Grab some collection of objects and count it. How does that work?
Let's say we want to count the (living) former Presidents of the United States in this photograph:

We're so good at counting that we'd probably just glance and say "5". But if we were three or four years old, we'd probably have to count more carefully, which means doing something like placing our index finger on Obama and pronouncing "one", shifting the index finger to W. Bush and pronouncing "two", shifting the index finger to Clinton and pronouncing "three", shifting it to H. W. Bush and pronouncing "four", and finally shifting to Carter and pronouncing "five".
In other words, we would construct the following explicit bijection:

Definition. We call the set A finite if either A is empty, or there is some
and a bijection
. The number
is called the cardinality of A. The cardinality of the empty set is defined to be 0.
We've been dealing with finite sets our whole lives, and much of set theory is inspired by them. We'll take the time to record some important facts, which may seem obvious but are worth noting.
Theorem. If
is finite and there is a surjection
, then
is finite.
Proof. We'll start with a lemma:
Lemma. If there is a surjection
, then there is an injection
.
Proof. Since
is a surjection, for each
, there is some
with
. Pick one of them and call it
.
We claim
is an injection.
.
So now we have an injection
from
to a finite set. Further, there is some bijection
. Then
is an injection. But every function is a surjection onto its range, so
is bijective with a subset of
, hence must be finite. ![]()
Corollary. If
is finite and there is an injection
, then
is finite.
Corollary. Any subset of a finite set is finite.
Proof. If
and
is finite, consider the function
given by
. This is an injection, so the previous corollary applies.
.
Definition. We call
a proper subset of
if
but
; that is, if every element of
is an element of
, but there is some element of
which is not an element of
.
Theorem. If
is finite, then
is not equivalent to any of its proper subsets.
Proof. Suppose not. Then there is some finite set
and a proper subset
of
with
. So there is some
with
.
Now let
be the bijection which shows that
is finite, and arrange so that
. Then the range of
is a subset of
. But then
would be equivalent to a subset of
, which is absurd.
.
Perhaps the most surprising part of this theorem is that we have the assumption ``
is finite". You might think that there's no way a set could be equivalent to the set you get after you remove an element. But! Infinite sets are kind of weird; or at least we aren't used to dealing with them so our intuitions are sometimes wrong.
Definition. We call a set
infinite if it is not finite.
Theorem. If
is equivalent to one of its proper subsets, then
is infinite.
Proof. This is the contrapositive of the last theorem.
This theorem (though you might think its hypothesis never applies) turns out to be a very useful way to prove that a particular set is infinite.
Theorem.
is infinite.
Proof. Consider the function
. This is a function from
to
. Notice that there is a function
given by
, which has
![]()
so that
serves as an inverse to
. Therefore
is a bijection, and so
. ![]()
We can also give another proof, which is how most proofs that something is infinite go. Since infinite just means not finite, we challenge the reader to try and tell us how many elements the infinite set has. Then we show we can always defeat them, by finding an element they left out of their count.
Another proof that
is infinite.
Suppose
had finitely many elements, say
of them. Then there would be a bijection
.
Let
. Then
is strictly greater than any of the
. Therefore
. so
is not onto. This contradiction establishes the theorem.
.
The following proof of this type is the oldest recorded reductio ad absurdum.
Theorem. (Euclid, ca. 300 BCE) There are infinitely many prime numbers.
Proof. Suppose there were finitely many prime numbers, say
of them. List them all:
. Consider the numbers
![]()
Now we know that
has at least one prime factor; call that factor
. Observe that
could not be 2, because
is even, so
is odd. Further,
could not be 3, because
is a multiple of 3, so
has remainder 1 when we divide by 3. Proceeding in this way, we find that
cannot be any of the prime numbers we listed.
So we have found a prime that was not on our list, which we supposed to be complete. This contradiction establishes the theorem.
.
We can also show that a set is infinite by finding an infinite subset:
Theorem. If
and
is infinite, then
is infinite.
Proof. Assume
. We will show that if
is infinite, then
is infinite. The contrapositive of this claim is: If
is finite, then
is finite, which we already showed.![]()
E.g.
is infinite.
Actually this can be souped up:
Theorem. If
is infinite and there is an injection
, then
is infinite.
E.g.
is infinite.
Proof. Consider the function
given by
.
If
, then
, so
. This shows that
is an injection, so the above theorem shows that
is infinite. ![]()
is in fact the smallest infinite set, in the following sense:
Theorem. Any infinite set has a subset which is equivalent to
.
Proof. Let
be an infinite set. We'll show, by induction, that we can pick a distinct element
for each
.
For the base case, pick
. Note that
is not empty (otherwise
would have had only one element to begin with).
For the inductive step, suppose we've picked
distinct elements of
already. Then
is not empty (otherwise
would have only
elements), so there is some
which is distinct from
.
Mathematical induction allows us to continue this way to define
for any
, thus building a bijection
.
.
