Homepage › Solution manuals › James Munkres › Topology › Exercise 9.7
Exercise 9.7
Let and be two nonempty sets. If there is an injection of into , but no injection of into , we say that has greater cardinality than .
- (a)
- Conclude from Theorem 9.1 that every uncountable set has greater cardinality than .
- (b)
- Show that if has greater cardinality than , and has greater cardinality than , then has greater cardinality than .
- (c)
- Find a sequence of infinite sets, such that for each , the set has greater cardinality than .
- (d)
- Find a set that for every has cardinality greater than .
Answers
Proof. Clearly the function that maps to is an injection. However, we know from Theorem 7.8 that there is no injection from to . Together these show that has greater cardinality than as desired. □
Main Problem.
(a)
Proof. Suppose that is any uncountable set. Clearly is not finite for then it would be countable. Hence it is infinite and so there is a injection from to by Theorem 9.1. There also cannot be an injection from to , for if there were then would be countable by Theorem 7.1. This shows that has greater cardinality than by definition. □
(b)
Proof. Since has greater cardinality than , there is an injection . Likewise, since has greater cardinality than , there is an injection . It then follows that is an injection of into . Now suppose that is injective. Then would be an injection of into , which we know cannot exist since has greater cardinality than . Hence it must be that no such injection exists, which shows that has greater cardinality than as desired. □
(c) We define a sequence of sets recursively:
We show that this meets the requirements.
Proof. First we show that each is infinite by induction. Clearly is infinite. Now assume that is infinite for so that there is an injection by Theorem 9.1. Then, by Lemma 1 , has greater cardinality than so that there is an injection . Then is an injection from to so that is infinite as well by Theorem 9.1. This completes the induction.
Finally, for any we have that so that . Then clearly has greater cardinality than by Lemma 1 . This shows the desired result. □
(d) Let , which we claim has the required property.
Proof. Consider any . Clearly so that the identity function is an injection of into . Now suppose for the moment that is injective. Since clearly also , it follows that is then an injection of into . However this contradicts the proven fact that has greater cardinality than . Hence it has to be that no such injection exists, which shows that has greater cardinality than . Since was arbitrary, this shows the desired result. □