Posts
Comments
Here are my solutions to the first six problems:
1. Recall Cantor’s diagonal argument for the uncountability of the real numbers. Apply the same technique to convince yourself than for any set , the cardinality of is less than the cardinality of the power set (i.e. there is no surjection from to ).
Solution:
Suppose that is surjective. Then take . Since is surjective, there exists such that . But then , a contradiction.
2. Suppose that a nonempty set has a function from to which lacks fixed points (i.e. for all ). Convince yourself that there is no surjection from S to , for any nonempty . (We will write the set of functions from to either as or ; these are the same.)
Solution:
Suppose that were such a surjection. Then we may define a function by . Now, since is surjective, there exists a such that . Passing as an argument to both sides, we have , so , contradicting the fact that has no fixed points.
3. For nonempty and , suppose you are given a surjective function from the set to the set of functions from to , and let be a function from to itself. The previous result implies that there exists an in such that . Can you use your proof to describe in terms of and ?
Solution:
Define by . Since is surjective, there exists such that . Then take . From my proof above, is a fixed point of .
4. Given sets and , let denote the space of total computable functions from to . We say that a function from to is computable if and only if the corresponding function (given by is computable. Show that there is no surjective computable function from the set of all strings to .
Solution:
Suppose for the sake of contradiction that is a surjective computable function. Then the following is computable: . Since is surjective, there exists such that , but then , a contradiction.
5. Show that the previous result implies that there is no computable function from which outputs if and only if the first input is a code for a Turing machine that halts when given the second input.
Suppose for the sake of contradiction that there exists such a computable function . Then define a function as follows: for any string , if is not a code for a Turing Machine, let be the function sending all strings to . If is a code for a Turing machine, let be the function . I claim this is a surjective computable function from to : to show it is surjective, for any computable function , there is a Turing machine which halts precisely when that function returns . Letting be the code for that Turing machine, we then have . It's also computable since we assume is computable. This contradicts the previous result, so we must have been wrong in our initial assumption.
6. Given topological spaces and , let be the space with the set of continuous functions from to as its underlying set, and with topology such that is continuous if and only if the corresponding function (given by ) is continuous, assuming such a space exists. Convince yourself that there is no space which continuously surjects onto , where is the circle.
Suppose for the sake of contradiction that for some space , is a surjective continuous function. Let denote the continuous function giving the point on the opposite side of the circle. Then the following is continuous: . Since is surjective, there exists such that , but then , a contradiction.