Difference between revisions of "A pair of identical elements is a singleton"
From Maths
(Created page with "__TOC__ ==Statement== Let {{M|t}} be a set. By ''the axiom of pairing'' we may construct a unique (unordered) pair, which up until now we have denoted by {{M|\{t,t\} }...") |
m (Fixing and leaving for later) |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* {{M|\{t\} }} for a pair consisting of the same thing for both parts. | * {{M|\{t\} }} for a pair consisting of the same thing for both parts. | ||
Formally we must show: | Formally we must show: | ||
− | * {{M|\exists x[x\in\{t,t\}\ | + | * {{M|\exists x[x\in\{t,t\}\wedge\forall y(y\in\{t,t\}\rightarrow y\eq x)]}} (as per definition of {{link|singleton|set theory}} |
==Proof of claim== | ==Proof of claim== | ||
{{Begin Notebox}} | {{Begin Notebox}} | ||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
{{End Notebox Content}}{{End Notebox}} | {{End Notebox Content}}{{End Notebox}} | ||
{{XXX|When the paring axiom has a page, do the same thing}} | {{XXX|When the paring axiom has a page, do the same thing}} | ||
− | * {{M\forall A\forall B\exists C\forall x(x\in C\leftrightarrow x | + | * {{M|\forall A\forall B\exists C\forall x(x\in C\leftrightarrow x\eq A\vee x\eq B)}} this is the pairing axiom, in this case {{M|A}} and {{M|B}} are {{M|t}} and {{M|C}} is the (it turns out unique) set {{M|\{t,t\} }} |
+ | * To show they are equivalent we must use [[the axiom of extensionality]] | ||
+ | ** {{XXX|until it has a page, use: }} {{M|\forall X\forall Y(\forall u(u\in X\leftrightarrow u\in Y)\rightarrow X\eq Y)}} (to compare sets {{M|X}} and {{M|Y}} | ||
===Proof body=== | ===Proof body=== | ||
− | * | + | {{Requires proof|grade=A*|msg=Would be good to have. |
− | + | ||
− | + | I did it on paper with paring given slightly differently: | |
+ | * {{M|\forall A\forall B\exists C\big[A\in C\wedge B\in C\wedge\forall x[x\in C\implies (c\eq A\vee c\eq B)]\big]}} | ||
+ | and that worked at least, I suspect this is equivalent to paring but I really want to move forward so haven't shown this|easy=true}} | ||
+ | ==Notes== | ||
+ | <references group="Note"/> | ||
+ | ==References== | ||
+ | <references/> | ||
+ | {{Theorem Of|Set Theory|Elementary Set Theory}} |
Latest revision as of 23:35, 8 March 2017
Statement
Let [ilmath]t[/ilmath] be a set. By the axiom of pairing we may construct a unique (unordered) pair, which up until now we have denoted by [ilmath]\{t,t\} [/ilmath]. We now show that [ilmath]\{t,t\} [/ilmath] is a singleton, thus justifying the notation:
- [ilmath]\{t\} [/ilmath] for a pair consisting of the same thing for both parts.
Formally we must show:
- [ilmath]\exists x[x\in\{t,t\}\wedge\forall y(y\in\{t,t\}\rightarrow y\eq x)][/ilmath] (as per definition of singleton
Proof of claim
Recall the definition: for singleton
Let [ilmath]X[/ilmath] be a set. We call [ilmath]X[/ilmath] a singleton if[1]:
- [ilmath]\exists t[t\in X\wedge\forall s(s\in X\rightarrow s\eq t)][/ilmath]Caveat:See:[Note 1]
- In words: [ilmath]X[/ilmath] is a singleton if: there exists a thing such that ( the thing is in [ilmath]X[/ilmath] and for any stuff ( if that stuff is in [ilmath]X[/ilmath] then the stuff is the thing ) )
More concisely this may be written:
- [ilmath]\exists t\in X\forall s\in X[t\eq s][/ilmath][Note 2]
TODO: When the paring axiom has a page, do the same thing
- [ilmath]\forall A\forall B\exists C\forall x(x\in C\leftrightarrow x\eq A\vee x\eq B)[/ilmath] this is the pairing axiom, in this case [ilmath]A[/ilmath] and [ilmath]B[/ilmath] are [ilmath]t[/ilmath] and [ilmath]C[/ilmath] is the (it turns out unique) set [ilmath]\{t,t\} [/ilmath]
- To show they are equivalent we must use the axiom of extensionality
- TODO: until it has a page, use:[ilmath]\forall X\forall Y(\forall u(u\in X\leftrightarrow u\in Y)\rightarrow X\eq Y)[/ilmath] (to compare sets [ilmath]X[/ilmath] and [ilmath]Y[/ilmath]
-
Proof body
Grade: A*
This page requires one or more proofs to be filled in, it is on a to-do list for being expanded with them.
Please note that this does not mean the content is unreliable. Unless there are any caveats mentioned below the statement comes from a reliable source. As always, Warnings and limitations will be clearly shown and possibly highlighted if very important (see template:Caution et al).
The message provided is:
This proof has been marked as an page requiring an easy proof
The message provided is:
Would be good to have.
I did it on paper with paring given slightly differently:
- [ilmath]\forall A\forall B\exists C\big[A\in C\wedge B\in C\wedge\forall x[x\in C\implies (c\eq A\vee c\eq B)]\big][/ilmath]
This proof has been marked as an page requiring an easy proof
Notes
- ↑ Note that:
- [ilmath]\exists t[t\in X\rightarrow\forall s(s\in X\rightarrow s\eq t)][/ilmath]
- ↑ see rewriting for-all and exists within set theory
References