I have two questions that come from the same exercise so I put together in this question. I have an exercise that say
$f:\mathcal P(X)\to \{0,1\}^X$ and $A\mapsto\chi_A$. Show that $f$ is bijective.
First question: I understand what the exercise is asking but the notation used, specifically the part $A\mapsto\chi_A$, seems terrible to my eyes.
I understand that a characteristic function $x\mapsto \chi_G$ map $1$ or $0$ depending if $x$ is an element of $G$ or not. But then we have that $\chi_A(A)=0$ because $A\notin A$.
I understand that the notation $A\mapsto\chi_A$ want the sequence of zeros and ones of some subset $A\subseteq X$ through the function $\chi_A(x)$ for all $x\in X$ (we can infer this because any $f(A)\in\{0,1\}^X$).
Then my question is, there is a better notation for this situation?
Second question: if $X$ is countable I understand that we can interpret it elements as a sequence, if $X$ is finite we can interpret the elements as vectors or $|X|$-tuples.
But, how we must interpret the elements of $\{0,1\}^X$ if $X$ is uncountable? Thank you in advance.
I'm not sure you do understand the notation; you write "$x\mapsto \chi_G$" and "$\chi_A(A)=0$", but neither of these really make sense.
Personally, the only thing I would change about the notation in the exercise is that I would write "$f(A)=\chi_A$" instead of "$A\mapsto \chi_A$", but other than that I think the notation used is both standard and intelligible.
As for your second question, the elements of $\{0,1\}^X$ are just the functions from $X$ to $\{0,1\}$, and I'm not sure I see a particular need to interpret them any other way.