $Ato Acup mathbbN$, you can then use the fact that the composition of bijections is a bijection.
Finally you can assume that $mathbbNsubset A$ (more precisely, there is a subset of $A$ which is in bijection with $mathbbN$). This should help you mimic the construction of the case $mathbbN^2$
$endgroup$
I am not at all expert in large cardinals, but as far as my understanding goes, once you have proved $|B| = aleph_0$, you then have (assuming that $A$ and $B$ are disjoint) $|Acup B| = |A| + |B| = |A| + aleph_0$, and the arithmetic cardinals is such that adding $aleph_0$ to any infinite cardinal does not change said cardinal.
That being said, this "arithmetic" property is no less than what you are asked to show here, and I think the point of the question is to make you prove that. As @5xum suggested in his comment, you can define an injection $A to Acup B$ together with a surjection $Ato Acup B$ and use the Cantor-Bernstein theorem.
To get a feel for how to do that, I would suggest to try to understand how a bijection between $mathbbN$ and $mathbbN^2$ works.
Also note that without loss of generality, you can assume $B = mathbbQ$ ou $mathbbN$. Indeed since $|mathbbQ| = |mathbbN| = aleph_0$, you have bijections $BtomathbbN$ and $BtomathbbQ$. So if you get a bijection $Ato Acup mathbbN$, you can then use the fact that the composition of bijections is a bijection.
Finally you can assume that $mathbbNsubset A$ (more precisely, there is a subset of $A$ which is in bijection with $mathbbN$). This should help you mimic the construction of the case $mathbbN^2$
answered Mar 26 at 10:19
Thibaut BenjaminThibaut Benjamin
38119
38119
$begingroup$
The first sentence is self evident. Since large cardinals are a certain type of set theoretic axioms which have a technical meaning to them.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Mar 27 at 10:49
$begingroup$
I must have seen this at some point and forgot about it, hence my confusion thinking large cardinals were infinite cardinals in ZFC...
$endgroup$
– Thibaut Benjamin
Mar 27 at 10:54
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The first sentence is self evident. Since large cardinals are a certain type of set theoretic axioms which have a technical meaning to them.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Mar 27 at 10:49
$begingroup$
I must have seen this at some point and forgot about it, hence my confusion thinking large cardinals were infinite cardinals in ZFC...
$endgroup$
– Thibaut Benjamin
Mar 27 at 10:54
$begingroup$
The first sentence is self evident. Since large cardinals are a certain type of set theoretic axioms which have a technical meaning to them.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Mar 27 at 10:49
$begingroup$
The first sentence is self evident. Since large cardinals are a certain type of set theoretic axioms which have a technical meaning to them.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Mar 27 at 10:49
$begingroup$
I must have seen this at some point and forgot about it, hence my confusion thinking large cardinals were infinite cardinals in ZFC...
$endgroup$
– Thibaut Benjamin
Mar 27 at 10:54
$begingroup$
I must have seen this at some point and forgot about it, hence my confusion thinking large cardinals were infinite cardinals in ZFC...
$endgroup$
– Thibaut Benjamin
Mar 27 at 10:54
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are missing something, yes. You only wrote down the following relations:
$|B|=aleph_0$, a relation that is not even true! There is nothing in the question that prevents $B$ from being a finite set.- $|B|leq |A|$
- $aleph_0leq |A|$
There is nothing here for you to conclude that $|Acup B|=|A|$. For that, you would have to prove that $|A|leq |Acup B|$ (this should be easy) and that $|Acup B|leq |A|$ (this one should prove a little harder, as you need a surjection from $A$ to $Acup B$ to prove this inequality).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks! I see but what if we are given $B$ is a countably infinite set. Would that be enough to say $|B|=aleph_0$?
