DOCSLIB.ORG

A SET-THEORETIC APPROACH to OBTAINING INFINITY by MATTHEW MICHAEL JONES B.A., University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A SET-THEORETIC APPROACH to OBTAINING INFINITY by MATTHEW MICHAEL JONES B.A., University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, 2013 A SET-THEORETIC APPROACH TO OBTAINING INFINITY by MATTHEW MICHAEL JONES B.A., University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, 2013 A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Colorado Colorado Springs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Mathematics 2016 ii This thesis for the Master of Science degree by Matthew Michael Jones has been approved for the Department of Mathematics by Greg Oman Gene Abrams Greg Morrow Date: 12/14/2016 iii Jones, Matthew Michael (M.S., Mathematics) A Set-Theoretic Approach To Obtaining Infinity Thesis directed by Assistant Professor of Mathematics, Dr. Greg Oman ABSTRACT Many set-theoretic axioms have been formulated over the years which imply (along with the other axioms for set theory) the existence of what one would intuitively regard as an infinite set. In this thesis, we identify a property common to many such axioms, and then we obtain a more general class of “infinity axioms.” iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PRELIMINARIES 6 III. RESULTS 16 REFERENCES 25 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The concept of “infinity” is ubiquitous in mathematics. Indeed, the collection of real numbers, the collection of prime numbers, and the collection of real-valued, continuous functions are all examples of infinite collections of objects. This is a notion we intuitively understand: a collection of objects is infinite if, in some sense, its elements “go on forever.” In modern mathematics, this is hardly precise enough to be a formal definition. But how can one define infinity? There are many answers in the literature. The most common context in which such answers appear is in the mathematical field of set theory. Informally, a set is a collection of objects. For instance, {1, 2, 3} denotes the collection (set) of numbers 1, 2, and 3. It is generally recognized that the theory of sets is robust enough to encapsulate all of mathematics. Hence it is natural to investigate notions of infinity within this theory. A brief history follows. Mathematician Richard Dedekind produced many classical writings between the years 1871 and 1888 which promoted a set-theoretic formulation of mathematical ideas. In 1888 he published a presentation of the basic elements of (a somewhat primitive) set theory, making a bit more explicit the operations on sets and mappings he had been using since 1871. His definition of an infinite set is given below. Definition 1. (Dedekind Infinite Set) Let X be a set. Then X is Dedekind Infinite if and only if there exists a bijection between A and X for some proper subset A of X. 2 One may argue that Dedekind’s definition of an infinite set conforms to our informal notions of infinity. Indeed, let us consider some intuitively “infinite” set X. We will informally argue there is a bijection between A and X for some proper subset A of X. Indeed, since X is in some sense infinite, we can pick x1,x2,x3,... ∈ X. We now define f : X → X \{x1} by x if x∈ / {x1,x2,x3,...}, and f(x)= . xi+1 if x = xi. It is easy to see that f is a bijection between X and X\{x1}. Thus X is Dedekind Infinite. Conversely, one can give an argument (which is necessarily informal at this point since we have yet to introduce the ZFC axioms) that if X is not infinite, then X is not Dedekind Infinite. Another great mathematician, Paul St¨ackel, also made contributions to set theory. While at the University of Hannover in 1907, St¨ackel gave us his definition of an infinite set. Definition 2. (St¨ackelInfinite Set) Let X be a set. Then X is St¨ackelInfinite if and only if there exists a well-order on X such that the reversal order is not a well-order on X. In the next chapter we discuss well-orders in more detail and prove the Well- Ordering Theorem which states that every set can be well-ordered. Assuming (for now) the Well-Ordering Theorem, we note how St¨ackel’s definition also seems to capture our informal notion of what an infinite set should be. Indeed, let us consider some set X which is, informally, “infinite.” By the Well-Ordering Theorem, there exists a well-order < on X. Thus there must exist a least element of X, call it x1. 3 There must also exist a least element of X \{x1}, call it x2. We can continue this construction indefinitely as X is “infinite” to create the set S := {x1,x2,...