Let \(S\) be a set, and let \(P(S ) \) be the power set of \(S\), which is the set of subsets of \(S \).
Suppose that surjects. We define so that is an element of , hence a subset of , and is an element of .
By assumption surjects, so there exists such that .
First, let . Then
so such that . But since , this is a contradiction because , but .
Now let . Then since is not in , cannot be an element of such that . So if , then must also be a member of . But supposing that surjects, there is a such that , which means that , but . This is a contradiction.
We conclude from both cases that cannot surject, because there exists no such that . In other words, for all .
In this note, we have shown that no map from set to its power set can surject, which proves that there exists no bijection from S to its power set. This fundamental result means that for any set S, the set of all subsets of , ,has a strictly greater cardinality than . That
or
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
You may also want to show that f is injective. Otherwise, it is not obvious that ∣S∣≤∣P(S)∣. (The surjective argument only shows that the cardinalities are not equal.)
Log in to reply
Thanks for pointing that out! Following your comment, constructing g:S→P(S) so that every element of S is mapped to a singleton set, i.e. x→{x} will do.
You need to work in something like ZF to guarantee the diagonal construction, and as mentioned below show that there be an injection S⟶P(S). Your proof is otherwise standard and fine. I would write it more compactly as follows:
Claim. There is no surjection f:S⟶P(S). Proof. Let f:S⟶P(S). To show: f is not surjective. By the replacement axiom there exists a set Δ:={x∈S∣x∈/f(x)}∈P(S). It suffices to show that Δ∈/ran(f). Suppose this not be the case, then there exists δ∈S such that f(δ)=Δ. It holds that δ∈f(δ) ⟺f(δ)=Δ δ∈Δ ⟺defn. $\Delta$ δ∈/f(δ). This is a contradiction. Hence Δ∈/ran(f). ■
Note that without suitable axioms, one cannot carry through with Cantor’s diagonal argument. In under Quine’s NF set theory this proof breaks down right at this point, and not only this, there exists sets such that ∣P(X)∣=∣X∣.