Partitioning of Any Infinite Set with the Aid of Non-Surjective Injective Maps and the Study of a Remarkable Semigroup ()
1. Introduction
The concept of map in mathematics has a primordial role in understanding the links that exist between the different mathematical fields and structures. A map is binary relation over two sets that associates to every element of the first set exactly one element of the second set, sometimes with a specific property. For instance, a “map” is a “linear transformation” in linear algebra, a “continuous function” in topology, operators in analysis and representations in group theory, etc. In this article we will show how non-surjective injective maps allow to partitioning an infinite set in several ways.
2. Part I
Proposition 1
Let E, and F be non-empty sets. If
are two non-surjective injective maps from E to F and from F to E respectively, then:
·
forms a partition of F.
·
forms a partition of E.
where,
and
and
representing the image sets under
respectively.
Proof
Let E and F be two non-empty sets, and let ƒ and g be two non-surjective injective maps from E to F, and from F to E respectively. Since ƒ and g are non-surjective, then the following sets:
and
are non-empty.
Also, obviously
such as
as follows from the definition of
.
For any such map ƒ from E to F:
So
Since ƒ is an injective map then:
Therefore,
forms a partition of F.
In analogy to the map g from F to E,
forms a partition of E.
Note 1
This process could be applied repeatedly, and for each iteration, finer partitions of the sets E and F respectively will be obtained, e.g. after 2nd iteration we have:
·
·
In case that ƒ and g are (two) (2) different non-surjective injective maps from an infinite set E to itself, we can compose either by ƒ or by g, or by both indefinitely. Thus several partition classes of E can obtained, for example after a second (2nd) iteration
·
·
·
·
·
·
where,
and
Example 1
If
i.e. the set of natural numbers, ƒ and g are two maps from
to itself (i.e. ƒ and g are non-surjective injective) and defined by:
·
·
Knowing that
and
then:
·
·
·
·
·
·
Therefore, we can partition the set
to the second (2nd) order by ƒ and g such as:
2.1. Remarkable Partition
Proposition 2
Let E be an infinite set,
be the set of natural numbers, and ƒ be a non-surjective injective map from E to itself, such that:
Then,
where,
Proof
By induction:
For
, we have, by definition
, and for
the proposition 1 states that, if
and
then,
Suppose that the said property is true for n. Then, by composing by ƒ, we get:
Then,
Therefore,
Note 2
For all non-surjective injective maps ƒ from an infinite set E to itself,
Definition 1
Let ƒ be a map from no-empty set E to itself,
·
is a fixed point of ƒ if,
.
·
is a fixed point set of ƒ if,
.
Proposition 3
For all non-surjective injective maps f from an infinite set E to itself,
,
contains no fixed points of ƒ.
Proof
By induction:
For
, let
, and by definition
,
, particularly for
so
then
contains no fixed points of f. Suppose that the aforementioned property is true for n, let
, then
such that
, we have
(by inductive hypothesis), since ƒ is injective then
so
, then
,
. Therefore,
,
contains no fixed points of ƒ.
Note 3
Let E be an infinite set, and ƒ be a non-surjective injective map from E to itself, we define the following:
and
·
·
·
·
· For all ƒ non-surjective injective maps from an infinite set E to itself,
Proposition 4
For all ƒ non-surjective injective maps from E to itself,
Proof
Let
, by induction, For
, we have, by definition
then
Suppose that the said property is true for
, let
, then,
and
. Since ƒ is injective so
, which contradicts the inductive hypothesis. Then,
.
Therefore,
Lemma 1 (Generalization)
Proof
By complete (strong) induction,
Let
, and
: For
, we have, by definition
, since
, then:
Suppose that the said property is true for all
, let
, then,
and
. Since ƒ is injective then,
·
, if
, which contradicts the inductive hypothesis, because
·
, if
, which contradicts
·
, if
, which contradicts
Then,
,
Therefore,
QED
For all
, and for all ƒ non-surjective injective maps from an infinite set E to itself, we define the following:
·
·
·
·
Theorem 1
Let E be an infinite set, and ƒ be a non-surjective injective map from E to itself, then:
Proof
Note that for
,
, The sequence of subsets of E,
is increasing by inclusion, so it is convergent, the limit is:
We have already established that,
Otherly, according to the Lemma 1,
Let’s define the following,
the sequence of subsets of
is decreasing by inclusion then, it is convergent [1], the limit is:
Because, let
, then:
On the other hand, the sequence of subsets of E,
is strictly decreasing by inclusion, then it is convergent and the limit is
, and since ƒ is injective, so
then ƒ is bijective from H to itself, and
.