}. It is clear that S has no greatest element, and thus in the reversal order, there is no least element. Hence X is a St¨ackel Infinite Set. Another contributor to the foundations of set theory was Alfred Tarski. He was a brilliant mathematician; in fact, he was the youngest person ever to complete a doctorate at Warsaw University. Tarski’s mathematical interests were exceptionally broad, yet his first paper, published in 1920 when he was 19 years old, was on set theory. In what follows, we let P(X) denote the power set of X, that is, the set of all subsets of X. We now give Tarski’s definition of an infinite set. Definition 3. (Tarski Infinite Set) Let X be a set. Then X is a Tarski Infinite Set if there exists a nonempty S ( P(X) such that for all Y ∈S there exists Z ∈S such that Y ( Z. In some sense, Tarski had appropriately defined what one may want an infinite set to be. We now argue that any Tarski Infinite set must be, informally, an infinite set and conversely. Indeed, let X be a Tarski Infinite Set. Then there exists a nonempty S⊆P(X) such that for all Y ∈ S there exists Z ∈ S such that Y ( Z. Intuitively then, S itself must be “infinite”. To wit, there exist s0,s1,s2, ··· ∈ S such that s0 ( s1 ( s2 ( ··· . Thus we can choose x0 ∈ s0, x1 ∈ s1 \ s0, x2 ∈ s2 \ s1, and so on. It follows that these objects must be distinct. Since x0,x1,x2, ··· ∈ X, we see that X must be “infinite.” Conversely, now let X be (intuitively) an “infinite” set. Since X is “infinite” we can pick x0,x1,x2, ···∈ X such that xi =6 xj for i =6 j. Define S := {{x0}, {x0,x1, }{x0,x1,x2}, ···}. 4 Then S =6 ∅ and S ⊆ P(X) such that for all x ∈ S there exists a y ∈ S such that x ( y. Several years later, John von Neumann introduced the now standard axiom pos- tulating the existence of an infinite set. Before we give von Neumann’s definition, we must define what is contemporarily know as an inductive set. Definition 4. For a set x, let x+ := x ∪ {x}. Now define a set I to be inductive if (1) ∅ ∈ I, and (2) n+ ∈ I whenever n ∈ I. Von Neumann’s Axiom of Infinity postulates the existence of an inductive set. One may argue that any inductive set is informally infinite. Indeed, let I be an in- ductive set. From (1) of the definition, ∅ ∈ I. It follows from (2) that ∅+ ∈ I. Applying (2) again we find that ∅++ ∈ I. Continuing in the fashion we see ∅, ∅+, ∅++, ∅+++, ··· ∈ I. Since these members of I are distinct (this is easy to show) and because we can continue the construction of the above members indefi- nitely, we find that I satisfies our informal notion of an infinite set. There are some sets, however, that appear to be infinite yet fail to be Inductive sets. Indeed, let I be and inductive set and choose y∈ / I. Next, set I′ := {{y, i}: i ∈ I}. It is easy to see that F : I → I′ by F (i) = {y, i} is a bijection between I and I′. Intuitively then, one may feel that I and I′ must be the same “size”, yet we now show that neither properties (1) or (2) from Definition 5 holds for I′. Indeed, ∅ ∈/ I′ as for all i′ ∈ I′, y ∈ i′. Furthermore, for any i′ ∈ I′, i′ contains exactly two sets while 5 i′+ contains exactly three sets. Thus i′+ cannot be in I′. Thus the set I′, although seemingly “infinite”, is not an inductive set. 6 CHAPTER II PRELIMINARIES We now state the standard axioms for ZC − I set theory in which we will be working. We refer the reader to the references for two standard texts on set theory. Axiom 1. (Extensionality Axiom) Let A and B be sets. If for all sets x: x ∈ A if and only if x ∈ B, then A = B . In other words, if two sets have exactly the same members, then they are equal. Axiom 2. (Empty Set Axiom) There exists a set ∅ such that for all sets x, x∈ / ∅. Intuitively, there is a set having no members. Moreover, Extensionality implies that there is a unique set with no members. Axiom 3. (Pairing) Let A and B be sets. There exists a set C such that for all sets x: x ∈ C if and only if x = A or x = B. More informally, for any sets A and B, there is a set having as members just A and B. Axiom 4. (Union Axiom) Let A be a set. Then there is a set B such that for all sets x: x ∈ B if and only if there is some y ∈ A such that x ∈ y. The Axiom of Union asserts that if A is any set, then the members of the members of A form a set.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Axiom of Infinity and the Natural Numbers
    Axiom of Infinity Natural Numbers Axiomatic Systems The Axiom of Infinity and The Natural Numbers Bernd Schroder¨ logo1 Bernd Schroder¨ Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science The Axiom of Infinity and The Natural Numbers 1. The axioms that we have introduced so far provide for a rich theory. 2. But they do not guarantee the existence of infinite sets. 3. In fact, the superstructure over the empty set is a model that satisfies all the axioms so far and which does not contain any infinite sets. (Remember that the superstructure itself is not a set in the model.) Axiom of Infinity Natural Numbers Axiomatic Systems Infinite Sets logo1 Bernd Schroder¨ Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science The Axiom of Infinity and The Natural Numbers 2. But they do not guarantee the existence of infinite sets. 3. In fact, the superstructure over the empty set is a model that satisfies all the axioms so far and which does not contain any infinite sets. (Remember that the superstructure itself is not a set in the model.) Axiom of Infinity Natural Numbers Axiomatic Systems Infinite Sets 1. The axioms that we have introduced so far provide for a rich theory. logo1 Bernd Schroder¨ Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science The Axiom of Infinity and The Natural Numbers 3. In fact, the superstructure over the empty set is a model that satisfies all the axioms so far and which does not contain any infinite sets. (Remember that the superstructure itself is not a set in the model.) Axiom of Infinity Natural Numbers Axiomatic Systems Infinite Sets 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Infinite Sets
