DOCSLIB.ORG

Set Theory in Computer Science a Gentle Introduction to Mathematical Modeling I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Set Theory in Computer Science A Gentle Introduction to Mathematical Modeling I Jose´ Meseguer University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana, IL 61801, USA c Jose´ Meseguer, 2008–2010; all rights reserved. February 28, 2011 2 Contents 1 Motivation 7 2 Set Theory as an Axiomatic Theory 11 3 The Empty Set, Extensionality, and Separation 15 3.1 The Empty Set . 15 3.2 Extensionality . 15 3.3 The Failed Attempt of Comprehension . 16 3.4 Separation . 17 4 Pairing, Unions, Powersets, and Infinity 19 4.1 Pairing . 19 4.2 Unions . 21 4.3 Powersets . 24 4.4 Infinity . 26 5 Case Study: A Computable Model of Hereditarily Finite Sets 29 5.1 HF-Sets in Maude . 30 5.2 Terms, Equations, and Term Rewriting . 33 5.3 Confluence, Termination, and Sufficient Completeness . 36 5.4 A Computable Model of HF-Sets . 39 5.5 HF-Sets as a Universe for Finitary Mathematics . 43 5.6 HF-Sets with Atoms . 47 6 Relations, Functions, and Function Sets 51 6.1 Relations and Functions . 51 6.2 Formula, Assignment, and Lambda Notations . 52 6.3 Images . 54 6.4 Composing Relations and Functions . 56 6.5 Abstract Products and Disjoint Unions . 59 6.6 Relating Function Sets . 62 7 Simple and Primitive Recursion, and the Peano Axioms 65 7.1 Simple Recursion . 65 7.2 Primitive Recursion . 67 7.3 The Peano Axioms . 69 8 Case Study: The Peano Language 71 9 Binary Relations on a Set 73 9.1 Directed and Undirected Graphs . 73 9.2 Transition Systems and Automata . 75 9.3 Relation Homomorphisms and Simulations . 76 9.4 Orders . 78 3 9.5 Sups and Infs, Complete Posets, Lattices, and Fixpoints . 81 9.6 Equivalence Relations and Quotients . 84 9.7 Constructing Z and Q ..................................... 88 10 Case Study: Fixpoint Semantics of Recursive Functions and Lispy 91 10.1 Recursive Function Definitions in a Nutshell . 92 10.2 Fixpoint Semantics of Recursive Function Definitions . 93 10.3 The Lispy Programming Language . 96 11 Sets Come in Different Sizes 97 11.1 Cantor’s Theorem . 97 11.2 The Schroeder-Bernstein Theorem . 98 12 I-Indexed Sets 99 12.1 I-Indexed Sets are Surjective Functions . 99 12.2 Constructing I-Indexed Sets from other I-Indexed Sets . 104 12.3 I-Indexed Relations and Functions . 105 13 From I-Indexed Sets to Sets, and the Axiom of Choice 107 13.1 Some Constructions Associating a Set to an I-Indexed Set . 107 13.2 The Axiom of Choice . 112 14 Well-Founded Relations, and Well-Founded Induction and Recursion 117 14.1 Well-Founded Relations . 117 14.1.1 Constructing Well-Founded Relations . 118 14.2 Well-Founded Induction . 119 14.3 Well-Founded Recursion . 120 14.3.1 Examples of Well-Founded Recursion . 120 14.3.2 Well-Founded Recursive Definitions: Step Functions . 121 14.3.3 The Well-Founded Recursion Theorem . 123 15 Cardinal Numbers and Cardinal Arithmetic 125 15.1 Cardinal Arithmetic . 126 15.2 The Integers and the Rationals are Countable . 129 15.3 The Continuum and the Continuum Hypothesis . 131 15.3.1 Peano Curves . 132 15.3.2 The Continuum Hypothesis . 132 16 Classes, Intensional Relations and Functions, and Replacement 135 16.1 Classes . 135 16.1.1 Mathematical Theorems are Assertions about Classes . 138 16.2 Intensional Relations . 139 16.3 Intensional Functions . 141 16.3.1 Typing Intensional Functions . 142 16.3.2 Computing with Intensional Functions . 143 16.3.3 Dependent and Polymorphic Types . 144 16.4 The Axiom of Replacement . 145 17 Case Study: Dependent and Polymorphic Types in Maude 149 17.1 Dependent Types in Maude . 149 17.2 Polymorphic-and-Dependent Types in Maude . 152 17.3 Definability Issues . 154 4 18 Well Orders, Ordinals, Cardinals, and Transfinite Constructions 155 18.1 Well-Ordered Sets . 155 18.2 Ordinals . 157 18.2.1 Ordinals as Transitive Sets . 159 18.2.2 Successor and Limit Ordinals . 159 18.2.3 Ordinal Arithmetic . 161 18.3 Transfinite Induction . 162 18.4 Transfinite Recursion . 163 18.4.1 α-Recursion . 164 18.4.2 Simple Intensional Recursion . 165 18.4.3 Transfinite Recursion . 166 18.5 Well-Orderings, Choice, and Cardinals . 168 18.5.1 Cardinals . 169 18.5.2 More Cardinal Arithmetic . 171 18.5.3 Regular, Singular, and Inaccessible Cardinals . 172 19 Well-Founded Sets and The Axiom of Foundation 173 19.1 Well-Founded Sets from the Top Down . 173 19.1.1 3-Induction . 175 19.2 Well-Founded Sets from the Bottom Up . 176 19.3 The Axiom of Foundation . 178 5 6 Chapter 1 Motivation “... we cannot improve the language of any science without at the same time improving the science itself; neither can we, on the other hand, improve a science, without improving the language or nomenclature which belongs to it.” (Lavoisier, 1790, quoted in Goldenfeld and Woese [23]) I found the inadequacy of language to be an obstacle; no matter how unwieldly the expressions I was ready to accept, I was less and less able, as the relations became more and more complex, to attain the precision that my purpose required. This deficiency led me to the idea of the present ideography. ::: I believe that I can best make the relation of my ideography to ordinary language clear if I compare it to that which the microscope has to the eye. Because of the range of its possible uses and the versatility with which it can adapt to the most diverse circumstances, the eye is far superior to the microscope. Considered as an optical instrument, to be sure, it exhibits many imperfections, which ordinarily remain unnoticed only on account of its intimate connection with our mental life. But, as soon as scientific goals demand great sharpness of resolution, the eye proves to be insufficient. The microscope, on the other hand, is prefectly suited to precisely such goals, but that is just why it is useless for all others. (Frege, 1897, Begriffsschrift, in [52], 5–6) Language and thought are related in a deep way. Without any language it may become impossible to conceive and express any thoughts. In ordinary life we use the different natural languages spoken on the planet. But natural language, although extremely flexible, can be highly ambiguous, and it is not at all well suited for science. Imagine, for example, the task of professionally developing quantum mechanics (itself relying on very abstract concepts, such as those in the mathematical language of operators in a Hilbert space) in ordinary English. Such a task would be virtually impossible; indeed, ridiculous: as preposterous as trying to build the Eiffel tower in the Sahara desert with blocks of vanilla ice cream. Even the task of popularization, that is, of explaining informally in ordinary English what quantum mechanics is, is highly nontrivial, and must of necessity remain to a considerable extent suggestive, metaphorical, and fraught with the possibility of gross misunderstandings. The point is that without a precise scientific language it becomes virtually impossible, or at least enor- mously burdensome and awkward, to think.
Recommended publications
  • Does the Category of Multisets Require a Larger Universe Than