$endgroup$
– Yousaf05
Mar 26 at 8:09
$begingroup$
@Yousaf05 Since $|mathbb Q|=aleph_0$, yes, of course. But that still leaves you with a lot of work to do.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Mar 26 at 8:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are missing something, yes. You only wrote down the following relations:
$|B|=aleph_0$, a relation that is not even true! There is nothing in the question that prevents $B$ from being a finite set.- $|B|leq |A|$
- $aleph_0leq |A|$
There is nothing here for you to conclude that $|Acup B|=|A|$. For that, you would have to prove that $|A|leq |Acup B|$ (this should be easy) and that $|Acup B|leq |A|$ (this one should prove a little harder, as you need a surjection from $A$ to $Acup B$ to prove this inequality).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks! I see but what if we are given $B$ is a countably infinite set. Would that be enough to say $|B|=aleph_0$?
$endgroup$
– Yousaf05
Mar 26 at 8:09
$begingroup$
@Yousaf05 Since $|mathbb Q|=aleph_0$, yes, of course. But that still leaves you with a lot of work to do.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Mar 26 at 8:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are missing something, yes. You only wrote down the following relations:
$|B|=aleph_0$, a relation that is not even true! There is nothing in the question that prevents $B$ from being a finite set.- $|B|leq |A|$
- $aleph_0leq |A|$
There is nothing here for you to conclude that $|Acup B|=|A|$. For that, you would have to prove that $|A|leq |Acup B|$ (this should be easy) and that $|Acup B|leq |A|$ (this one should prove a little harder, as you need a surjection from $A$ to $Acup B$ to prove this inequality).
$endgroup$
You are missing something, yes. You only wrote down the following relations:
$|B|=aleph_0$, a relation that is not even true! There is nothing in the question that prevents $B$ from being a finite set.- $|B|leq |A|$
- $aleph_0leq |A|$
There is nothing here for you to conclude that $|Acup B|=|A|$. For that, you would have to prove that $|A|leq |Acup B|$ (this should be easy) and that $|Acup B|leq |A|$ (this one should prove a little harder, as you need a surjection from $A$ to $Acup B$ to prove this inequality).
answered Mar 26 at 7:58
5xum5xum
92.7k394162
92.7k394162
$begingroup$
Thanks! I see but what if we are given $B$ is a countably infinite set. Would that be enough to say $|B|=aleph_0$?
$endgroup$
– Yousaf05
Mar 26 at 8:09
$begingroup$
@Yousaf05 Since $|mathbb Q|=aleph_0$, yes, of course. But that still leaves you with a lot of work to do.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Mar 26 at 8:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks! I see but what if we are given $B$ is a countably infinite set. Would that be enough to say $|B|=aleph_0$?
$endgroup$
– Yousaf05
Mar 26 at 8:09
$begingroup$
@Yousaf05 Since $|mathbb Q|=aleph_0$, yes, of course. But that still leaves you with a lot of work to do.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Mar 26 at 8:10
$begingroup$
Thanks! I see but what if we are given $B$ is a countably infinite set. Would that be enough to say $|B|=aleph_0$?
$endgroup$
– Yousaf05
Mar 26 at 8:09
$begingroup$
Thanks! I see but what if we are given $B$ is a countably infinite set. Would that be enough to say $|B|=aleph_0$?
$endgroup$
– Yousaf05
Mar 26 at 8:09
$begingroup$
@Yousaf05 Since $|mathbb Q|=aleph_0$, yes, of course. But that still leaves you with a lot of work to do.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Mar 26 at 8:10
$begingroup$
@Yousaf05 Since $|mathbb Q|=aleph_0$, yes, of course. But that still leaves you with a lot of work to do.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Mar 26 at 8:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Please include the original question in the body of your question.
$endgroup$
– coreyman317
Mar 26 at 7:51
$begingroup$
The answer to this question will be practically the same as the answer to math.stackexchange.com/questions/3162848/… .
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Mar 26 at 7:52
$begingroup$
Can explain how you jumped from $|B| leq |A|$ to $|Acup B|=|A|$?
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Mar 26 at 7:54
$begingroup$
Probably quite a few more questions of this nature are to be found elsewhere around the site.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Mar 27 at 10:51