    “mcs-ftl” — 2010/9/8 — 0:40 — page 379 — #385 13 Infinite Sets So you might be wondering how much is there to say about an infinite set other than, well, it has an infinite number of elements. Of course, an infinite set does have an infinite number of elements, but it turns out that not all infinite sets have the same size—some are bigger than others! And, understanding infinity is not as easy as you might think. Some of the toughest questions in mathematics involve infinite sets. Why should you care? Indeed, isn’t computer science only about finite sets? Not exactly. For example, we deal with the set of natural numbers N all the time and it is an infinite set. In fact, that is why we have induction: to reason about predicates over N. Infinite sets are also important in Part IV of the text when we talk about random variables over potentially infinite sample spaces. So sit back and open your mind for a few moments while we take a very brief look at infinity. 13.1 Injections, Surjections, and Bijections We know from Theorem 7.2.1 that if there is an injection or surjection between two finite sets, then we can say something about the relative sizes of the two sets. The same is true for infinite sets. In fact, relations are the primary tool for determining the relative size of infinite sets. Definition 13.1.1. Given any two sets A and B, we say that A surj B iff there is a surjection from A to B, A inj B iff there is an injection from A to B, A bij B iff there is a bijection between A and B, and A strict B iff there is a surjection from A to B but there is no bijection from B to A.
    [Show full text]
  • Equivalents to the Axiom of Choice and Their Uses A
    EQUIVALENTS TO THE AXIOM OF CHOICE AND THEIR USES A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Mathematics California State University, Los Angeles In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Mathematics By James Szufu Yang c 2015 James Szufu Yang ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii The thesis of James Szufu Yang is approved. Mike Krebs, Ph.D. Kristin Webster, Ph.D. Michael Hoffman, Ph.D., Committee Chair Grant Fraser, Ph.D., Department Chair California State University, Los Angeles June 2015 iii ABSTRACT Equivalents to the Axiom of Choice and Their Uses By James Szufu Yang In set theory, the Axiom of Choice (AC) was formulated in 1904 by Ernst Zermelo. It is an addition to the older Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) set theory. We call it Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice and abbreviate it as ZFC. This paper starts with an introduction to the foundations of ZFC set the- ory, which includes the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms, partially ordered sets (posets), the Cartesian product, the Axiom of Choice, and their related proofs. It then intro- duces several equivalent forms of the Axiom of Choice and proves that they are all equivalent. In the end, equivalents to the Axiom of Choice are used to prove a few fundamental theorems in set theory, linear analysis, and abstract algebra. This paper is concluded by a brief review of the work in it, followed by a few points of interest for further study in mathematics and/or set theory. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Between the two department requirements to complete a master's degree in mathematics − the comprehensive exams and a thesis, I really wanted to experience doing a research and writing a serious academic paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Boise State University, [email protected]
    Boise State University ScholarWorks Mathematics Undergraduate Theses Department of Mathematics 5-2014 Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Boise State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/ math_undergraduate_theses Part of the Set Theory Commons Recommended Citation Rahim, Farighon Abdul, "Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice" (2014). Mathematics Undergraduate Theses. Paper 1. Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Advisor: Samuel Coskey Boise State University May 2014 1 Introduction Sets are all around us. A bag of potato chips, for instance, is a set containing certain number of individual chip’s that are its elements. University is another example of a set with students as its elements. By elements, we mean members. But sets should not be confused as to what they really are. A daughter of a blacksmith is an element of a set that contains her mother, father, and her siblings. Then this set is an element of a set that contains all the other families that live in the nearby town. So a set itself can be an element of a bigger set. In mathematics, axiom is defined to be a rule or a statement that is accepted to be true regardless of having to prove it. In a sense, axioms are self evident. In set theory, we deal with sets. Each time we state an axiom, we will do so by considering sets. Example of the set containing the blacksmith family might make it seem as if sets are finite.