    Does the Category of Multisets Require a Larger Universe Than

    Pure Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 2, 2013, no. 3, 133 - 146 HIKARI Ltd, www.m-hikari.com Does the Category of Multisets Require a Larger Universe than that of the Category of Sets? Dasharath Singh (Former affiliation: Indian Institute of Technology Bombay) Department of Mathematics, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria [email protected] Ahmed Ibrahim Isah Department of Mathematics Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria [email protected] Alhaji Jibril Alkali Department of Mathematics Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria [email protected] Copyright © 2013 Dasharath Singh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract In section 1, the concept of a category is briefly described. In section 2, it is elaborated how the concept of category is naturally intertwined with the existence of a universe of discourse much larger than what is otherwise sufficient for a large part of mathematics. It is also remarked that the extended universe for the category of sets is adequate for the category of multisets as well. In section 3, fundamentals required for adequately describing a category are extended to defining a multiset category, and some of its distinctive features are outlined. Mathematics Subject Classification: 18A05, 18A20, 18B99 134 Dasharath Singh et al. Keywords: Category, Universe, Multiset Category, objects. 1. Introduction to categories The history of science and that of mathematics, in particular, records that at times, a by- product may turn out to be of greater significance than the main objective of a research.
  • NOTES on FIBER DIMENSION Let Φ : X → Y Be a Morphism of Affine

