DOCSLIB.ORG

Mat 2345 Student Responsibilities — Week 4 2.1 Sets Notation Used

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mat 2345 Student Responsibilities — Week 4 2.1 Sets Notation Used Student Responsibilities — Week 4 I Reading: Textbook, Section 2.1–2.3 Mat 2345 I Attendance: Strongly Encouraged Week 4 I Week 4 Overview Fall 2013 I 2.1 Sets I 2.2 Set Operations I 2.3 Functions 2.1 Sets Notation used to specify sets I list the elements between braces; listing an object more than once does not change the set—ordering means nothing. I Set: an unordered collection or group of objects, which are said to be elements, or members of the set S = a, b, c, d = b, c, a, d, d { } { } I Set builder notation – specify by predicate; here, S contains all I A set is said to contain its elements elements from U which make the predicate P true S = x P(x) { | } I There must be an underlying Universal Set, U, either specifically stated or understood I brace notation with ellipses; here, the negative integers: S = ..., 3, 2, 1 { − − − } Common Universal Sets Notation I R — Real Numbers I x S — x is a member of S, or x is an element of S ∈ I x / S — x is not an element of S I N — Natural Numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3,... ∈ { } I Z — Integers: ..., 3, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3,... Set Equality — Definition #1 { − − − } I Two sets are equal if and only if they have the same elements. + I Z — Positive Integers I That is, if A and B are sets, then A and B are equal if and only if x[x A x B]. ∀ ∈ ↔ ∈ p I Q — Rational Numbers: p, q Z q = 0 { q | ∈ ∧ 6 } I We write A = B if A and B are equal sets. Subsets Power Set I Subset: Let A and B be sets. Then A B x [ x A x B ] I Power Set: P(A) is the set of all possible subsets of the set A ⊆ ⇔ ∀ ∈ → ∈ I If A = a, b , then I Empty, void, or Null Set: ∅ is the set with no members { } P(A) = ∅, a , b , a, b { { } { } { }} I the assertion x ∅ is always false, thus: ∈ I What is the power set of the set B = 0, 1, 2 ? x [ x ∅ x B] is always (vacuously) true, ∀ ∈ → ∈ { } and therefore ∅ is a subset of every set I Note: a set B is always a subset of itself: B B ⊆ I How many elements would P( a, b, c, d ) have? { } I Proper subset: A B if A B, but A = B ⊂ ⊆ 6 Cardinality Example I Cardinality: A is the number of distinct elements in A | | I Let A = ∅, ∅ I If the cardinality is a natural number (in N), then the set is { { }} I A has two elements and hence four subsets: called finite; otherwise, it’s called infinite ∅, ∅ , ∅ , ∅, ∅ { } {{ }} { { }} I Example: Let A = a, b I Note that ∅ is both a member of A and a subset of A { } I A = a, b = 2 | | |{ }| I P(A) = P( a, b ) = 4 I Russell’s Paradox: Let S be the set of all sets which are not | | | { } | I A is finite, and so is P(A) members of themselves. Is S a member of itself or not? n I Note : A = n P(A) = 2 1 | | → | | I Note2: N is infinite since N is not a natural number — I The Paradox of the Barber of Seville: The (male) barber of | | it is called a transfinite cardinal number Seville shaves all and only men who do not shave themselves. Who shaves the barber of Seville? I Note3: Sets can be both members and subsets of other sets Cartesian Product I Cartesian Product of A with B: A B is the set of ordered I The Cartesian product of the sets A , A ,..., A , denoted by × 1 2 n pairs: < a, b > a A b B A A A is the set of ordered n–tuples { | ∈ ∧ ∈ } 1 × 2 × · · · × n < a1, a2,..., an >, where ai Ai for 1 i n. I Notation: Πn A = < a , a ,..., a > a A , ∈ ≤ ≤ i=1 i { 1 2 n | i ∈ i } an n–tuple I A A A = 1 × 2 × · · · × n I The Cartesian product of any set with is — why? < a1, a2,..., an > ai Ai , i = 1, 2,..., n ∅ ∅ { | ∈ } I Example 1. Let A = a, b and B = 1, 2, 3 { } { } I If A = a, b and B = 1, 2, 3 , what is A B A? A B = < a, 1 >, < a, 2 >, < a, 3 >, < b, 1 >, < b, 2 >, < b, 3 > { } { } × × × { } What is B A? × If A = m and B = n, what is A B ? | | | | | × | Quantifiers Truth Sets The Universe of Discourse, also known as the Domain of Discourse, is often referred to simply as the domain. I Let P be a predicate and D a domain. The Truth Set of P is the set of elements x D P(x) is true. The domain specifies the possible values of our variables. ∈ 3 I The truth set of P(x) is denoted: x D P(x) We can use quantifiers to restrict the domain { ∈ | } I Assume the domain is the set of