    [Show full text]
  • Functions and Infinite Sets
    Indian Institute of Information Technology Design and Manufacturing, Kancheepuram Instructor Chennai 600 127, India N.Sadagopan An Autonomous Institute under MHRD, Govt of India Scribe: An Institute of National Importance S.Dhanalakshmi www.iiitdm.ac.in A. Mohanapriya COM205T Discrete Structures for Computing-Lecture Notes Functions and Infinite Sets Objective: We shall introduce functions, special functions and related counting problems. We shall see the importance of functions in the context of infinite sets and discuss infinite sets in detail. Further, we introduce the notion counting in the context of infinite sets. Revisit: Relations Consider the following relations and its graphical representation, and this representation is dif- ferent from the one we discussed in the context of relations. A = B = f1; 2; 3; 4; 5g, R1 = f(1; 2); (1; 3); (2; 3); (2; 4); (2; 5)g A = B = f1; 2; 3g, R2 = f(1; 1); (2; 2); (3; 3)g A = B = f1; 2; 3g, R3 = f(1; 1); (2; 2); (2; 3)g A = B = f1; 2; 3g, R4 = f(1; 1); (2; 1); (3; 1)g We define special relations; relations satisfying the following properties. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 A B A B A B A B (a) R1 (b) R2 (c) R3 (d) R4 Fig. 1: (a),(b),(c),(d) represent relations using two partitions. 1. Property P1: 8a 2 A 9!b 2 B [(a; b) 2 R] 2. Property P2: relation satisfying P1 and @a 2 A @b 2 A ^ a 6= b ^ 8c 2 B [(a; c) 2 R ^ (b; c) 2 R] 3.
    [Show full text]
  • 2.5. INFINITE SETS Now That We Have Covered the Basics of Elementary
    2.5. INFINITE SETS Now that we have covered the basics of elementary set theory in the previous sections, we are ready to turn to infinite sets and some more advanced concepts in this area. Shortly after Georg Cantor laid out the core principles of his new theory of sets in the late 19th century, his work led him to a trove of controversial and groundbreaking results related to the cardinalities of infinite sets. We will explore some of these extraordinary findings, including Cantor’s eponymous theorem on power sets and his famous diagonal argument, both of which imply that infinite sets come in different “sizes.” We also present one of the grandest problems in all of mathematics – the Continuum Hypothesis, which posits that the cardinality of the continuum (i.e. the set of all points on a line) is equal to that of the power set of the set of natural numbers. Lastly, we conclude this section with a foray into transfinite arithmetic, an extension of the usual arithmetic with finite numbers that includes operations with so-called aleph numbers – the cardinal numbers of infinite sets. If all of this sounds rather outlandish at the moment, don’t be surprised. The properties of infinite sets can be highly counter-intuitive and you may likely be in total disbelief after encountering some of Cantor’s theorems for the first time. Cantor himself said it best: after deducing that there are just as many points on the unit interval (0,1) as there are in n-dimensional space1, he wrote to his friend and colleague Richard Dedekind: “I see it, but I don’t believe it!” The Tricky Nature of Infinity Throughout the ages, human beings have always wondered about infinity and the notion of uncountability.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Infinite Sets (PDF)
    22C:34 Notes on infinite sets Since we cannot ever finish counting an infinite set, we need a different approach to thinking about “how many elements” such a set contains. In the early 1900s, Georg Cantor presented an idea that has clarified thinking about this issue and had enormous impact on opening new pursuits in logic. Two (finite or) infinite sets A and B are said to have the same cardinality (equipotent) if there is a one-to-one, onto function (i.e., a bijection) f: A Æ B. Since it is impossible to ascribe an ordinary number to the size of an infinite set, we don’t try. Instead, the comparative idea above is used. If we can “line the