From Wiki, "The Pigeonhole Principle":
In mathematics, the pigeonhole principle states that if n items are
put into m pigeonholes with n > m, then at least one pigeonhole must
contain more than one item.
From "The Mathematical Infinite as a Matter of Method," by Akihiro Kanamori:
In 1872 Dedekind was putting together Was sind und was sollen die
Zahlen?, and he would be the first to define infinite set, with the
definition being a set for which there is a one-to-one correspondence (bijection?)
with a proper subset. This is just the negation of the Pigeonhole
Principle. Dedekind in effect had inverted a negative aspect of finite
cardinality into a positive existence definition of the infinite.
How can this be? Dedekind's definition of infinite makes no reference to natural numbers or any kind of ordering:
A set $X$ is Dedekind-infinite iff there exists a proper subset $X'$ of $X$ and bijection $f:X'\rightarrow X$
See follow-up in my answer below.
Best Answer
Here's Dedekind's definition:
There is a hidden other half implied by this definition, namely that a finite set is one that is not infinite. One might imagine that it also says:
Or equivalently:
Or equivalently:
Replacing "injection" with its definition:
Now comes what I think is the only leap: imagine that the elements of $S$ are the pigeons, and that the pigeonholes are also labeled by elements of $S$. But not every possible element of $S$ is a label, so that the set of labels is a proper subset of $S$. Then the function $f$ says, for each pigeon, which hole it goes into:
Or equivalently:
I think this is the version of the pigeonhole principle that Kanamori was thinking of.
There's still a piece missing before we get to your version of the pigeonhole principle, which is that finite sets have sizes, which are numbers. To do this properly is a little bit technical. We define a number to be one of the sets $0=\varnothing, 1=\{0\}, 2=\{0, 1\}, 3=\{0, 1, 2\}, \ldots$. We can define $<$ to be the same as $\in$, or perhaps the restriction of $\in$ to the set of numbers. For example, $1<3$ because $1\in 3 = \{0,1,2\}$.
Then we can show that for any finite set $S$ there is exactly one number $n$ for which there is a bijection $c:S\to n$, and we can say that this unique number is the size $|S|$ of set $S$. Then we can show that if $S$ and $S'$ are finite sets with $S'\subsetneq S$, then $|S'|<|S|$.
Once this "size" machinery is in place, we can transform the statement of the pigeonhole principle above from one about a set and its proper subset to one about the sizes of the two sets:
Or, leaving $f$ implicit:
Which is pretty much what you said:
I hope this is some help.