integers. What are the truth sets: I x S[P(x)] denotes x[x S P(x)] ∀ ∈ ∀ ∈ → I P = x Z x = 1 Truth Set: Ex: x R[x2 0] means: { ∈ | | | } ∀ ∈ ≥ 2 2 I Q = x Z x = 2 Truth Set: for every real number x, x is non-negative { ∈ | } I R = x Z x = x Truth Set: Note: The meaning of the universal quantifier changes when we { ∈ | | | } change the domain. I Note: xP(x) is true over the domain U IFF the truth set of P ∀ is U. I x S[P(x)] denotes x[x S P(x)] ∃ ∈ ∃ ∈ ∧ I Note: xP(x) is true over the domain U IFF the truth set of Ex: x Z[x2 = 1] means: ∃ ∃ ∈ P = ∅. there exists an integer x such that x2 = 1 6 2.2 Set Operations Equality of Sets By a previous logical equivalence, we have: I Boolean Algebra: an algebraic system, instances of which are propositional calculus and set theory. A = B IFF I The operators in set theory are defined in terms of the x [(x A x B) (x B x A)] corresponding operator in propositional calculus. ∀ ∈ → ∈ ∧ ∈ → ∈ — or another definition — I As before, there must be a universe, U, and all sets are assumed to be subsets of U. A = B IFF A B and B A ⊆ ⊆ Set Operations More Set Operations I Union of A and B, denoted A B, is the set ∪ x x A x B { | ∈ ∨ ∈ } I Difference of A and B, or the complement of B relative to A, denoted A B, is the set − A B I Intersection of A and B, denoted A B, is the set ∩ ∩ Note: The absolute complement of A is U A x x A x B − { | ∈ ∧ ∈ } If the intersection is void, A and B are said to be disjoint I Symmetric Difference of A and B, denoted A B, is the set ⊕ (A B) (B A) − ∪ − I Complement of A, denoted A, is the set x (x A) = x x A { | ¬ ∈ } { | 6∈ } Examples Venn Diagrams U = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 { } A = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and B = 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Venn Diagrams are a useful geometric visualization tool for 3 or { } { } fewer sets. I A B = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ∪ { } I A B = 4, 5 I The Universal set U is a rectangular box ∩ { } I A = 0, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 I Each set is represented by a circle and its interior { } I B = 0, 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 { } I All possible combinations of the sets must be represented I A B = 1, 2, 3 − { } I Shade the appropriate region to represent the given set operation I B A = 6, 7, 8 − { } I A B = 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 ⊕ { } Examples U U A B AB For 2 sets A B ∩ U A B U A B C C For 3 sets A (C B) ∪ ∩ Set Identities Universal Instantiation Set identities correspond to the logical equivalences. We now apply an important rule of inference called Example The complement of the union is the intersection of the Universal Instantiation complements: In a proof, we can eliminate the universal quantifier A B = A B ∪ ∩ which binds a variable if we do not assume anything To prove this statement, we would need to show: about the variable other than it is an arbitrary mem- x [x A B x A B] ber of the Universe. We can then treat the resulting ∀ ∈ ∪ ↔ ∈ ∩ predicate as a proposition. To show two sets are equal: I we can show for all x that x is a member of one set IFF it is a We say, “Let x be arbitrary.” Then we can treat the predicates member of the other, or as propositions. I show that each is a subset of the other Universal Generalization Assertion Reason x A B x / (A B) Defn of complement We can apply another rule of inference ∈ ∪ ⇔ ∈ ∪ [x (A B)] Defn of / ⇔ ¬ ∈ ∪ ∈ [(x A) (x B)] Defn of union ⇔ ¬ ∈ ∨ ∈ (x A) (x B) DeMorgan’s Laws Universal Generalization ⇔ ¬ ∈ ∧ ¬ ∈ (x / A) (x / B) Defn of / ⇔ ∈ ∧ ∈ ∈ We can apply a universal quantifier to bind a variable (x A) (x B) Defn of complement ⇔ ∈ ∧ ∈ if we have shown the predicate to be true for all values x (A B) Defn of intersection of the variable in the Universe ⇔ ∈ ∩ Hence, x A B x A B is a tautology since and claim the assertion is true for all x, i.e., ∈ ∪ ↔ ∈ ∩ I x was arbitrary, and x[x A B x A B] I we have used only logically equivalent assertions and definitions ∀ ∈ ∪ ↔ ∈ ∩ Q.E.D.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lecture 1: Informal Logic
