Can someone help me with a proof that the power set of real numbers is strictly larger than the set of real numbers? I have been finding it hard using Cantor's general proof in this special case. A reference or answer will be appreciated.
[Math] Power set of real numbers
elementary-set-theory
Related Solutions
You can find encodings in the natural numbers of certain collections of subsets of $\mathbb{N}$. For example, as was pointed out by Henning Makholm, there is a very nice encoding of the collection of finite subsets of $\mathbb{N}$.
More generally, let $A$ be a recursively enumerable subset of $\mathbb{N}$. Let $T_A$ be a Turing machine that, on input $n$, halts if $n\in A$, and does not halt otherwise. Then we can encode $A$ by using the usual index of the machine $T_A$.
This encoding is not fully satisfactory. There are infinitely many Turing machines that halt on input $n$ iff $n\in A$. Thus every recursively enumerable set has infinitely many encodings. Moreover, there is no algorithm for telling, given two natural numbers, whether they encode the same set.
For more modest collections than the collection of recursively enumerable sets, there are far more satisfactory encodings. As a small and not very interesting example, consider the collection of subsets of $\mathbb{N}$ that are either finite or cofinite (their complement is finite). A small modification of the encoding of finite subsets will take care of the finites and cofinites. Basically, just use the even natural numbers for the finites. If you have used $2k$ to encode a finite, use $2k+1$ to encode its complement.
In addition, the elements of any countably infinite subset of the power set of $\mathbb{N}$ can, by the definition of countably infinite, be encoded using the natural numbers. However, by cardinality considerations, we cannot encode all the subsets of $\mathbb{N}$ using elements of $\mathbb{N}$.
It's not quite correct to ask for "the function", because if there is one then there are many. Moreover, explicit bijections are highly overrated. We can write one, but it's much much oh so much easier to use the Cantor-Bernstein theorem, and simply exhibit two injections.
If you do insist on writing an actual bijection, let me identify $\mathcal P(\Bbb N)$ with infinite binary sequences (which is quite standard). Now let me describe the steps. We would like to take a binary sequence to the real number in $[0,1]$ which has this binary string as an expansion. However some numbers, e.g. $\frac12=0.1\bar0_2=0.0\bar1_2$, one sequence with finitely many $1$'s and the other has finitely many $0$'s.
First enumerate all the strings which contain finitely many $0$'s the strings containing finitely many $1$'s. One can show that both sets are countably infinite, one can even enumerate them in a very nice way. Write them as $p_n$ for the $n$-th sequence with finitely many zeros and $q_n$ for the $n$-th sequence with finitely many $1$'s.
The next step is to take $f\colon2^\Bbb N\to2^\Bbb N$ defined as: $$f(x)=\begin{cases} q_{2k} & x=p_k\\ q_{2k+1} & x=q_k\\ x &\text{otherwise}\end{cases}$$ Easily this is an injection whose range is $2^\Bbb N\setminus\{p_n\mid n\in\Bbb N\}$.
Now map $x\in2^\Bbb N$ to $r\in[0,1)$ such that, $$r=\sum_{n\in\Bbb N}\frac{f(x)}{2^{n}}$$ that is the real number whose binary expansion is $f(x)$. One can show that this is a surjective function, since if a number has a binary expansion then it has one which has infinitely many $0$'s. It is also injective since if a real number one has two different binary expansions then we can show that exactly one of them has finitely many $0$'s and the other finitely many $1$'s. But since we use $f(x)$, this is impossible.
Find a bijection between $[0,1)$ and $\Bbb R$. Usually one does that by first "folding $0$ in" and having a bijection between $[0,1)$ and $(0,1)$ and then using something like $\frac{2x-1}{x(x-1)}$ or a similar function for a bijection with $\Bbb R$.
Using the Cantor-Bernstein theorem is much easier.
First note that that $\Bbb R$ can inject into $\mathcal P(\Bbb Q)$ by mapping $r$ to $\{q\in\Bbb Q\mid q<r\}$. Since $\Bbb Q$ is countable there is a bijection between $\cal P(\Bbb Q)$ and $\cal P(\Bbb N)$. So $\Bbb R$ injects into $\cal P(\Bbb N)$.
Then note that we can map $x\in2^\Bbb N$ to the continued fraction defined by the sequence $x$. Or to a point in $[0,1]$ defined by $\sum\frac{x(n)}{3^{n+1}}$, which we can show is injective in a somewhat easier proof.
Finally, as mentioned the last part is false. From the usual axioms of modern set theory (read: $\sf ZFC$) we cannot prove nor disprove that there are no intermediate cardinalities between $\Bbb N$ and $\Bbb R$. The proof of that is difficult and require a deep understanding of modern [read: axiomatic] set theory, as well logic.
If the last part somehow confused you, perhaps my answer to this question can help, Why is the Continuum Hypothesis (not) true?.
Best Answer
This is a special case of the more general result that there is no bijection between any set $X$ and its power set. If you're going to prove it about reals then you might as well prove it about an arbitrary set.
The idea is similar to that of Cantor's diagonal argument. Suppose there is a bijection $f : X \to \mathcal{P}(X)$, and consider the set $$A = \{ x \in X : x \not \in f(x) \}$$ This is certainly a subset of $X$, and so $A = f(y)$ for some $y \in X$.
But something went wrong... is $y \in f(y)$? Is $y \not \in f(y)$?