    NOTES on FIBER DIMENSION Let Φ : X → Y Be a Morphism of Affine

    NOTES ON FIBER DIMENSION SAM EVENS Let φ : X → Y be a morphism of affine algebraic sets, defined over an algebraically closed field k. For y ∈ Y , the set φ−1(y) is called the fiber over y. In these notes, I explain some basic results about the dimension of the fiber over y. These notes are largely taken from Chapters 3 and 4 of Humphreys, “Linear Algebraic Groups”, chapter 6 of Bump, “Algebraic Geometry”, and Tauvel and Yu, “Lie algebras and algebraic groups”. The book by Bump has an incomplete proof of the main fact we are proving (which repeats an incomplete proof from Mumford’s notes “The Red Book on varieties and Schemes”). Tauvel and Yu use a step I was not able to verify. The important thing is that you understand the statements and are able to use the Theorems 0.22 and 0.24. Let A be a ring. If p0 ⊂ p1 ⊂···⊂ pk is a chain of distinct prime ideals of A, we say the chain has length k and ends at p. Definition 0.1. Let p be a prime ideal of A. We say ht(p) = k if there is a chain of distinct prime ideals p0 ⊂···⊂ pk = p in A of length k, and there is no chain of prime ideals in A of length k +1 ending at p. If B is a finitely generated integral k-algebra, we set dim(B) = dim(F ), where F is the fraction field of B. Theorem 0.2. (Serre, “Local Algebra”, Proposition 15, p. 45) Let A be a finitely gener- ated integral k-algebra and let p ⊂ A be a prime ideal.
  • “The Church-Turing “Thesis” As a Special Corollary of Gödel's

    “The Church-Turing “Thesis” As a Special Corollary of Gödel's

    “The Church-Turing “Thesis” as a Special Corollary of Gödel’s Completeness Theorem,” in Computability: Turing, Gödel, Church, and Beyond, B. J. Copeland, C. Posy, and O. Shagrir (eds.), MIT Press (Cambridge), 2013, pp. 77-104. Saul A. Kripke This is the published version of the book chapter indicated above, which can be obtained from the publisher at https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/computability. It is reproduced here by permission of the publisher who holds the copyright. © The MIT Press The Church-Turing “ Thesis ” as a Special Corollary of G ö del ’ s 4 Completeness Theorem 1 Saul A. Kripke Traditionally, many writers, following Kleene (1952) , thought of the Church-Turing thesis as unprovable by its nature but having various strong arguments in its favor, including Turing ’ s analysis of human computation. More recently, the beauty, power, and obvious fundamental importance of this analysis — what Turing (1936) calls “ argument I ” — has led some writers to give an almost exclusive emphasis on this argument as the unique justification for the Church-Turing thesis. In this chapter I advocate an alternative justification, essentially presupposed by Turing himself in what he calls “ argument II. ” The idea is that computation is a special form of math- ematical deduction. Assuming the steps of the deduction can be stated in a first- order language, the Church-Turing thesis follows as a special case of G ö del ’ s completeness theorem (first-order algorithm theorem). I propose this idea as an alternative foundation for the Church-Turing thesis, both for human and machine computation. Clearly the relevant assumptions are justified for computations pres- ently known.
  • 1 Elementary Set Theory