Therefore,
N.B. If
, then we get:
QED
Example 2
is the set of real numbers, and
is the set of subsets of
.
Let ƒ be a map from
to itself, defined by:
Therefore, ƒ is injective non-surjective from
to itself, because ƒ is injective and
.
where,
We have,
since ƒ is increasing Therefore,
·
·
According to the theorem 1, we can write:
Example 3
Remark
If h is an affine map from
to
, so that
and
, then:
If
, then:
Let ƒ be a map defined from
to itself by:
ƒ is non-surjective injective map from E to itself, so that:
·
·
· The set
, fulfills the condition
· We have
,
,
,
·
The restriction of ƒ to
is an affine function such as
, and
, then:
We have:
, and
,
According to Theorem 1:
Example 4
Let ƒ be a map defined from
to itself by:
ƒ is non-surjective injective from E to itself, so that:
·
·
· The set
, fulfills the condition
, and
· The set
, fulfills the condition
, and
·
We have,
·
·
and
Therefore, according to Theorem 1:
Corollary 1
Let
be non-surjective injective maps from an infinite set E to itself such as
, then:
where,
Therefore,
forms a partition of E.
Definition 2
· Let E be an infinite set, we write:
as being the set of non-surjective injective maps from E to itself.
·
as the set of non-surjective injective maps from a set E to a set F, that being said, E and F are supposed to be non-empty and
(
is the cardinal of E).
Properties
1)
is a semigroup, because the composite of 2 (two) injective maps ƒ and g is injective and
, so
,
.
2)
,
,
is, indeed, a partition of E and
, because
.
3) There is no idempotent element for the law of composition in
and if such an element exists, then
and since ƒ is injective, then
which is contradictory, because,
.
4)Let
, and assuming that ƒ is a map from E to itself such as:
5) We have,
knowing that
and
6) Let
, we have,
, and
Then,
Therefore,
allow us to reduce order of iteration.
7)
,
·
, then
·
,then,
·
, then
8) Let
and
, so:
and
2.2. Equivalence Relations
Example 5
Let
, we define the binary relation R on
, by:
R is, indeed, an equivalence relation, because:
· R is reflexive,
· R is symmetric,
· R is transitive,
and
,
and
and
Example 6
Let
, we define the binary relation R on
, by:
R is, indeed, an equivalence relation, because:
· R is reflexive,
· R is symmetric,
· R is transitive,
and
,
and
and
Example 7
Example 8
: as being the ƒ-semicoverage of a set E.
3. Part II
Let E be an infinite set,
, and
We get the following:
·
·
Let
i.e.
let
, so
and
, so
and
, so
so
, then
therefore
Theorem 2
Let E be an infinite set, then there exists a non-surjective injective map
from E to itself, so that for any such non-surjective injective map
from E to itself, we have:
Proof
By contradiction, let’s suppose that for all
non-surjective injective maps from E to itself, there exists a map
such as
so that
. Additionally E is an infinite set, so E is equipotential [2] to
. Considering this bijection ƒ as a map from E to itself, then
, and
, according to all of the above, there exists a map
such as
, which contradicts the fact that
injective.
QED
Note 4
·
, so that:
,
· If
applies to the former theorem then:
.
Proposition 5
,
, so that
Proof
By contradiction, assuming that exists a map
, so that
,
, then
,
.
Let
, so
because
which is contradictory.
Proposition 6
,
, such as
Proof
By contradiction, assuming that exists a map
, so that,
,
then
. On the other hand, if
, additionally
so
which is contradictory.
Note 5
We can define another composition law T for
so that,
·
then every element is idempotent under the law T.
·
, if
, then
.
·
, if
, then
.
·
,
and
.
· Generally,
,
.
4. Part III
4.1. Study of the Quotient Set
Let E be an infinite set, and
. We define the binary relation R on
, by:
and
have the same cardinal
The binary relation R is reflexive, symmetric and transitive, so R is an equivalence relation on
.
