How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
The Schröder-Bernstein theorem
Statement
Let and be sets with and (Equinumerous sets, and ). Then .
Equivalently: if there is an injection and an injection , then there is a bijection (Injection, surjection, bijection).
The proof uses no choice principle. The bijection is written down explicitly from the two given injections, and the only "selections" it makes are of the unique preimage of a point under an injection, which is determined, not chosen. The single infinite construction is an application of the recursion theorem (The recursion theorem), whose data are a set, a starting point and one function.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Sets and together with injections and . For write for its image, and similarly for .
Injection, surjection, bijection, image and preimage, and the fact that an injective has, for each , exactly one with (Injection, surjection, bijection).
means precisely that some bijection exists (Equinumerous sets, and ).
Recursion theorem: for any set , any and any there is a (unique) function with and for all (The recursion theorem, The natural numbers (von Neumann)).
Every nonzero natural number is a successor: implies for some (Every nonzero natural number is a successor).
Proof
Apply [L3] with (a set by the Power Set axiom), with , and with defined by : this yields a function from to with and for every .
Put , a subset of (a set by Replacement and Union applied to the function of step 1.1); thus if and only if for some , and for every .
Let . Then , so , and since is injective there is exactly one with ; write , a value determined by alone.
Define by for and for ; the two clauses have disjoint domains whose union is , and each assigns exactly one value, by step 3.1 for the second, so is a well-defined function.
If and then , so because is injective; if and then by step 3.1.
The remaining case cannot occur: if and had , then for some , and gives , contradicting ; hence is injective.
is surjective: let and consider . If then . If then for some ; here , since while , so by [L4] and , that is, for some ; injectivity of gives . Either way is a value of .
Thus is injective and surjective, hence a bijection, and therefore .
Remarks
-
The set is exactly the set of points of reachable from the "unmatched" part by applying finitely often. On the bijection follows forwards; off it runs backwards. Both halves are forced: a point outside cannot be an image of , and once one point is handled by its image must be handled by too.
-
Why the choice-freeness is worth stating. Many textbook proofs phrase the construction as "follow the chain of preimages backwards until it stops", which sounds like an infinite sequence of selections. It is not: the preimage under an injection is unique when it exists, and the recursion above is a single application of The recursion theorem to one explicitly given function . The theorem is a theorem of ZF.
-
With this theorem, behaves like an order on equinumerosity classes: and give . Comparability, that or holds for any two sets, is a different matter entirely: over ZF it is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Choice), a classical result quoted here and proved nowhere on this page, the harder half of it going back to Hartogs. Nothing on this page uses comparability.
Depends on
Used by
- The clauses at 0, at a successor and at a limit determine exactly one operation α ↦ ℵ_α, in ZF, and — assuming the Axiom of Choice — exactly one operation α ↦ ℶ_α; each value is an infinite cardinal, each is strictly increasing and continuous at limits, and α ≤ ℵ_α Corollary
- ℝ ≈ P(ℕ) in ZF, by the Cantor set for one injection and by the cuts {q ∈ ℚ : q < x} for the other; so | ℝ | = 2^ℵ₀ under the Axiom of Choice Example
- Under choice, the Niemytzki plane is Tychonoff and locally metrizable but not normal, paracompact, or metrizable Example
- Commutativity, associativity, distributivity and monotonicity of ⊕ and ⊗, the unit laws, the two exponent laws, and κ ≤ λ if and only if κ injects into λ Lemma
- Under choice, c(X) is a well-defined cardinal Lemma
- Under choice, χ(x,X) and χ(X) are well-defined cardinals Lemma
- Assuming choice, normality is not productive: the normal lower-limit line has a nonnormal square Theorem
- ℚ is countably infinite Theorem
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 24 results over 11 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- J. K. Hunter, An Introduction to Real Analysis (standard reference, not scraped)
- J. Lebl, Basic Analysis: Introduction to Real Analysis, basic set theory (standard reference, not scraped)
- Schröder-Bernstein theorem (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Countable set (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)