    1 Elementary Set Theory

    1 Elementary Set Theory Notation: fg enclose a set. f1; 2; 3g = f3; 2; 2; 1; 3g because a set is not defined by order or multiplicity. f0; 2; 4;:::g = fxjx is an even natural numberg because two ways of writing a set are equivalent. ; is the empty set. x 2 A denotes x is an element of A. N = f0; 1; 2;:::g are the natural numbers. Z = f:::; −2; −1; 0; 1; 2;:::g are the integers. m Q = f n jm; n 2 Z and n 6= 0g are the rational numbers. R are the real numbers. Axiom 1.1. Axiom of Extensionality Let A; B be sets. If (8x)x 2 A iff x 2 B then A = B. Definition 1.1 (Subset). Let A; B be sets. Then A is a subset of B, written A ⊆ B iff (8x) if x 2 A then x 2 B. Theorem 1.1. If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ A then A = B. Proof. Let x be arbitrary. Because A ⊆ B if x 2 A then x 2 B Because B ⊆ A if x 2 B then x 2 A Hence, x 2 A iff x 2 B, thus A = B. Definition 1.2 (Union). Let A; B be sets. The Union A [ B of A and B is defined by x 2 A [ B if x 2 A or x 2 B. Theorem 1.2. A [ (B [ C) = (A [ B) [ C Proof. Let x be arbitrary. x 2 A [ (B [ C) iff x 2 A or x 2 B [ C iff x 2 A or (x 2 B or x 2 C) iff x 2 A or x 2 B or x 2 C iff (x 2 A or x 2 B) or x 2 C iff x 2 A [ B or x 2 C iff x 2 (A [ B) [ C Definition 1.3 (Intersection).
  • Mathematics 144 Set Theory Fall 2012 Version

    Mathematics 144 Set Theory Fall 2012 Version

    MATHEMATICS 144 SET THEORY FALL 2012 VERSION Table of Contents I. General considerations.……………………………………………………………………………………………………….1 1. Overview of the course…………………………………………………………………………………………………1 2. Historical background and motivation………………………………………………………….………………4 3. Selected problems………………………………………………………………………………………………………13 I I. Basic concepts. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 1. Topics from logic…………………………………………………………………………………………………………16 2. Notation and first steps………………………………………………………………………………………………26 3. Simple examples…………………………………………………………………………………………………………30 I I I. Constructions in set theory.………………………………………………………………………………..……….34 1. Boolean algebra operations.……………………………………………………………………………………….34 2. Ordered pairs and Cartesian products……………………………………………………………………… ….40 3. Larger constructions………………………………………………………………………………………………..….42 4. A convenient assumption………………………………………………………………………………………… ….45 I V. Relations and functions ……………………………………………………………………………………………….49 1.Binary relations………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ….49 2. Partial and linear orderings……………………………..………………………………………………… ………… 56 3. Functions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ….…….. 61 4. Composite and inverse function.…………………………………………………………………………… …….. 70 5. Constructions involving functions ………………………………………………………………………… ……… 77 6. Order types……………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………… 80 i V. Number systems and set theory …………………………………………………………………………………. 84 1. The Natural Numbers and Integers…………………………………………………………………………….83 2. Finite induction
  • Computability and Incompleteness Fact Sheets

    Computability and Incompleteness Fact Sheets

    Computability and Incompleteness Fact Sheets Computability Definition. A Turing machine is given by: A finite set of symbols, s1; : : : ; sm (including a \blank" symbol) • A finite set of states, q1; : : : ; qn (including a special \start" state) • A finite set of instructions, each of the form • If in state qi scanning symbol sj, perform act A and go to state qk where A is either \move right," \move left," or \write symbol sl." The notion of a \computation" of a Turing machine can be described in terms of the data above. From now on, when I write \let f be a function from strings to strings," I mean that there is a finite set of symbols Σ such that f is a function from strings of symbols in Σ to strings of symbols in Σ. I will also adopt the analogous convention for sets. Definition. Let f be a function from strings to strings. Then f is computable (or recursive) if there is a Turing machine M that works as follows: when M is started with its input head at the beginning of the string x (on an otherwise blank tape), it eventually halts with its head at the beginning of the string f(x). Definition. Let S be a set of strings. Then S is computable (or decidable, or recursive) if there is a Turing machine M that works as follows: when M is started with its input head at the beginning of the string x, then if x is in S, then M eventually halts, with its head on a special \yes" • symbol; and if x is not in S, then M eventually halts, with its head on a special • \no" symbol.
  • A Class of Symmetric Difference-Closed Sets Related to Commuting Involutions John Campbell

    A Class of Symmetric Difference-Closed Sets Related to Commuting Involutions John Campbell

    A class of symmetric difference-closed sets related to commuting involutions John Campbell To cite this version: John Campbell. A class of symmetric difference-closed sets related to commuting involutions. Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, DMTCS, 2017, Vol 19 no. 1. hal-01345066v4 HAL Id: hal-01345066 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01345066v4 Submitted on 18 Mar 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science DMTCS vol. 19:1, 2017, #8 A class of symmetric difference-closed sets related to commuting involutions John M. Campbell York University, Canada received 19th July 2016, revised 15th Dec. 2016, 1st Feb. 2017, accepted 10th Feb. 2017. Recent research on the combinatorics of finite sets has explored the structure of symmetric difference-closed sets, and recent research in combinatorial group theory has concerned the enumeration of commuting involutions in Sn and An. In this article, we consider an interesting combination of these two subjects, by introducing classes of symmetric difference-closed sets of elements which correspond in a natural way to commuting involutions in Sn and An. We consider the natural combinatorial problem of enumerating symmetric difference-closed sets consisting of subsets of sets consisting of pairwise disjoint 2-subsets of [n], and the problem of enumerating symmetric difference-closed sets consisting of elements which correspond to commuting involutions in An.
  • 19 Theory of Computation

    19 Theory of Computation

    19 Theory of Computation "You are about to embark on the study of a fascinating and important subject: the theory of computation. It com- prises the fundamental mathematical properties of computer hardware, software, and certain applications thereof. In studying this subject we seek to determine what can and cannot be computed, how quickly, with how much memory, and on which type of computational model." - Michael Sipser, "Introduction to the Theory of Computation", one of the driest computer science textbooks ever In which we go back to the basics with arcane, boring, and irrelevant set theory and counting. This week’s material is made challenging by two orthogonal issues. There’s a whole bunch of stuff to cover, and 95% of it isn’t the least bit interesting to a physical scientist. Nevertheless, being the starry-eyed optimist that I am, I’ll forge ahead through the mountainous bulk of knowledge. In other words, expect these notes to be long! But skim when necessary; if you look at the homework first (and haven’t entirely forgotten the lectures), you should be able to pick out the important parts. I understand if this type of stuff isn’t exactly your cup of tea, but bear with me while you can. In some sense, most of what we refer to as computer science isn’t computer science at all, any more than what an accountant does is math. Sure, modern economics takes some crazy hardcore theory to make it all work, but un- derlying the whole thing is a solid layer of applications and industrial moolah.
  • Turing's Influence on Programming — Book Extract from “The Dawn of Software Engineering: from Turing to Dijkstra”

    Turing's Influence on Programming — Book Extract from “The Dawn of Software Engineering: from Turing to Dijkstra”

    Turing's Influence on Programming | Book extract from \The Dawn of Software Engineering: from Turing to Dijkstra" Edgar G. Daylight∗ Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands [email protected] Abstract Turing's involvement with computer building was popularized in the 1970s and later. Most notable are the books by Brian Randell (1973), Andrew Hodges (1983), and Martin Davis (2000). A central question is whether John von Neumann was influenced by Turing's 1936 paper when he helped build the EDVAC machine, even though he never cited Turing's work. This question remains unsettled up till this day. As remarked by Charles Petzold, one standard history barely mentions Turing, while the other, written by a logician, makes Turing a key player. Contrast these observations then with the fact that Turing's 1936 paper was cited and heavily discussed in 1959 among computer programmers. In 1966, the first Turing award was given to a programmer, not a computer builder, as were several subsequent Turing awards. An historical investigation of Turing's influence on computing, presented here, shows that Turing's 1936 notion of universality became increasingly relevant among programmers during the 1950s. The central thesis of this paper states that Turing's in- fluence was felt more in programming after his death than in computer building during the 1940s. 1 Introduction Many people today are led to believe that Turing is the father of the computer, the father of our digital society, as also the following praise for Martin Davis's bestseller The Universal Computer: The Road from Leibniz to Turing1 suggests: At last, a book about the origin of the computer that goes to the heart of the story: the human struggle for logic and truth.
  • Vanishing Cycles, Plane Curve Singularities, and Framed Mapping Class Groups

