Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)verified 2026-07-26 (claude-opus-5)
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 AA and BB be sets with ABA \preceq B and BAB \preceq A (Equinumerous sets, ABA \approx B and ABA \preceq B). Then ABA \approx B.

Equivalently: if there is an injection ABA \to B and an injection BAB \to A, then there is a bijection ABA \to B (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 AA and BB together with injections f:ABf : A \to B and g:BAg : B \to A. For SAS \subseteq A write f[S]f[S] for its image, and similarly for gg.

[L1]

Injection, surjection, bijection, image and preimage, and the fact that an injective gg has, for each xg[B]x \in g[B], exactly one bBb \in B with g(b)=xg(b) = x (Injection, surjection, bijection).

[L2]

ABA \approx B means precisely that some bijection ABA \to B exists (Equinumerous sets, ABA \approx B and ABA \preceq B).

[L3]

Recursion theorem: for any set XX, any x0Xx_0 \in X and any F:XXF : X \to X there is a (unique) function h:NXh : \mathbb{N} \to X with h(0)=x0h(0) = x_0 and h(σ(n))=F(h(n))h(\sigma(n)) = F(h(n)) for all nNn \in \mathbb{N} (The recursion theorem, The natural numbers N\mathbb{N} (von Neumann)).

[L4]

Every nonzero natural number is a successor: n0n \ne 0 implies n=σ(m)n = \sigma(m) for some mNm \in \mathbb{N} (Every nonzero natural number is a successor).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Apply [L3] with X=P(A)X = \mathcal{P}(A) (a set by the Power Set axiom), with x0=Ag[B]x_0 = A \setminus g[B], and with F:P(A)P(A)F : \mathcal{P}(A) \to \mathcal{P}(A) defined by F(S)=g[f[S]]F(S) = g[f[S]]: this yields a function nCnn \mapsto C_n from N\mathbb{N} to P(A)\mathcal{P}(A) with C0=Ag[B]C_0 = A \setminus g[B] and Cσ(n)=g[f[Cn]]C_{\sigma(n)} = g[f[C_n]] for every nn.

L3givenconstruct
2.1

Put C=nNCnC = \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} C_n, a subset of AA (a set by Replacement and Union applied to the function of step 1.1); thus xCx \in C if and only if xCnx \in C_n for some nNn \in \mathbb{N}, and Cσ(n)CC_{\sigma(n)} \subseteq C for every nn.

step 1.1construct
3.1

Let xACx \in A \setminus C. Then xC0=Ag[B]x \notin C_0 = A \setminus g[B], so xg[B]x \in g[B], and since gg is injective there is exactly one bBb \in B with g(b)=xg(b) = x; write b=g1(x)b = g^{-1}(x), a value determined by xx alone.

step 2.1L1given
4.1

Define h:ABh : A \to B by h(x)=f(x)h(x) = f(x) for xCx \in C and h(x)=g1(x)h(x) = g^{-1}(x) for xACx \in A \setminus C; the two clauses have disjoint domains whose union is AA, and each assigns exactly one value, by step 3.1 for the second, so hh is a well-defined function.

step 3.1construct
5.1

If x,yCx, y \in C and h(x)=h(y)h(x) = h(y) then f(x)=f(y)f(x) = f(y), so x=yx = y because ff is injective; if x,yACx, y \in A \setminus C and h(x)=h(y)=bh(x) = h(y) = b then x=g(b)=yx = g(b) = y by step 3.1.

step 4.1givenL1
5.2

The remaining case cannot occur: if xCx \in C and yACy \in A \setminus C had h(x)=h(y)h(x) = h(y), then xCnx \in C_n for some nn, and h(y)=g1(y)h(y) = g^{-1}(y) gives y=g(h(y))=g(f(x))g[f[Cn]]=Cσ(n)Cy = g(h(y)) = g(f(x)) \in g[f[C_n]] = C_{\sigma(n)} \subseteq C, contradicting yCy \notin C; hence hh is injective.

step 1.1step 2.1step 4.1
5.3

hh is surjective: let bBb \in B and consider g(b)Ag(b) \in A. If g(b)Cg(b) \notin C then h(g(b))=g1(g(b))=bh(g(b)) = g^{-1}(g(b)) = b. If g(b)Cg(b) \in C then g(b)Cng(b) \in C_n for some nn; here n0n \ne 0, since g(b)g[B]g(b) \in g[B] while C0=Ag[B]C_0 = A \setminus g[B], so n=σ(m)n = \sigma(m) by [L4] and g(b)Cσ(m)=g[f[Cm]]g(b) \in C_{\sigma(m)} = g[f[C_m]], that is, g(b)=g(f(x))g(b) = g(f(x)) for some xCmCx \in C_m \subseteq C; injectivity of gg gives b=f(x)=h(x)b = f(x) = h(x). Either way bb is a value of hh.

step 1.1step 2.1step 4.1L1L4given
6.1

Thus h:ABh : A \to B is injective and surjective, hence a bijection, and therefore ABA \approx B.

step 5.1step 5.2step 5.3L1L2

Remarks

  • The set CC is exactly the set of points of AA reachable from the "unmatched" part Ag[B]A \setminus g[B] by applying gfg \circ f finitely often. On CC the bijection follows ff forwards; off CC it runs gg backwards. Both halves are forced: a point outside g[B]g[B] cannot be an image of gg, and once one point is handled by ff its gfg \circ f image must be handled by ff 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 Sg[f[S]]S \mapsto g[f[S]]. The theorem is a theorem of ZF.

  • With this theorem, \preceq behaves like an order on equinumerosity classes: ABA \preceq B and BAB \preceq A give ABA \approx B. Comparability, that ABA \preceq B or BAB \preceq A 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

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