Associated Topics || Dr. Math Home || Search Dr. Math

### Definitions and Mappings of Sets

```
Date: 09/22/98 at 03:26:32
From: Bryan Wang
Subject: Basic topology

Dear Dr. Math:

I am studying mathematical analysis out of Rudin and have the
following questions:

(1) The definition of a 1-1 mapping is:

If for each y in B, f^(-1)(y) consists of at most one element of A,
then f is said to be a 1-1 mapping of A into B, where A and B are
sets. Consider the mapping g of A into B. If g(x1) = g(x2) for all
x1, x2 in B and x in A with x1 = x2, then is f' a 1-1 mapping of A
onto B?

According the definition, I think it is. What do you think?

(2) If g, in (1), is a 1-1 mapping of A onto B, then how does the
relation of the symmetric property B~A hold? Since f'^-1 is not
a 1-1 mapping of B onto A.

(3) If a set A is finite, then is it countable?

(4) If a set A is infinite, then is it countable?

Thank you.
Bryan Wang
```

```
Date: 09/22/98 at 08:25:55
From: Doctor Jerry
Subject: Re: Basic topology

Hi Bryan,

(1) In your statement, you are saying that a function g from A into B
is 1-1 provided that for all x and y in A, if g(x) = g(y), then x = y.
Yes, this statement is sometimes used as a definition. It is equivalent
to the statement that f is 1-1 if for all y in B, f^{-1}(y) is a subset
of A and has at most one element.

(2) Rudin, the author of the text, is using f^{-1} in two different
ways. Given a function f from A to B and any subset H of B, f^{-1}(H)
is the set of all a in A for which f(a) is in H. If H is a set with
one element, then f^{-1}(H) is a SET with one element, something like
{q}. Rudin, page 90, defines a slightly different f^{-1}, when f is
1-1 onto B. Basically, he defines f^{-1}(q) = p, where f(p) = q.

(3) Rudin uses slightly different terminology on countable sets than
most books. Most mathematicians would say that all finite sets are
countable. Rudin says that all finite sets are at most countable. So,
for Rudin, if a set is finite, then it is not countable. Notice
Theorem 2.8. Rudin says Every infinite subset of a countable set is
countable.

(4) No, this is false. Theorem 2.14 gives an example of an infinite,
non-countable set. The set of rational numbers is countable, but the
set of all reals is infinite and not countable. Cantor gave a proof of
this, using his famous diagonal construction. This construction is in
the proof of Theorem 2.14, but the context is different than Cantor's
construction.

- Doctor Jerry, The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
```
Associated Topics:
High School Sets

Search the Dr. Math Library:

 Find items containing (put spaces between keywords):   Click only once for faster results: [ Choose "whole words" when searching for a word like age.] all keywords, in any order at least one, that exact phrase parts of words whole words

Submit your own question to Dr. Math
Math Forum Home || Math Library || Quick Reference || Math Forum Search