Section 2.6 Cantor s Theorem and the ZFC Axioms


 Bathsheba Washington
 1 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 1 Section 2.6 and the ZFC Axioms Purpose of Section: To state and prove Cantor theorem, which guarantees the existence of infinities larger than the cardinality of the continuum. We also state and discuss and ZermeloFrankel axioms and the Axiom of Choice. Introduction Cantor must have felt he was on a great adventure. He had found sets of infinite size, some countable with cardinality ℵ and some uncountable with cardinality c. He then wondered if there were larger sets. That is a larger infinities than the continuum. Cantor s Discovery of Larger Sets Often little ideas lead to big ideas. We have seen that for finite sets the power set of a set is always larger than the set itself. For example, the set A = a, b, c has three elements, whereas the power set has ( ) = φ,,,,{, },{, },{, },{,, } P A a b c a b a c b c a b c = elements. In other words, for finite sets A we have A P ( A) <. This prompted Cantor to ask if the same principle was at work for infinite sets. This question was answered in the affirmative by the following theorem. Theorem 1 () 1 () The power set ( ) strictly larger cardinality than the set A. P A of any set A has a Proof: As for many of Cantor s theorems, the proof proceeds by contradiction. The assumption that there exists a onetoone correspondence between A and P ( A ) leads to a contradiction. We first prove the result when A is countable, which allows one to get a good visual grasp of the proof. We then prove the result uncountable sets. If A = N = A is countable, then without any loss of generality we let 1,2,3,..., our favorite infinite countable set, and assume there exists a onetoone correspondence N P( N ). To get a good feel for the proof, we list a few elements of P ( N ) : ( N ) P =, 3, 6, 3,5, 7, 5,9,13, 9,11,15,...,...
2 2 and attempt to pair off elements of N with elements of P ( N ) as shown in Table 1: N c( N ) 1 { 3,5 } 2 { 1,2,7 } 3 { 9,13,2 } 4 { 1,5,6 } 5 { 2,5,11, 23 } Trial Pairing of the Natural Numbers and Its Power Set Table 1 Note that the numbers 1,3,4 are not members of the subset which they are paired with, while 2 and 5 do belong to the sets in which they are paired. We call the numbers 1,3,4 uncaptured numbers, and the numbers 2 and 5 captured numbers. We now create a rogue subset of the natural numbers (a member of P ( N ) ) that is not matched with any natural number, thus contradicting the fact there is a onetoone correspondence between N and P N. This rogue set is the set of all unmatched numbers. its power set ( ) That is { : does not belong to the set it is matched to} U = n N n In our correspondences in Table 1, we have U = { 1,3,4,... }. But U is a subset of natural numbers so it must be paired with some natural number, say, let s say n U as we have illustrated in Table 2. N c( N ) 1 { 3,5 } 2 { 1,2,7 } 3 { 9,13,2 } U = 1,3,4,..., n,... n n U or n U? Table 2
3 3 =? If you say n U We now ask the question? Is n U { uncaptured numbers} that means n is an uncaptured number, but n U { 1,3, 4,..., n,... } = that means n is captured or n U, which contradicts n U. On the other hand if you say n U n U = 1,3, 4,... which that means n is an captured number, but means n is uncaptured or n U, which contradicts n U. In either case a P N P N. But we can t contradiction. Hence, we conclude that N ( N ). ( ) have P ( N) < N since the power set P ( N ) contains the singletons m of members m N, and these singletons form a copy inside P ( N ) of elements of N, and so the only remaining possibility is N < P ( N ), which proves Cantor s theorem for countable sets. Uncountable Sets: The proof for uncountable sets is the basically same as for countable sets; we just don t have the nice pictures to help with our understanding. Let f be any function from a set A to its power set P ( A ). We show that f is not onto the power set by exhibiting a subset of A not in the range of f. The subset we find is our rogue set discussed earlier: { : ( )} ( ) U = x A x f x P A. To show U is not in the range of f, suppose U is in the range of f. This means that for some y A, we have f ( y) U. Now ask whether y U or y U. If y U then y f ( y), but that implies, by definition of U, that y U. On the other hand if y U, then y f ( y) and therefore y U. In both cases whether y U or y U we arrive at a contradiction. Hence, we cannot assume that f maps A onto its power set. Hence, Cantor s theorem is proven for an arbitrary infinite sets 1. Margin Note: Cantor presented the proof of what we now call Cantor s Theorem in 1891 Űber eine elemenare Frage der Mannigfaltigkeitslehre, which was the first appearance of Cantor s Diagonal argument, used in the proof that the real numbers are uncountable. Summary: Since the power set of a set, finite or infinite, always has more members than the set itself, it is always possible to find a set with larger cardinality by simply taking the power set of a given set. Thus, one can obtain a sequence of sets having larger and larger infinities ad infinitum 1 We set is interpreted using the ZermeloFrankel axioms of set theory. We have seen that logical paradoxes arise when sets are chosen without regard to any conditions.
4 4. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ( )) ℵ = N < P N < P P N < P P P N < all uncountable except for smallest infinity ℵ. Cantor called these infinite numbers transfinite numbers, which means numbers larger than the finite numbers. Since Cantor s theorem implies that for every set there is a greater set, from which it follows there is not set of all sets. That is, there is no set of everything 2. Now that we know the power set of the natural numbers is larger than the natural numbers itself, just how big is it? The following theorem answers that question. Theorem 2 ( c P( ) = N ) The cardinality of the power set of natural numbers is equal to the cardinality of the real numbers. That is c P( ) = N. Proof Since the real numbers and the open interval (,1 ) both have the same cardinality ( c ), we find a onetoone correspondence P ( N ) (,1). We first make the observation that any real number x (,1) can be expressed in binary decimal form x =. b b b where each b j is or 1. For example x =.111 = = We now associate to each real number x =. b1b 2 the subset of natural numbers consisting of the indices j for which b j = 1. For example, we associate. x =.111 1,3, 4,... x = ,3,5,6,... x = ,2,3,5,... which gives a onetoone correspondence (,1) P ( ) N. We denote 2 ℵ to stand for the cardinality of the power set of the natural numbers, which from Example 1 we have seen is the cardinality of the continuum, i.e. ℵ c = 2. 2 The great German mathematician David Hilbert said in 191 that "No one shall drive us from the paradise which Cantor created. Later in 1926 Hilbert is quoted as saying "It appears to me to be the most admirable flower of the mathematical intellect and one of the highest achievements of purely rational human activity."
5 5 If we now call ℵ 1 the next larger infinite number after ℵ, an interesting question arises. We know ℵ is the smallest infinity and that the numbers have a larger cardinality c, but are we sure there isn t an infinite number between the two. In other words, is there some mystery set (or sets) M that have cardinality larger than ℵ but less than c. In other words ℵ < M < c. Stated another way, is c = ℵ 1? Cantor believed the assertion was true but was never able to prove or disprove it. Cantor called the hypothesis c = ℵ 1 the continuum hypothesis and went to his death not resolving the question. A proof of the continuum hypothesis would confirm that the continuum c is the smallest uncountable set and would bridge the gap between the countable and uncountable. After Cantor s death, due to the paradoxes of Bertrand Russell and others, various logicians, such as Ernst Zermelo and Abraham Fraenkel, placed the study of sets on a firm foundation with the introduction of a set of axioms. In 1938 under the framework of these axioms, the Austrian logician Kurt Godel ( ) proved that the continuum hypothesis can safely be assumed true since he proved it can t be proven false 3. This means that it can be added as an axiom to the existing axioms of set theory without introducing any inconsistencies that were not already present. Although this discovery was significant, it was not the last word since he didn t prove the hypothesis was true, nor did he prove it was independent of the axioms of ZermeloFraenkel (ZF). This later question was resolved in 1963 by the American logician Paul J. Cohen who proved that the continuum hypothesis is independent of the axioms of set theory, the net result being that Cantor s continuum hypothesis c = ℵ 1 is undecidable, meaning that anyone can accept it as true or accept it as false. If taken as a true axiom (along with the ZermeloFraenkel axioms), the resulting theory is called Cantorian set theory, while if assumed false, the theory is called noncantorian set theory). In either case, one has a valid set of axioms, albeit much different. Very strange indeed 4! The generalized continuum hypothesis, also proposed by Cantor, has piqued the interest of set theorists and logicians for 1 years. It states that for any infinite set A there is no infinite set whose cardinality is between the cardinality of A and the cardinality of its power set P ( A ). Symbolically, it states ℵα ℵ + 1 = 2, α = 1,2,... α Margin Note: Cantor s theory does test one s intuition, knowing his theory is able to prove that a line segment a thousand light years in length contains the 3 In other words consistent with the Zermelo Fraenkel axioms. 4 Most logicians accept Cantorian set theory..
6 6 same number of points, not one more or one less, than a line the width of an electron. Hmmmmmm Since there are a finite number of letters in the alphabet, one can show the number of possible names for things is denumerable. But there are sets that are uncountable, which means there are sets which cannot be named. Example 2 (Cardinality of Sequences) Solution Show that the set of all sequences of s and 1 s has cardinality c. Consider two the typical sequences of s and 1 s Sequence 1: ( ) Sequence 2: ( ) where the dots at the end of the sequences mean all remaining members of the sequences are zero. In other words Sequence 1 has 1 s in the 1 st, 4 th, and 6 th position and zeros elsewhere. Sequence 2 has 1 s in the 3 rd, 5 th, 6 th, and 9 th positions and zeros elsewhere. Taking note of the positions of the 1 s, we can match any sequence of s and 1 s subsets of the natural numbers. 1,4,6 and we can For example, Sequence 1 can be matched with the set match Sequence 2 with { 3,5,6,9 }. Hence, the family of sequences of s and 1 s can be matched in a onetoone manner with the power set of N, i.e. family of all subsets of natural numbers. See Figure 1. We will see in Section 2.6 that the family of subsets of N has cardinality of the continuum c. Sequence of s and 1 s Subset of N 1,4,7 ( ) ( ) { 1,2,3,8 } ( 1... ) { 3 } (... ) OnetoOne Correspondence Figure 1 Everyday Sets Larger than the Continuum The question now occurs, are there sets familiar to the ordinary mathematician whose cardinality larger than
7 7 the cardinality of the continuum? One example is given by Theorem 3, which we state and hint at its proof. Theorem 3: The set of all realvalued functions defined on ( ) cardinality larger than c. The cardinality of this set is ℵ 2 Proof,1 has Again, the proof is by contradiction, similar to the proof of Cantor s theorem. We assume we can match every real number in (,1) with a realvalued function on (,1 ). We then construct a rogue function not on the list, which contradicts the our assumption that such a correspondence exists. Need for Axioms in Set Theory The reader should not entertain the belief that Cantor was the first mathematician to think about sets and their operations, such as union, intersection and compliment. The concept of a set has been known for centuries. What Cantor did was to introduce the formal study of sets and in particular a deep analysis of infinite sets and their many unexpected properties. Although Cantor produced many deep ideas, his interpretation of a set was intuitive. That is, to him a set was simply a collection of objects. It was Bertrand Russell who upset that view of sets with his 192 discovery, called Russell s Paradox, which showed that the naïve view of a set as any collection of objects leads to contradictions. Thus, it became clear in order to have a consistent theory of sets (no contradictions), one must formalize the study of sets with rules of the game. That is, axioms. So for the first time in the history of humankind, the most basic of all mathematical disciplines was formulated into a set of guidelines for operation. Russell s Paradox Russell s paradox is the most famous of all settheoretic paradoxes which arises in naïve set theory and motivates the need for an axiomatic foundation for set theory. The paradox was constructed by English logician Bertrand Russell ( ), who proposed a family of set R consisting of all sets who do not contain themselves. He then asked whether the family R was itself a member of R. If R R, i.e. R contains R, then we have a contradiction since R is made up of sets that do not contain themselves. On the other hand if R R, this is also a contradiction since R contains all sets that do not contain themselves which means R R. Hence, we are left with the contradictory statement R R R R Hence, we must restrict the meaning of a set from the naïve point of view which says a set is an arbitrary collection of elements.
