A set is countable if , i.e. there is an injection (equivalently, is finite or can be listed as ). The whole theory rests on one identity:
witnessed by Cantor's pairing , . From it three closure rules follow.
The three closure rules
| Operation | Statement | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Countable union | A countable union of countable sets is countable | List ; the map surjects onto |
| Finite subsets | If is countable, the set of its finite subsets is countable | , and each is countable (it injects into ), so it is a countable union of countable sets |
| Surjective image | If is countable and is onto, then is countable | A surjection forces |
The surjection lemma (used everywhere above)
For a nonempty codomain,
A surjection always points from the bigger set to the smaller one. Given onto, pick one preimage per target to build an injection ; conversely any injection can be inverted (and padded) to a surjection . So " is countable and is onto" instantly gives " is countable."
Mini-example
Is the set of all finite-length bit strings countable? Yes: , a countable union of finite sets, hence countable. Contrast this with (infinite strings), which has cardinality — uncountable.
Where it breaks: countable does not mean small
Closure is about countable ingredients. If you enlarge a continuum-sized set (so ), then:
- the collection of all countable subsets of has cardinality (each countable subset is the range of a sequence );
- the full power set jumps to .
Restricting to countable subsets collapses the power set back down to .
Exam trick: A surjection goes big-to-small, so it forces — never the reverse. To kill a closure or cardinality claim, check the direction of the implied inequality, and remember but while .