    Lecture 1: Informal Logic 1 Sentential/Propositional Logic Definition 1.1 (Statement). A statement is anything we can say, write, or otherwise express that can be either true or false. Remark 1. Veracity of a statement doesn't depend on one's ability to verify it's truth or falsity. Example 1.2. The expression \Venkatesh is twenty years old" is a statement, because it is either true or false. We will be making following two assumptions when dealing with statements. Assumptions 1.3 (Bivalence). Every statement is either true or false. Assumptions 1.4. No statement is both true and false. One of the consequences of the bivalence assumption is that if a statement is not true, then it must be false. Hence, to prove that something is true, it would suffice to prove that it is not false. 1.1 Combination of Statements In this subsection, we would look at five basic ways of combining two statements P and Q to form new statements. We can form more complicated compound statements by using combinations of these basic operations. Definition 1.5 (Conjunction). We define conjunction of statements P and Q to be the statement that is true if both P and Q are true, and is false otherwise. Conjunction of of P and Q is denoted P ^ Q, and read \P and Q." Remark 2. Logical and is different from it's colloquial usages for therefore or for relations. 1 Definition 1.6 (Disjunction). We define disjunction of statements P and Q to be the statement that is true if either P is true or Q is true or both are true, and is false otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • Sets, Functions
    Sets 1 Sets Informally: A set is a collection of (mathematical) objects, with the collection treated as a single mathematical object. Examples: • real numbers, • complex numbers, C • integers, • All students in our class Defining Sets Sets can be defined directly: e.g. {1,2,4,8,16,32,…}, {CSC1130,CSC2110,…} Order, number of occurence are not important. e.g. {A,B,C} = {C,B,A} = {A,A,B,C,B} A set can be an element of another set. {1,{2},{3,{4}}} Defining Sets by Predicates The set of elements, x, in A such that P(x) is true. {}x APx| ( ) The set of prime numbers: Commonly Used Sets • N = {0, 1, 2, 3, …}, the set of natural numbers • Z = {…, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, …}, the set of integers • Z+ = {1, 2, 3, …}, the set of positive integers • Q = {p/q | p Z, q Z, and q ≠ 0}, the set of rational numbers • R, the set of real numbers Special Sets • Empty Set (null set): a set that has no elements, denoted by ф or {}. • Example: The set of all positive integers that are greater than their squares is an empty set. • Singleton set: a set with one element • Compare: ф and {ф} – Ф: an empty set. Think of this as an empty folder – {ф}: a set with one element. The element is an empty set. Think of this as an folder with an empty folder in it. Venn Diagrams • Represent sets graphically • The universal set U, which contains all the objects under consideration, is represented by a rectangle.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 1.4: Predicate Logic
    Section 1.4: Predicate Logic January 22, 2021 Abstract We now consider the logic associated with predicate wffs, including a new set of derivation rules for demonstrating validity (the analogue of tautology in the propositional calculus) – that is, for proving theorems! 1 Derivation rules • First of all, all the rules of propositional logic still hold. Whew! Propositional wffs are simply boring, variable-less predicate wffs. • Our author suggests the following “general plan of attack”: – strip off the quantifiers – work with the separate wffs – insert quantifiers as necessary Now, how may we legitimately do so? Consider the classic syllo- gism: a. (All) Humans are mortal. b. Socrates is human. Therefore Socrates is mortal. The way we reason is that the rule “Humans are mortal” applies to the specific example “Socrates”; hence this Socrates is mortal. We might write this as a. (∀x)(H(x) → M(x)) b. H(s) Therefore M(s). It seems so obvious! But how do we justify that in a proof se- quence? • New rules for predicate logic: in the following, you should un- derstand by the symbol x in P (x) an expression with free variable x, possibly containing other (quantified) variables: e.g. P (x) ≡ (∀y)(∃z)Q(x,y,z) (1) – Universal Instantiation: from (∀x)P (x) deduce P (t). Caveat: t must not already appear as a variable in the ex- pression for P (x): in the equation above, (1), it would not do to deduce P (y) or P (z), as those variables appear in the expression (in a quantified fashion) already.
