Prove that for any set $A$, there is no one-one correspondence between $A$ and its power set $P(A)$.
Suppose that there is a one-one correspondence $f$ between $A$ and $P(A)$.
Let $B$ be one such set defined as follows:
$$B=({x\in A:x\notin f(x)})$$
Then $B$ is a subset of $A$ and so $B\in P(A)$. So there is an element $a\in A$ such that $f(a)=B$
case 1: $a\in f(a)$ implies $a\in B$ which is a contradiction.
case 2: $a\notin f(a)$ implies $a\in B$ which is a contradiction.
Thus we conclude that there is no one-one correspondence between $A$ and $P(A)$.
I dont quite understand the proof above like why is there a contradiction and how to arrive at it. Could anyone explain more clearly how the above proof works. Thanks
Before diving in to what I wrote below, it may be a good idea first to understand Russell's paradox; it's essentially the same as what's going on here, but a little less complicated.
Let's look at the first case first.
Think about what "$a\in f(a)$" means. $B$ is the set of all $x\in A$ which are not in $f(x)$. So if $a\in f(a)$, it cannot be the case that $a\in B$, by definition! But we know $f(a)=B$. So:
If $a\in f(a)$, then $a\in B$ (since $f(a)=B$).
But if $a\in B$, then $a\not\in f(a)$ (since by definition $B$ is the set of $\alpha$s which are not in $f(\alpha)$).
So this is a contradiction! From "$a\in f(a)$" we've concluded "$a\not\in f(a)$" - that means "$a\in f(a)$" can't be true! (If $P$ implies Not $P$, do you see why $P$ can't be true?)
The other case is similar. If $a\not\in f(a)$, then $a\in B$ (why? think about what $B$ is . . .); but that means $a\in f(a)$ (why? think about what $f(a)$ is . . .). So, again, this leads to a contradiction.
So each possibility - $a\in f(a)$ and $a\not\in f(a)$ - lead to contradictions. So neither can hold - but one of them has to!
This means that, somewhere, we must have made an incorrect assumption. And the only assumption we've made is "There is a one-one correspondence between $A$ and $P(A)$". So that assumption must be false.