Is the set of points or the set of lines on a plane "larger",or there is a 1-1 correspondence between lines and points?
-
1They have equal cardinality so there is a one to one correspondence between them. Showing they have equal cardinality isn't hard. Writing down an explicit bijection is not so clear. – Simon S Apr 24 '15 at 12:40
-
@SimonS can't we map the point $(a,b)$ to the line $y=ax+b$? – Alessandro Codenotti Apr 24 '15 at 12:44
-
1@SimonS It's not even onto, it misses the lines $x = c$ for $c \in \mathbb{R}$. – Christopher Apr 24 '15 at 12:49
-
1In projective plane geometry there is a 1-1 correspondence between points and lines, known as "duality". Look it up! (especially if you cannot understand the sophisticated answers here) It is really interesting. – GEdgar Apr 24 '15 at 15:41
3 Answers
I assume the question asked by Marios was about the real plane, but planes over finite fields might also lead to interesting statements. First, let's take an example. Let $P$ be the affine plane over the two-element field $\mathbb{F}_2$. There are 4 points in this plane, but there are 6 lines (i.e. one-dimensional affine spaces) in this plane.
The proof for $\mathbb{R}$
We have a one-to-one mapping from $\mathbb{R}^2 \setminus\{(0,0)\}$ to $\mathcal{L}$ (I couldn't find simpler) : take any element $(a,b)$ and form the line $d_{a,b}$ which is tangent at the circle of center $0$ and radius $\sqrt{a^2 + b^2}$ at the point $(a,b)$. This is injective. It is not surjective, as the lines going through $(0,0)$ (let's denote it by $\mathbb{P}_1(\mathbb{R})$ ) do not have the form $d_{a,b}$.
Therefore, the set $\mathcal{L}$ have the same cardinality as $\mathbb{P}_1(\mathbb{R}) \cup \mathbb{R}^2 \setminus\{(0,0)\}$. But it is known that there is a bijection $\phi$ between $\mathbb{P}_1(\mathbb{R})$ and $\mathbb{R} \cup \infty$ : if $d \in \mathbb{P}_1(\mathbb{R})$ , let $\phi(d)$ be $x$, where $(x,1)$ is the intersection between $d$ and the horizontal line $y=1$. If $d$ is the line $y=0$, then $\phi(d) = \infty$. This is a bijection (it is clear on a drawing).
To conclude, we have a bijection of $\mathcal{L}$ onto $\mathbb{R}^3$. It can be shown that there is a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^3$ to $\mathbb{R}$.
The general case
In the general case, we might expect the number of lines to be "greater" than the plane.
First, note that there is a bijection of the projective space $\mathbb{P}_1(\Bbbk)$ onto $\Bbbk \cup \infty$, where $\infty$ is another point added to $\Bbbk$. When the field $\Bbbk$ is finite, it means that there is exactly as much one-dimensional vector spaces than elements in $\Bbbk$, plus one. When $\Bbbk$ is $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$ they have the same cardinality.
Now note $\mathcal{L}_A$ the set of lines going through some point $x$ belonging to the set $A$. For instance, $\mathcal{L}_x$ is the set of lines going through $x$ and $\mathcal{L}_P$ is the set of all lines.
Note that $\mathcal{L}_x$ has the same cardinality as $\mathbb{P}_1(\Bbbk)$. Moreover, if $x \neq y$, then $\mathcal{L}_x \cap \mathcal{L}_y$ is a singleton (there is only one line going through $x$ and $y$ when $x \neq y$).
Using this, we show that the set of lines $\mathcal{L}$ is strictly greater than $P$, whatever be $\Bbbk$. In fact, take two points $x,y$ in $P$, we have a bijection of $\mathcal{L}_{\{x,y\}}$ onto $(\Bbbk)^2$ (we have removed an element counted twice).
- 3,194
-
3This is a very poor answer to the question. Do you seriously think the OP knows what a projective space over a field? I now and then run into such people (who claim to be mathematicians) who want to justify their existence by giving some irrelevant complicated answer to some straight forward simple questions. – Adhvaitha Apr 24 '15 at 13:36
-
1The question was not straightfoward. Concepts such as "larger than" are not easy and generally need set-theory precisions. Note that the answer might be useful for other people who know what projective spaces are, and also note that the answer you gave is not valid whenever the plane is finite, as I noted as a first example. – Tlön Uqbar Orbis Tertius Apr 24 '15 at 13:42
-
When you answer a question or a paper, first be precise and give an idea of the proof. Then prove it, then generalize it. Nobody prevents you from doing this. When you write, do not directly jump into the generalization without making it clear what you are actually after. Put things in context before answering. For instance, in this case, it is clear that the plane is $\mathbb{R}^2$. I would have been happier had you first written out the proof at the level of the OP and the context and had then generalized it. – Adhvaitha Apr 24 '15 at 13:54
-
Kindly take this the above as a suggestion. I see that you are an undergrad student and hope that you will take my comment in the right spirit. – Adhvaitha Apr 24 '15 at 13:54
-
Thanks for the advice. I usually care about precision and clarity, and my post was not as clear as I imagined (I modified it several times). Anyways, thanks for the comment ! – Tlön Uqbar Orbis Tertius Apr 24 '15 at 13:59
Let's start building up a way of describing the set of all lines in the plane. There are two types of lines: vertical lines and non-vertical lines.
- Any vertical line can be represented by an equation of the form $x=c$, for some unique constant $c \in \mathbb R$. So if we call $S$ the set of all vertical lines, there is a clear one-to-one correspondence between $S$ and $\mathbb R$.
- Any non-vertical line can be represented by an equation of the form $y=mx+b$, where $y,b$ are unique constants in $\mathbb R$. So if we call $T$ the set of all non-vertical lines, there is a clear one-to-one correspondence between $T$ and $\mathbb R \times \mathbb R$.
The set of all lines in the plane is $S \cup T$, and the set of all points in the plane is naturally identified with $\mathbb R \times \mathbb R$. Now, what do you know about a union of two infinite sets? What do you know about the Cartesian product of two infinite sets? With that information you should be able to put the pieces together and answer the question.
- 23,647
This question has several answer. Strictly speaking, there exists a bijection but it is somehow a very complicated one and not very useful either. It is not continuous, meaning that two points that are close to each other can correspond to lines that are very far. In fact, both sets, lines in the plane and points in the plane, are also in bijection with... points in a line ! Even if these sets feel very different from each other.
The second answer is that there are more lines in the plane than there are points. But in that case, the correspondence is very easy to write :
For instance, you can take the following : $(a,b)\mapsto L_{a,b}$ where $L_{a,b}$ is the line whose equation is $y=ax+b$. It is obviously injective, but not onto, because the vertical maps are not in the image. Hence, we can say that there are more lines that points.
- 12,487