    [Show full text]
  • The Universal Finite Set 3
    THE UNIVERSAL FINITE SET JOEL DAVID HAMKINS AND W. HUGH WOODIN Abstract. We define a certain finite set in set theory { x | ϕ(x) } and prove that it exhibits a universal extension property: it can be any desired particular finite set in the right set-theoretic universe and it can become successively any desired larger finite set in top-extensions of that universe. Specifically, ZFC proves the set is finite; the definition ϕ has complexity Σ2, so that any affirmative instance of it ϕ(x) is verified in any sufficiently large rank-initial segment of the universe Vθ ; the set is empty in any transitive model and others; and if ϕ defines the set y in some countable model M of ZFC and y ⊆ z for some finite set z in M, then there is a top-extension of M to a model N in which ϕ defines the new set z. Thus, the set shows that no model of set theory can realize a maximal Σ2 theory with its natural number parameters, although this is possible without parameters. Using the universal finite set, we prove that the validities of top-extensional set-theoretic potentialism, the modal principles valid in the Kripke model of all countable models of set theory, each accessing its top-extensions, are precisely the assertions of S4. Furthermore, if ZFC is consistent, then there are models of ZFC realizing the top-extensional maximality principle. 1. Introduction The second author [Woo11] established the universal algorithm phenomenon, showing that there is a Turing machine program with a certain universal top- extension property in models of arithmetic.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic and Proof
    CS2209A 2017 Applied Logic for Computer Science Lecture 11, 12 Logic and Proof Instructor: Yu Zhen Xie 1 Proofs • What is a theorem? – Lemma, claim, etc • What is a proof? – Where do we start? – Where do we stop? – What steps do we take? – How much detail is needed? 2 The truth 3 Theories and theorems • Theory: axioms + everything derived from them using rules of inference – Euclidean geometry, set theory, theory of reals, theory of integers, Boolean algebra… – In verification: theory of arrays. • Theorem: a true statement in a theory – Proved from axioms (usually, from already proven theorems) Pythagorean theorem • A statement can be a theorem in one theory and false in another! – Between any two numbers there is another number. • A theorem for real numbers. False for integers! 4 Axioms example: Euclid’s postulates I. Through 2 points a line segment can be drawn II. A line segment can be extended to a straight line indefinitely III. Given a line segment, a circle can be drawn with it as a radius and one endpoint as a centre IV. All right angles are congruent V. Parallel postulate 5 Some axioms for propositional logic • For any formulas A, B, C: – A ∨ ¬ – . – . – A • Also, like in arithmetic (with as +, as *) – , – Same holds for ∧. – Also, • And unlike arithmetic – ( ) 6 Counterexamples • To disprove a statement, enough to give a counterexample: a scenario where it is false – To disprove that • Take = ", = #, • Then is false, but B is true. – To disprove that if %& '( ) &, ( , then '( %& ) &, ( , • Set the domain of x and y to be {0,1} • Set P(0,0) and P(1,1) to true, and P(0,1), P(1,0) to false.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter I Set Theory
    Chapter I Set Theory There is surely a piece of divinity in us, something that was before the elements, and owes no homage unto the sun. Sir Thomas Browne One of the benefits of mathematics comes from its ability to express a lot of information in very few symbols. Take a moment to consider the expression d sin( θ). dθ It encapsulates a large amount of information. The notation sin( θ) represents, for a right triangle with angle θ, the ratio of the opposite side to the hypotenuse. The differential operator d/dθ represents a limit, corresponding to a tangent line, and so forth. Similarly, sets are a convenient way to express a large amount of information. They give us a language we will find convenient in which to do mathematics. This is no accident, as much of modern mathematics can be expressed in terms of sets. 1 2 CHAPTER I. SET THEORY 1 Sets, subsets, and set operations 1.A What is a set? A set is simply a collection of objects. The objects in the set are called the elements . We often write down a set by listing its elements. For instance, the set S = 1, 2, 3 has three elements. Those elements are 1, 2, and 3. There is a special symbol,{ }, that we use to express the idea that an element belongs to a set. For instance, we∈ write 1 S to mean that “1 is an element of S.” For∈ the set S = 1, 2, 3 , we have 1 S, 2 S, and 3 S.
