Saturday, 16 March 2019

elementary set theory - The cartesian product mathbbNtimesmathbbN is countable



I'm examining a proof I have read that claims to show that the Cartesian product N×N is countable, and as part of this proof, I am looking to show that the given map is surjective (indeed bijective), but I'm afraid that I can't see why this is the case. I wonder whether you might be able to point me in the right direction?



Indeed, the proof begins like this:



"For each nN, let kn,ln be such that n=2kn1(2ln1); that is, kn1 is the power of 2 in the prime factorisation of n, and 2ln1 is the (necessarily odd) number n2kn1."




It then states that n(kn,ln) is a surjection from N to N×N, and so ends the proof.



I can intuitively see why this should be a bijection, I think, but I'm not sure how to make these feelings rigorous?



I suppose I'd say that the map is surjective since given any (kn,ln)N×N we can simply take n indeed to be equal to 2kn1(2ln1) and note that kn10 and thus 2kn1 is both greater or equal to one so is a natural number (making the obvious inductive argument, noting that multiplication on N is closed), and similarly that 2ln1211=1 and is also a natural number, and thus the product of these two, n must also be a natural number. Is it just as simple as this?



I suppose my gut feeling in the proving that the map is injective would be to assume that 2kn1(2ln1)=2km1(2lm1) and then use the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic to conclude that n=m. Is this going along the right lines? The 'implicit' definition of the mapping has me a little confused about the approach.







On a related, but separate note, I am indeed aware that if K and L are any countable sets, then so is K×L, so trivially, taking the identity mapping we see trivially that this map is bijective and therefore that N is certainly countable (!), and thus so is N×N. Hence, it's not really the statement that I'm interested in, but rather the exciting excursion into number theory that the above alternative proof provides.


Answer



Your intuition is correct. We use the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, namely the prime factorization is unique (up to order, of course).



First we prove injectivity:



Suppose (kn,ln),(km,lm)N×N and 2kn1(2ln1)=2km1(2lm1).



2 is a prime number and 2t1 is odd for all t, and so we have that the power of 2 is the same on both sides of the equation, and it is exactly kn=km.




Divide by 2kn and therefore 2ln1=2lm1, add 1 and divide by 2, so (kn,ln)=(km,lm) and therefore this mapping is injective.



Surjectivity it is even simpler, take (k,l)N×N and let n=2k1(2l1). Now n(k,l), because 2l1 is odd, so the powers of 2 in the prime decomposition of n are exactly k1, and from there l is determined to be our l. (If you look closely, this is exactly the same argument for injectivity only applied "backwards", which is a trait many of the proofs of this kind has)






As for simpler proofs, there are infinitely many... from the Cantor's pairing function ((n,m)(n+m)(n+m+1)2+n), to Cantor-Bernstein arguments by (n,m)2n3m and k(k,k) for the injective functions. I like this function, though. I will try to remember it and use it next time I teach someone such proof.


No comments:

Post a Comment

real analysis - How to find limhrightarrow0fracsin(ha)h

How to find lim without lhopital rule? I know when I use lhopital I easy get $$ \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}...