elements up” in exactly corresponding pairs, we say the two sets have the same cardinality (i.e., size). So, for instance, the set of natural numbers N = {0, 1, 2, … } has the same cardinality as the collection of all strings over the alphabet {0,1}. We can line them up as follows: N 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … {0,1}* e 0 1 00 01 10 11 000 001 010 … It should be intuitively clear that we have a 1-1, onto correspondence. However, especially with the potentially elusive idea of infinity, we need to be able to follow this up with a precise function definition that permits a convincing demonstration of the desired properties of the correspondence. This is often not so easy. n n+1 In this case, for f: N Æ {0,1}*, we can say for each n≥0 and 2 –1 ≤ m ≤ 2 –2, define n f(m) as the n-bit binary expansion of m–(2 –1).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1. Informal Introdution to the Axioms of ZF.∗
    Chapter 1. Informal introdution to the axioms of ZF.∗ 1.1. Extension. Our conception of sets comes from set of objects that we know well such as N, Q and R, and subsets we can form from these determined by their properties. Here are two very simple examples: {r ∈ R | 0 ≤ r} = {r ∈ R | r has a square root in R} {x | x 6= x} = {n ∈ N | n even, greater than two and a prime}. (This last example gives two definitions of the empty set, ∅). The notion of set is an abstraction of the notion of a property. So if X, Y are sets we have that ∀x ( x ∈ X ⇐⇒ x ∈ Y ) =⇒ X = Y . One can immediately see that this implies that the empty set is unique. 1.2. Unions. Once we have some sets to play with we can consider sets of sets, for example: {xi | i ∈ I } for I some set of indices. We also have the set that consists of all objects that belong S S to some xi for i ∈ I. The indexing set I is not relevant for us, so {xi | i ∈ I } = xi can be S i∈I written X, where X = {xi | i ∈ I }. Typically we will use a, b, c, w, x, z, ... as names of sets, so we can write [ [ x = {z | z ∈ x} = {w | ∃z such that w ∈ z and z ∈ x}. Or simply: S x = {w | ∃z ∈ x w ∈ z }. (To explain this again we have [ [ [ y = {y | y ∈ x} = {z | ∃y ∈ x z ∈ y }. y∈x So we have already changed our way of thinking about sets and elements as different things to thinking about all sets as things of the same sort, where the elements of a set are simply other sets.) 1.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1, Some Requisites
    Chapter 1. Some requisites The idea here is to study a few things that are not directly part of our topic of integration, but they are things that will come up pretty soon along the way. Contents 1.1 Countable and uncountable sets . .1 1.2 Inverse images . .4 1.3 Characteristic functions . .6 1.4 Boolean algebra of sets . .7 1.4.1 De Morgan’s laws . .8 1.1 Countable and uncountable sets You probably know very well that some sets are finite and others are infinite. The point here is that some infinite sets are more infinite than others. So there are more real numbers than rational numbers, that is the set R has a ‘greater number’ of elements than the set Q. On the other hand Q has the ‘same number’ of elements as the integers Z, even though there are many rationals that are not integers. So Z(Q(R but the first two are the ‘same size’ while R is ‘bigger’. To explain that, we need to approach the matter systematically. A rather abstract way of saying that a set S has n elements is to say that there is a bijection f : f1; 2; : : : ; ng ! S. Here the idea is that n 2 N is a (finite) natural number. Another, perhaps more down to earth, way to express that is that S = ff(1); f(2); : : : ; f(n)g so that we can list the elements of S in a list of n elements, without repetitions S = fs1; s2; : : : ; sng. You should be able to see also that the idea of listing out the elements S = fs1; s2; : : : ; sng, which is probably what you would have said it means for S to have n elements, is just the same as having a bijection f : f1; 2; : : : ; ng ! S .
