10
$\begingroup$

When given an infinite set $X$, it seems to me very reasonable that one can 'split' it up into two disjoint subsets $A$ and $B$ such that all three have the same cardinality. For countable sets, this is rather easy, for then we can index the elements in $X$ by $(x_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$, and we can take $A$ as the elements indexed by even $n$, and $B$ those by odd ones. Of course, countability isn't needed per se; with a set indexed by $\mathbb{R}$, it can be split up rather easily as well. Where I run into difficulty is a general infinite set, where this indexing trick doesn't seem to work, because the indexing set isn't 'known' well enough (in the sense that I can't make an easy choice, as with $\mathbb{N}$ or $\mathbb{R}$).

My question is if this is possible for any infinite set $X$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ You should first decide/specify what you mean by "same cardinality". Cardinality for finite sets is pretty obvious, for infinite sets they all end up being "equally infinite". To me it feels like you want them to be of equal measure. $\endgroup$
    – N.Bach
    Commented May 15, 2017 at 12:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @N.Bach "equal cardinality" is a strictly defined mathematical term. Two sets have the same cardinality if and only if there exists a bijection between them. $\endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Commented May 15, 2017 at 12:31
  • $\begingroup$ Not an expert: assuming Choice, you can well-order your set, i.e. it has the same cardinality as some ordinal $\alpha$. I guess the ordinal $\alpha+\alpha$ does have the same cardinality too. A bijection between your set $X$ and $\alpha+\alpha$ will give you such a partition. But this is just a sketch. Maybe the difficulty is now to construct the bijection $f:\alpha\leftrightarrow \alpha+\alpha$. $\endgroup$
    – M. Winter
    Commented May 15, 2017 at 12:33

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

In general, if $X$ is infinite, $\vert X \vert = \vert X \vert+\vert X \vert$, ie. there exists a bijection between $X$ and $X\sqcup X$, where $X\sqcup X$. denotes the disjoint union. There's an obvious injection from $X$ to $X\sqcup X$, and there's an injection from $X\sqcup X$ to $X\times X$. Since $X$ is infinite, we have $\vert X \vert = \vert X\times X\vert$ (as a well-known consequence of AC), and so $\vert X \vert = \vert X\sqcup X \vert$. Thus, there exists a bijection $f: X \to X\sqcup X$. Now let $A = f^{-1}[\{0\}\times X], B = f^{-1}[\{1\}\times X]$. Then $A,B$ are disjoint and have the same cardinality as $X$, and $X=A\cup B$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ In fact, every infinite set $X$ being in bijection with $X\times X$ is equivelant to the axiom of choice. $\endgroup$
    – Jason
    Commented May 15, 2017 at 15:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have an question:$X\sqcup X$ denotes two disjoint union ,but $X\cap X=X$, which is not empty! $\endgroup$
    – math112358
    Commented Sep 16, 2019 at 1:04
  • $\begingroup$ @math112358, here the disjoint union refers to the separate operation (not a union which just so happens to be between two disjoint sets). Formally, $X \sqcup X$ is defined to be $X \times \{ 0 \} \cup X \times \{ 1 \}$. Informally, you take two copies of the same set, 'make them disjoint', and take their union. $\endgroup$
    – SvanN
    Commented Apr 21, 2021 at 11:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .