Difference between revisions of "Inductive set"

From Maths
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{Stub page|grade=A*|msg=Needs another reference}} __TOC__ ==Definition== Let {{M|I}} be a set. We call {{M|I}} an ''inductive set'' if{{rITSTHJ}} both of the following pr...")
 
(See also)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
#* {{M|S(x)}} denotes the [[successor set]] of {{M|X}}
 
#* {{M|S(x)}} denotes the [[successor set]] of {{M|X}}
 
{{Caveat|Note that this certainly describes the natural numbers as we require {{M|\emptyset\in I}}, so they're in there. The problem is that rule 2 seems to require that for every element {{M|n}} that {{M|n\cup\{n\} }} is in there too.}} - this seems to be intended{{rSTTJ}}
 
{{Caveat|Note that this certainly describes the natural numbers as we require {{M|\emptyset\in I}}, so they're in there. The problem is that rule 2 seems to require that for every element {{M|n}} that {{M|n\cup\{n\} }} is in there too.}} - this seems to be intended{{rSTTJ}}
 +
==See also==
 +
* [[The natural numbers]]
 +
* [[The axiom of infinity]] - positing that an inductive set exists.
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
 +
{{Definition|Set Theory}}

Latest revision as of 15:56, 3 February 2017

Stub grade: A*
This page is a stub
This page is a stub, so it contains little or minimal information and is on a to-do list for being expanded.The message provided is:
Needs another reference

Definition

Let [ilmath]I[/ilmath] be a set. We call [ilmath]I[/ilmath] an inductive set if[1] both of the following properties hold:

  1. [ilmath]\emptyset\in I[/ilmath] - often written [ilmath]0\in I[/ilmath] as [ilmath]0[/ilmath] is represented by the [ilmath]\emptyset[/ilmath] - and
  2. [ilmath]\forall n[n\in I\implies[/ilmath][ilmath]S(n)[/ilmath][ilmath]\in I][/ilmath] - often written as "if [ilmath]n\in I[/ilmath] then [ilmath](n+1)\in I[/ilmath]"
    • [ilmath]S(x)[/ilmath] denotes the successor set of [ilmath]X[/ilmath]

Caveat:Note that this certainly describes the natural numbers as we require [ilmath]\emptyset\in I[/ilmath], so they're in there. The problem is that rule 2 seems to require that for every element [ilmath]n[/ilmath] that [ilmath]n\cup\{n\} [/ilmath] is in there too. - this seems to be intended[2]

See also

References

  1. Introduction To Set Theory - Third Edition, Revised and Expanded - Karel Hrbacek & Thomas Jech
  2. Set Theory - Thomas Jech - Third millennium edition, revised and expanded