COMP 2711H: Lecture 27
Date: 2024-11-04 08:57:34
Reviewed:
Topic / Chapter:
summary
βQuestions
Notes
Sets
- 
Sets- naive comprehension (possibly leading to paradoxes)
- writing set with property/formulaandelement (thing)
- π¨βπ« above notation: only works if condition can be written as
 
- writing set with 
- Russell's paradox
- let 
- , not
 
- then let 
- must be a "set", as it's defined by comprehension
 
- paradox: ?
- if : it means (not in set satisfying )
- if : it means (in set satisfying )
 
- only way out: show that such doesn't exist
 
- let 
 
- naive comprehension (possibly leading to paradoxes)
- 
ZFC- i.e. Zermelo-Fraenkel (Axioms) choice
- creating a new set from an existing set
- not necessarily all setts hat can be created
 
- language  must be defined, supporting:
- arbitrary no. of variables  over sets
- everything: sets
 
- logical & boolean operators
- only  is needed
- others, e.g. , can be derived
 
 
- only  is needed
- parenthesis
 
- arbitrary no. of variables  over sets
 
- 
ZFC axioms- extensionality: two sets are equal iff they have the same elements
- empty set: there exists a set with no elements- 
- π¨βπ« : a syntactic sugar
 
 
- 
- unordered pair: if are sets, there is a set- w/ elements are exactly
 
- union: if a set, set consisting of all elements of all the elements of
- e.g. for 
- π¨βπ« uniqueness of ZF3,ZF4can be shown
- notation:
 
- comprehension: from a universal set- if  a formula in 
- w/ free variables
- and a set and are sets
- then following is also a set: 
- subset of satisfies condition
 
- π¨βπ« limited version of original comprehension
 
- original problem / paradox doesn't exist as
- there is no "super set" or set-of-all-sets
- π¨βπ« not everything that can be written in is a set
- π¨βπ« now, it's Russel's proof instead of paradox
 
 
- if  a formula in 
- powerset: let be a set. there exists a set whose elements are subsets of
- denote
 
 
- 
Supplementary- theorem: there is a unique set w/ no elements (w/ ZF1,ZF2)- by ZF2, there exists a set w/ no elements
- let be a set w/ no elements
- for any ,  and 
- thus, following holds (no premise holds)
 
- by ZF1,
- empty set: will be notated as 
- e.g. 
- technically not in our language as is included
 
- yet, we can use  as a variable and write equivalent:
 
- e.g. 
 
- by 
- ZF3: set creation
- from , can be obtained
- from , can be obtained
- and so on...
 
- ordered pairs: w/ : define 
- theorem: let  be sets, 
- π¨βπ« not so trivial proof
 
- proof
- case 1: 
- then (claimed by left side of iff)
- 
- thus ,
 
- 
- thus ,
 
 
- case 2: 
- π¨βπ« trust me, it's case 1
 
- case 3: 
- thus:  i.e. 
- i.e.
 
 
- for 
- and for
- thus:  i.e. 
- i.e.
 
 
 
- case 1: 
- extending union
- class
- class: collection of form
- π¨βπ« needed as all operations are only defined on sets
 
- subset
- Cartesian product
- let be sets
- 
- π¨βπ« paradox-prone comprehension!
 
- use 
- RHS: valid formula in now
 
- , ,
 
- π¨βπ« Russel said: accepting one paradox implies all other paradox
- e.g. 1=2, then I'm the Pope
- building system without paradox: important
 
- e.g. 
- relation
- relation from to : subset
 
- function
- relation : a function 
- if
 
 
- relation : a function 
 
- theorem: there is a unique set w/ no elements (w/