    [Show full text]
  • CS 205 Sections 07 and 08 Supplementary Notes on Proof Matthew Stone March 1, 2004 [email protected]
    CS 205 Sections 07 and 08 Supplementary Notes on Proof Matthew Stone March 1, 2004 [email protected] 1 Propositional Natural Deduction The proof systems that we have been studying in class are called natural deduction. This is because they permit the same lines of reasoning and the same form of argument that you see in ordinary mathematics. Students generally find it easier to represent their mathematical ideas in natural deduction than in other ways of doing proofs. In these systems the proof is a sequence of lines. Each line has a number, a formula, and a justification that explains why the formula can be introduced into the proof. The simplest kind of justification is that the formula is a premise, and the argument depends on it. Another common justification is modus ponens, which derives the consequent of a conditional in the proof whose antecedent is also part of the proof. Here is a simple proof with these two rules used together. Example 1 1P! QPremise 2Q! RPremise 3P Premise 4 Q Modus ponens 1,3 5 R Modus ponens 2,4 This proof assumes that P is true, that P ! Q,andthatQ ! R. It uses modus ponens to conclude that R must then be true. Some inference rules in natural deduction allow assumptions to be made for the purposes of argument. These inference rules create a subproof. A subproof begins with a new assumption. This assumption can be used just within this subproof. In addition, all the assumption made in outer proofs can be used in the subproof.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy 109, Modern Logic Russell Marcus
    Philosophy 240: Symbolic Logic Hamilton College Fall 2014 Russell Marcus Reference Sheeet for What Follows Names of Languages PL: Propositional Logic M: Monadic (First-Order) Predicate Logic F: Full (First-Order) Predicate Logic FF: Full (First-Order) Predicate Logic with functors S: Second-Order Predicate Logic Basic Truth Tables - á á @ â á w â á e â á / â 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Rules of Inference Modus Ponens (MP) Conjunction (Conj) á e â á á / â â / á A â Modus Tollens (MT) Addition (Add) á e â á / á w â -â / -á Simplification (Simp) Disjunctive Syllogism (DS) á A â / á á w â -á / â Constructive Dilemma (CD) (á e â) Hypothetical Syllogism (HS) (ã e ä) á e â á w ã / â w ä â e ã / á e ã Philosophy 240: Symbolic Logic, Prof. Marcus; Reference Sheet for What Follows, page 2 Rules of Equivalence DeMorgan’s Laws (DM) Contraposition (Cont) -(á A â) W -á w -â á e â W -â e -á -(á w â) W -á A -â Material Implication (Impl) Association (Assoc) á e â W -á w â á w (â w ã) W (á w â) w ã á A (â A ã) W (á A â) A ã Material Equivalence (Equiv) á / â W (á e â) A (â e á) Distribution (Dist) á / â W (á A â) w (-á A -â) á A (â w ã) W (á A â) w (á A ã) á w (â A ã) W (á w â) A (á w ã) Exportation (Exp) á e (â e ã) W (á A â) e ã Commutativity (Com) á w â W â w á Tautology (Taut) á A â W â A á á W á A á á W á w á Double Negation (DN) á W --á Six Derived Rules for the Biconditional Rules of Inference Rules of Equivalence Biconditional Modus Ponens (BMP) Biconditional DeMorgan’s Law (BDM) á / â -(á / â) W -á / â á / â Biconditional Modus Tollens (BMT) Biconditional Commutativity (BCom) á / â á / â W â / á -á / -â Biconditional Hypothetical Syllogism (BHS) Biconditional Contraposition (BCont) á / â á / â W -á / -â â / ã / á / ã Philosophy 240: Symbolic Logic, Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 13: Formal Proofs and Quantifiers
    Chapter 13: Formal Proofs and Quantifiers § 13.1 Universal quantifier rules Universal Elimination (∀ Elim) ∀x S(x) ❺ S(c) Here x stands for any variable, c stands for any individual constant, and S(c) stands for the result of replacing all free occurrences of x in S(x) with c. Example 1. ∀x ∃y (Adjoins(x, y) ∧ SameSize(y, x)) 2. ∃y (Adjoins(b, y) ∧ SameSize(y, b)) ∀ Elim: 1 General Conditional Proof (∀ Intro) ✾c P(c) Where c does not occur outside Q(c) the subproof where it is introduced. ❺ ∀x (P(x) → Q(x)) There is an important bit of new notation here— ✾c , the “boxed constant” at the beginning of the assumption line. This says, in effect, “let’s call it c.” To enter the boxed constant in Fitch, start a new subproof and click on the downward pointing triangle ❼. This will open a menu that lets you choose the constant you wish to use as a name for an arbitrary object. Your subproof will typically end with some sentence containing this constant. In giving the justification for the universal generalization, we cite the entire subproof (as we do in the case of → Intro). Notice that although c may not occur outside the subproof where it is introduced, it may occur again inside a subproof within the original subproof. Universal Introduction (∀ Intro) ✾c Where c does not occur outside the subproof where it is P(c) introduced. ❺ ∀x P(x) Remember, any time you set up a subproof for ∀ Intro, you must choose a “boxed constant” on the assumption line of the subproof, even if there is no sentence on the assumption line.
