I'm trying to prove that for any cardinal numbers a,b,c, the following holds:
ab+c=abac i.e. that there exists a bijective function f:AB∪C→AB×AC
This is only part of the proof sketch I have (proving f is injective), and I'd like to know if is well written, since I believe it has flaws.
Let f:{g|g:B∪C→A}→{⟨g,h⟩|g:B→A∧h:C→A} such that
f(gb∪gc)=⟨gb,gc⟩.
Now,
f(gb1∪gc1)=f(gb2∪gc2)⟹⟨gb1,gc1⟩=⟨gb2,gc2⟩ and therefore f is injective.
Questions:
- Does that prove that f is injective? I think it does not, since
f(gb∪gc)=f(gc∪gb)⟹⟨gb,gc⟩=⟨gc,gb⟩(⊥) - Is there an alternative way to define f? It's difficult for me to define it in terms of properties of elements of its domain.
Side note:
The title says "kinds" because the function domain and image sets are sets of sets, but I may be mistaken using that word, if so, please edit accordingly.
Answer
You can think of g:B∪C→A as a couple of functions gB:B→A and gC:C→A such that for all x∈B∩C, gB(x)=gC(x). Therefore, letting f:Γ→Δ (with
Γ={g|g:B∪C→A},Δ={⟨gB,gC⟩|gB:B→A,gC:C→A}
obviously), you can see that a natural way to do this is to restrict the domain of g:B∪C→A to just B (or C), hence the map f could naturally be defined by gB(x)=g(x) for all x∈B, gC(x)=g(x) for all x∈C and f(g)=⟨gB,gC⟩. In this manner the notation is more clear and more obviously well-defined.
This function f is injective because of the following. Suppose that f(g1)=⟨g1B,g1C⟩=⟨g2B,g2C⟩=f(g2). Thus for all x∈B∪C, x is either in B or C, suppose B. Thus g1(x)=g1B(x)=g2B(x)=g2(x). The case x∈C is similar. Therefore g1=g2.
I can't think of a natural way to define F:Δ→Γ right now, it'll require some thinking, I guess. I am not familiar with the usual rigor abusive context, but my problem is that I don't want to assume B∩C=∅. If we can assume that there is an obvious way back (i.e. you can show that this f is bijective, easily). If someone could comment on this question I'm asking, I'd love to read.
No comments:
Post a Comment