We define
the equivalence class of a map ƒ.
Note 6
· Let
, as
so
and
have the same cardinal, because ƒ is injective then
, therefore,
· Let
, assuming that the cardinals of
and
are finite, and thus,
, and since
, then:
.Since the composition of two (2) maps ƒ and g on
yields a disjoint union, i.e.
, with
,then we can extend the sum of the cardinals even for infinite sets, such as:
· For all maps
and
so that
and
i.e.
and
. Since:
, therefore,
· The map’s composition law is compatible under the equivalence relation R, then we can provide the quotient set
with a structure of a semigroup.
·
and
:
4.2. Partial Order
Let
, define a binary relation on
by:
·
So
is reflexive.
·
,
and
and
so
So
is asymmetric.
·
and
:
and
and
So
is transitive.
Therefore, the relation
is a partial order on
.
Note 7
· Since
,
or
then
is a total partial order on
.
· The partial order on the semigroup
is, indeed, compatible [3] with the equivalence class’s composition law of composition *, then:
and
,
If
then
and
·
is well-ordered, because any non-empty subset has a smallest element.
·
is a lattice, because it is ordered and every pair of elements has both upper bound and lower bound [4].
·
provided with the order relation has a minimal element
, so that
, and also maximal element
, so that
has the same cardinality as E.
· If E is an infinite countable set, the map
defined by:
,
where,
represents the cardinal of
.
Considering the convention:
,
,
is a morphism of semigroups of
on
.
Complement
Let
so that
, with the assumption that
and
are considered finite,
and
are equipotential because, the map
defined from
to
by:
,
is bijective, where
is defined from
to E, and for all
, we associated its inputs by ƒ, we have:
·
,
(because both g and
are injectives). Therefore
is injective.
· On the other hand
so
is surjective.
Let
so that the map
is defined by:
Belong to
and
.
Note 8
· If
so
so if
then we have,
, and if
so
· We considered, previously, that,
and
are finite. That said, we can build the
map even in case that
and
are infinite and that
.
5. Part IV
E Permutations Group Action
Let
be the permutations group of E,
and
,
, because, since ƒ and
are injective then
is injective and
,
then
is non-surjective.
where
then
.
We have,
·
and
:
·
,
Let
so that
,
,
Therefore, the E permutations group operates on the rightmost on
.
Note 9
The relation R defined on
by:
such as
is an equivalence relation, that is called Intransitivity relation [5].
Proposition 7
Let be,
:
so that
.
Proof
) If there exists
so that
.
) If
, then the map
, so that
is bijective, because:
·
so
is surjective.
·
:
so
is injective.
·
,
Note 10
· The equivalence class (Intransitivity relation) of the element ƒ is called the orbit of ƒ,
.
· The stabilizer of ƒ is:
, i.e. the morphism associated with the said action is injective.
6. Part V
Let
.
Definition 3
ƒ and g are said to be Co-injectives, if,
and
Let
We have
because
,
and
,
so ƒ is Co-injective with itself.
Therefore
,
, then,
:
Proposition 8
Let
,
:
are Co-injectives
and
are Co-injectives.
Proof:
Let
, and
such as ƒ and g are Co-injective.
, additionally
(h is injective).
Let
,
(because h is injective and
are Co-injectives).
Therefore
and
are Co-injectives.
Note 11
For all
, so that
are Co-injectives, so:
·
and
are Co-injectives
·
,
, so that,
·
· If,
, then
· Let
, if
, then
and
are Co-injectives.
Proposition 9
, if
, then
are not Co-injective.
Proof
, suppose that
, then we have
. If
are Co-injectives, then
, which is contradictory because:
, and
, so
.
Proposition 10
Let
, so that ƒ and g are Co-injectives,
, if g and h are Co-injectives and
then ƒ and h are Co-injectives.
Proof
, let
, so that
. We have
, then
(because
are Co-injectives), and since g and h are Co-injectives then
. So
,
. Therefore
are Co-injectives.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my dear friends, especially Chafik Bouazzaoui for us discussing the Cantor-Bernstein theorem and Mai Mohammed mainly who for his help with translating this document.