    [Show full text]
  • Predicate Logic
    Predicate Logic Andreas Klappenecker Predicates A function P from a set D to the set Prop of propositions is called a predicate. The set D is called the domain of P. Example Let D=Z be the set of integers. Let a predicate P: Z -> Prop be given by P(x) = x>3. The predicate itself is neither true or false. However, for any given integer the predicate evaluates to a truth value. For example, P(4) is true and P(2) is false Universal Quantifier (1) Let P be a predicate with domain D. The statement “P(x) holds for all x in D” can be written shortly as ∀xP(x). Universal Quantifier (2) Suppose that P(x) is a predicate over a finite domain, say D={1,2,3}. Then ∀xP(x) is equivalent to P(1)⋀P(2)⋀P(3). Universal Quantifier (3) Let P be a predicate with domain D. ∀xP(x) is true if and only if P(x) is true for all x in D. Put differently, ∀xP(x) is false if and only if P(x) is false for some x in D. Existential Quantifier The statement P(x) holds for some x in the domain D can be written as ∃x P(x) Example: ∃x (x>0 ⋀ x2 = 2) is true if the domain is the real numbers but false if the domain is the rational numbers. Logical Equivalence (1) Two statements involving quantifiers and predicates are logically equivalent if and only if they have the same truth values no matter which predicates are substituted into these statements and which domain is used.
    [Show full text]
  • Sets and Functions
    Unit SF Sets and Functions Section 1: Sets The basic concepts of sets and functions are topics covered in high school math courses and are thus familiar to most university students. We take the intuitive point of view that sets are unordered collections of objects. We first recall some standard terminology and notation associated with sets. When we speak about sets, we usually have a “universal set” U in mind, to which the various sets of our discourse belong. Definition 1 (Set notation) A set is an unordered collection of distinct objects. We use the notation x ∈ S to mean “x is an element of S” and x∈ / S to mean “x is not an element of S.” Given two subsets (subcollections) of U, X and Y , we say “X is a subset of Y ,” written X ⊆ Y , if x ∈ X implies that x ∈ Y . Alternatively, we may say that “Y is a superset of X.” X ⊆ Y and Y ⊇ X mean the same thing. We say that two subsets X and Y of U are equal if X ⊆ Y and Y ⊆ X. We use braces to designate sets when we wish to specify or describe them in terms of their elements: A = {a, b, c}, B = {2, 4, 6,...}. A set with k elements is called a k-set or set with cardinality k. The cardinality of a set A is denoted by |A|. Since a set is an unordered collection of distinct objects, the following all describe the same 3-element set {a, b, c} = {b, a, c} = {c, b, a} = {a, b, b, c, b}.
    [Show full text]
  • Frege and the Logic of Sense and Reference
    FREGE AND THE LOGIC OF SENSE AND REFERENCE Kevin C. Klement Routledge New York & London Published in 2002 by Routledge 29 West 35th Street New York, NY 10001 Published in Great Britain by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper. Copyright © 2002 by Kevin C. Klement All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any infomration storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Klement, Kevin C., 1974– Frege and the logic of sense and reference / by Kevin Klement. p. cm — (Studies in philosophy) Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 0-415-93790-6 1. Frege, Gottlob, 1848–1925. 2. Sense (Philosophy) 3. Reference (Philosophy) I. Title II. Studies in philosophy (New York, N. Y.) B3245.F24 K54 2001 12'.68'092—dc21 2001048169 Contents Page Preface ix Abbreviations xiii 1. The Need for a Logical Calculus for the Theory of Sinn and Bedeutung 3 Introduction 3 Frege’s Project: Logicism and the Notion of Begriffsschrift 4 The Theory of Sinn and Bedeutung 8 The Limitations of the Begriffsschrift 14 Filling the Gap 21 2. The Logic of the Grundgesetze 25 Logical Language and the Content of Logic 25 Functionality and Predication 28 Quantifiers and Gothic Letters 32 Roman Letters: An Alternative Notation for Generality 38 Value-Ranges and Extensions of Concepts 42 The Syntactic Rules of the Begriffsschrift 44 The Axiomatization of Frege’s System 49 Responses to the Paradox 56 v vi Contents 3.
    [Show full text]