9.1.1. Question 1

We have two sets: the first set is the set of all real numbers between (0,1) but excluding 0 and 1. The second set is the set of all real numbers between (0,1] where 1 is included and 0 is excluded.

The first step in comparing the two sets involves clearly defining them. The first set, denoted as Set A, includes all real numbers between 0 and 1, but importantly, 0 and 1 themselves are not part of this set. The second set, denoted as Set B, includes all real numbers in the same range but does include 1, while still excluding 0. Therefore, Set A can be written as (0, 1) and Set B as (0, 1]. This understanding is crucial for showing that both sets can be mapped to one another.

Think of Set A as a playground that starts at the gate (0) and ends at the wall (1) but you can't step on either the gate or the wall. Set B is like a different playground that allows you to step on the wall (1) while still not allowing you to step on the gate. If everyone can play in their respective playgrounds but we want to see if you can swap players between the two playgrounds without anyone being left out, it helps visualize their sizes or cardinalities.

To prove the sets have the same cardinality, we can apply the Schroder-Bernstein theorem. This theorem indicates that if we can show there are injective mappings (one-to-one functions) from Set A to Set B and from Set B to Set A, then the two sets have the same size.

The Schroder-Bernstein theorem is a fundamental result in set theory. An injective mapping from Set A to Set B means that each element in Set A can be paired with a unique element in Set B without any overlaps, which preserves the individuality of each element. By establishing two separate mappings—one from Set A to Set B and another from Set B back to Set A—we can demonstrate that both sets indeed share the same cardinality, or size. This approach is systematic and relies on understanding functions in mathematics.

Imagine you have a box of toys (Set A) and a box of candy (Set B). If you create a unique pairing of each toy with a candy, ensuring that none are left without a partner, and then do the same for candies pairing back with toys, you can conclude that both boxes contain the same 'amount' of items despite seeming different at first glance.

We define the first injective mapping f as the identity mapping where f(x) = x for x in Set A. The second mapping g is defined as g(x) = x/2 for x in Set B.

The first mapping, labeled f, is straightforward since it directly pairs each element in Set A (between 0 and 1) with itself in Set B. This is called the identity mapping; it ensures that distinct real numbers in Set A correspond to distinct real numbers in Set B. The second mapping g, which takes any number in Set B and divides it by 2, maps the real numbers in Set B to Set A. By observing these mappings, we are effectively demonstrating that we can find unique partners for every number in both directions.

Think of the first mapping as a personalized shopping service where each shopper takes only what they want (no changes), and the second mapping is like a discount service that reduces the price of items by half. The discount still ensures everyone can find their selection in both stores.

We verify that mapping f is injective since distinct inputs produce distinct outputs. Similarly for mapping g, when x ≠ 1, g(x) falls in (0, 1) and keeps x mapped appropriately. Even when x = 1, it correctly produces an output of 0.5 which is still allowed.

To confirm that f is injective, we consider that if we take two different elements from Set A, their images under f will always be different. It's similarly true for mapping g because when we apply it to two distinct values, they will also yield different results. This is critical in proving the mappings do not overlap, thus establishing that both sets manage to maintain distinct identities. The definition of injective allows us to assert that the size of input and output sets remains consistent through these mappings.

Imagine a library catalog! Each unique book (from Set A) maps to a unique location in the library (Set B) where it's stored. If someone finds a new shelf location (mapping) for a book, it doesn’t change the fact that each book remains distinct, ensuring the library never misplaces its collection. Similarly, a unique mapping keeps track of items effectively.

With both injective mappings verified, we conclude that Set A and Set B have the same cardinality as per the Schroder-Bernstein theorem.

Having demonstrated two injective mappings, we can confidently utilize the Schroder-Bernstein theorem to conclude that the two sets are indeed of the same size. This theorem serves as a powerful tool in set theory to compare the sizes of infinite sets, and by proving the existence of both mappings, we show mathematically that our initial intuition about Set A and Set B being comparable in terms of cardinality is correct.

It’s like confirming balance in a scale. By weighing items from both sides (the mappings), we can affirm that despite appearances, both sides hold equal weight in their respective measurements. This also reinforces our understanding that not all infinite sets need to be numerically equal in size yet can perfectly match in pairs.

--