we have to prove there is no onto mapping from R to X

Thank you for the clarification. The goal is now to prove that there is no onto mapping from the set of real numbers \(\mathbb{R}\) to the set \(X\), where \(X\) is the set of all functions from \(\mathbb{R}\) to \(\mathbb{R}\).

### Proof Outline: 
We'll prove by contradiction using a technique similar to Cantor's diagonal argument.

### Step-by-Step Proof:

1. **Assume, for the sake of contradiction, that there is an onto function \( \psi: \mathbb{R} \to X \).**
   - This means that for every function \( f \in X \), there exists some \( r \in \mathbb{R} \) such that \( \psi(r) = f \).

2. **Define a new function \( g: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} \) as follows:**
   \[
   g(x) = \psi(x)(x) + 1
   \]
   - Here, \( \psi(x)(x) \) means the value of the function \( \psi(x) \) at the point \( x \).

3. **By definition, \( g \) is a function from \(\mathbb{R}\) to \(\mathbb{R}\), so \( g \in X \).**

4. **Since \( \psi \) is assumed to be onto, there must exist some real number \( r_g \in \mathbb{R} \) such that \( \psi(r_g) = g \).**
   - This would imply that for all \( x \in \mathbb{R} \),
     \[
     g(x) = \psi(r_g)(x)
     \]

5. **Evaluate the function \( g(x) \) at \( x = r_g \):**
   \[
   g(r_g) = \psi(r_g)(r_g) + 1
   \]
   - But since \( \psi(r_g) = g \), we also have:
     \[
     g(r_g) = \psi(r_g)(r_g)
     \]
   - Combining these two expressions gives:
     \[
     \psi(r_g)(r_g) = \psi(r_g)(r_g) + 1
     \]
   - This leads to a contradiction because no real number can satisfy \( a = a + 1 \).

6. **Conclusion:**
   - The contradiction shows that our assumption that \( \psi \) is onto must be false. 
   - Therefore, there is no onto mapping from \( \mathbb{R} \) to \( X \).

This proof demonstrates that the set of all functions from \(\mathbb{R}\) to \(\mathbb{R}\) (denoted \( X \)) has a strictly larger cardinality than the set of real numbers \(\mathbb{R}\). This aligns with the concept that the power set (or function space) of an infinite set is always of strictly larger cardinality than the set itself.

Would you like further details or have any questions on this proof?

---

**Further Questions:**

1. How does this result relate to the concept of uncountability in set theory?
2. Can this method be applied to other infinite sets, such as \(\mathbb{N}\)?
3. How does the proof demonstrate the concept of cardinality?
4. What are the implications of this result in real analysis?
5. Can you describe the power set of a set and how it relates to this proof?
6. What would change if we considered functions from a finite set instead of \(\mathbb{R}\)?
7. How does this result connect to Cantor's theorem on the power set?
8. Can this technique be used to prove other results in functional analysis?

**Tip:** When dealing with infinite sets and mappings, always consider diagonalization and the concept of cardinality to assess the existence of onto functions.

Explore a proof that demonstrates the impossibility of an onto mapping from the set of real numbers (ℝ) to the set of all functions from ℝ to ℝ. Understand the application of Cantor's diagonal argument in proving this result. Suitable for advanced undergraduate students and anyone interested in set theory and cardinality.

Math Problem Statement

Solution

Ask a new question for Free

By Image

Math Problem Analysis

Mathematical Concepts

Formulas

Theorems

Suitable Grade Level

Related Recommendation