    Vanishing Cycles, Plane Curve Singularities, and Framed Mapping Class Groups

    VANISHING CYCLES, PLANE CURVE SINGULARITIES, AND FRAMED MAPPING CLASS GROUPS PABLO PORTILLA CUADRADO AND NICK SALTER Abstract. Let f be an isolated plane curve singularity with Milnor fiber of genus at least 5. For all such f, we give (a) an intrinsic description of the geometric monodromy group that does not invoke the notion of the versal deformation space, and (b) an easy criterion to decide if a given simple closed curve in the Milnor fiber is a vanishing cycle or not. With the lone exception of singularities of type An and Dn, we find that both are determined completely by a canonical framing of the Milnor fiber induced by the Hamiltonian vector field associated to f. As a corollary we answer a question of Sullivan concerning the injectivity of monodromy groups for all singularities having Milnor fiber of genus at least 7. 1. Introduction Let f : C2 ! C denote an isolated plane curve singularity and Σ(f) the Milnor fiber over some point. A basic principle in singularity theory is to study f by way of its versal deformation space ∼ µ Vf = C , the parameter space of all deformations of f up to topological equivalence (see Section 2.2). From this point of view, two of the most basic invariants of f are the set of vanishing cycles and the geometric monodromy group. A simple closed curve c ⊂ Σ(f) is a vanishing cycle if there is some deformation fe of f with fe−1(0) a nodal curve such that c is contracted to a point when transported to −1 fe (0).
  • Natural Numerosities of Sets of Tuples

    Natural Numerosities of Sets of Tuples

    TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 367, Number 1, January 2015, Pages 275–292 S 0002-9947(2014)06136-9 Article electronically published on July 2, 2014 NATURAL NUMEROSITIES OF SETS OF TUPLES MARCO FORTI AND GIUSEPPE MORANA ROCCASALVO Abstract. We consider a notion of “numerosity” for sets of tuples of natural numbers that satisfies the five common notions of Euclid’s Elements, so it can agree with cardinality only for finite sets. By suitably axiomatizing such a no- tion, we show that, contrasting to cardinal arithmetic, the natural “Cantorian” definitions of order relation and arithmetical operations provide a very good algebraic structure. In fact, numerosities can be taken as the non-negative part of a discretely ordered ring, namely the quotient of a formal power series ring modulo a suitable (“gauge”) ideal. In particular, special numerosities, called “natural”, can be identified with the semiring of hypernatural numbers of appropriate ultrapowers of N. Introduction In this paper we consider a notion of “equinumerosity” on sets of tuples of natural numbers, i.e. an equivalence relation, finer than equicardinality, that satisfies the celebrated five Euclidean common notions about magnitudines ([8]), including the principle that “the whole is greater than the part”. This notion preserves the basic properties of equipotency for finite sets. In particular, the natural Cantorian definitions endow the corresponding numerosities with a structure of a discretely ordered semiring, where 0 is the size of the emptyset, 1 is the size of every singleton, and greater numerosity corresponds to supersets. This idea of “Euclidean” numerosity has been recently investigated by V.
  • Families of Sets and Extended Operations Families of Sets

    Families of Sets and Extended Operations Families of Sets

    Families of Sets and Extended Operations Families of Sets When dealing with sets whose elements are themselves sets it is fairly common practice to refer to them as families of sets, however this is not a definition. In fact, technically, a family of sets need not be a set, because we allow repeated elements, so a family is a multiset. However, we do require that when repeated elements appear they are distinguishable. F = {A , A , A , A } with A = {a,b,c}, A ={a}, A = {a,d} and 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 A = {a} is a family of sets. 4 Extended Union and Intersection Let F be a family of sets. Then we define: The union over F by: ∪ A={x :∃ A∈F x∈A}= {x :∃ A A∈F∧x∈A} A∈F and the intersection over F by: ∩ A = {x :∀ A∈F x∈A}= {x :∀ A A∈F ⇒ x∈A}. A∈F For example, with F = {A , A , A , A } where A = {a,b,c}, 1 2 3 4 1 A ={a}, A = {a,d} and A = {a} we have: 2 3 4 ∪ A = {a ,b , c , d } and ∩ A = {a}. A∈F A∈F Theorem 2.8 For each set B in a family F of sets, a) ∩ A ⊆ B A∈F b) B ⊆ ∪ A. A∈F Pf: a) Suppose x ∈ ∩ A, then ∀A ∈ F, x ∈ A. Since B ∈ F, we have x ∈ B. Thus, ∩ A ⊆ B. b) Now suppose y ∈ B. Since B ∈ F, y ∈ ∪ A. Thus, B ⊆ ∪ A. Caveat Care must be taken with the empty family F, i.e., the family containing no sets.