    [Show full text]
  • SET THEORY for CATEGORY THEORY 3 the Category Is Well-Powered, Meaning That Each Object Has Only a Set of Iso- Morphism Classes of Subobjects
    SET THEORY FOR CATEGORY THEORY MICHAEL A. SHULMAN Abstract. Questions of set-theoretic size play an essential role in category theory, especially the distinction between sets and proper classes (or small sets and large sets). There are many different ways to formalize this, and which choice is made can have noticeable effects on what categorical constructions are permissible. In this expository paper we summarize and compare a num- ber of such “set-theoretic foundations for category theory,” and describe their implications for the everyday use of category theory. We assume the reader has some basic knowledge of category theory, but little or no prior experience with formal logic or set theory. 1. Introduction Since its earliest days, category theory has had to deal with set-theoretic ques- tions. This is because unlike in most fields of mathematics outside of set theory, questions of size play an essential role in category theory. A good example is Freyd’s Special Adjoint Functor Theorem: a functor from a complete, locally small, and well-powered category with a cogenerating set to a locally small category has a left adjoint if and only if it preserves small limits. This is always one of the first results I quote when people ask me “are there any real theorems in category theory?” So it is all the more striking that it involves in an essential way notions like ‘locally small’, ‘small limits’, and ‘cogenerating set’ which refer explicitly to the difference between sets and proper classes (or between small sets and large sets). Despite this, in my experience there is a certain amount of confusion among users and students of category theory about its foundations, and in particular about what constructions on large categories are or are not possible.
    [Show full text]
  • SET THEORY Andrea K. Dieterly a Thesis Submitted to the Graduate
    SET THEORY Andrea K. Dieterly A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS August 2011 Committee: Warren Wm. McGovern, Advisor Juan Bes Rieuwert Blok i Abstract Warren Wm. McGovern, Advisor This manuscript was to show the equivalency of the Axiom of Choice, Zorn's Lemma and Zermelo's Well-Ordering Principle. Starting with a brief history of the development of set history, this work introduced the Axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel, common applications of the axioms, and set theoretic descriptions of sets of numbers. The book, Introduction to Set Theory, by Karel Hrbacek and Thomas Jech was the primary resource with other sources providing additional background information. ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank Warren Wm. McGovern for his assistance and guidance while working and writing this thesis. I also want to thank Reiuwert Blok and Juan Bes for being on my committee. Thank you to Dan Shifflet and Nate Iverson for help with the typesetting program LATEX. A personal thank you to my husband, Don, for his love and support. iii Contents Contents . iii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Naive Set Theory . 2 1.2 The Axiom of Choice . 4 1.3 Russell's Paradox . 5 2 Axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel 7 2.1 First Order Logic . 7 2.2 The Axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel . 8 2.3 The Recursive Theorem . 13 3 Development of Numbers 16 3.1 Natural Numbers and Integers . 16 3.2 Rational Numbers . 20 3.3 Real Numbers .
    [Show full text]
  • How Set Theory Impinges on Logic
    1 Jesús Mosterín HOW SET THEORY IMPINGES ON LOGIC The set-theoretical universe Reality often cannot be grasped and understood in its unfathomable richness and mind-blowing complexity. Think only of the trivial case of the shape of the Earth. Every time the wind blows, a bird flies, a tree drops a leave, every time it rains, a car moves or we get a haircut, the form of the Earth changes. No available or conceivable geometry can describe the ever changing form of the surface of our planet. Sometimes the best we can do is to apply the method of theoretical science: to pick up a mathematical structure from the set-theoretical universe, a structure that has some formal similarities with some features of the real world situation we are interested in, and to use that structure as a model of that parcel of the world. In the case of the Earth, the structure can be an Euclidean sphere, or a sphere flattened at the poles, or an ellipsoid, but of course these structures do not represent the car and the hair, and so are realistic only up to a point. The largest part of scientific activity results in data, in contributions to history (in a broad sense). Only exceptionally does scientific activity result in abstract schemata, in formulas, in theories. In history there is truth and falsity, but we are not sure whether it makes sense to apply these same categories to an abstract theory. We pick up a mathematical structure and construct a theory. We still have to determine its scope of application or validity, the range of its realizations.
    [Show full text]