8 8 ZermeloFraenkel Axioms The most commonly accepted axioms of set theory are the Zermelo Fraenkel 5 axioms (ZFC) axioms, developed by German logicians Ernst Zermelo ( ) and Abraham Fraenkel ( ). Zermelo 6 conceived of providing a consistent set of axioms, like those of plane geometry, which restricts the wide latitude of Cantor s interpretation of a set, thus avoiding the bad things, like Russell s paradox, but allows enough objects to be taken as sets for ordinary use in mathematics. The C in ZFC refers to the Axiom of Choice, the most controversial and debated of the ten ZFC axioms. Although there is no agreed upon names for each of the 1 axioms, and they are often written in varying notation, we have settled on the following list. ZermeloFraenkel Axioms 7 1. Existence of a Set (sets exist) There exists a set (albeit one with no elements). That is, there is a set A such that ( x)( x A) Comment: This set is called the empty set and denoted by. This axiom says that the whole theory defined by these 1 axioms is not vacuous by stating at least one set exists. 2. Axiom of Equality (equality defined) Two sets are equal if and only if they have the same members. That is for all sets A, B ( A = B) ( x)( x A x B) Comment: The Axiom of Equality (often called the Axiom of Extension) defines what it means for two sets to be equal. The first two axioms say that the empty set (guaranteed by Axiom 1) is unique. 5 There are other axioms of set theory than the ZFC axioms, such as the Von NeumannBernaysGodel axioms (which are logically equivalent to ZFC) and the MorseKelly axioms, which are stronger than ZF. 6 Zermelo published his original axioms in 198 and were modified in 1922 by Fraenkel and Skolem, and thus today are called the ZermeloFraenkel (ZF) axioms. 7 Zermelo s original axioms were stated in the language of secondorder logic: i.e. sets were quantified (like ( A),( A) ) in addition to variables. There are versions of the ZFC axioms that use only firstorder logic, but for convenience we have quantified sets in a few instances.
9 9 3. Axiom of Sets of Size One (singletons exist) For any a and b there is a a, b, that contains exactly a and b. That is set, denoted by ( a)( b)( A)( z) z { a, b} ( z = x) ( z = y) Comment: If we pick a = b then the axiom implies there exists sets with one a. Note that the existential quantifier A quantifies a set, which is element not allowed in firstorder predicate logic. 4. Axiom of Union of Sets (unions of sets exist) We have unions of sets. For any collection of sets F = { A α }, there exists a set Y A α Λ = α, called the union of all sets in F. That is ( F )( A)( x) ( x A) ( C F )( x C ) Comment: From Axioms 3 and 4, we can construct finite sets. (We are making progress.) α Λ 5. Power Set Axiom (power sets exist) set B (think power set) such that That is for any set A there exists a X A X B 6. Axiom of Infinity (infinite sets exists) There exists a set A (think infinite) such that ( A) ( x)( x A) ( x { x} ) A Comment: This axiom creates numbers A = {,1, 2,3,... } correspondence: =, 1 = { }, 2 = { 1}, 3 { 2 } conclude that the set of natural numbers exist. according to the =, and so on. From this we 7. Correct Sets Axiom (axiom that avoids Russell s Paradox) Correct Sets Axiom (axiom that avoids Russell s Paradox) If ( ) predicate and A any set, then { x A: P( x) } p x is a defines a set, i.e. the set of elements for which the predicate P ( x ) is true. The key point is that the set { x A: P( x) } is a subset of a previously defined set A, which rules out sets of the form { x : x x} which is the Russell
10 1 paradoxical set. Axiom 7 is what is called an axiom schema, which means it is really an infinite number of axioms, one for each predicate P ( x ). 8. Image of Sets are Sets The image of a set under a function is again a set. That is, if A, B are sets and f : A B is a function with domain A and codomain B, then the image f ( A) y B : y f ( x) be defined in terms of sets as the set of ordered pairs = = is a set. (A function can {( a, b) A B : f ( a) = b} 9. Axiom of Regularity (no set can be an element of itself) Every nonempty set has an element that is disjoint from the set. That is for any set ( A ) ( x) ( x A) ( x A = ) Comment: As an example if A { a, b, c} " a " where we observe a { a, b, c} =. Note { a} { a, b, c} { a} a { a, b, c} contain themselves, like A = { 1, 2,3, A} = then we can pick our element to be = but =. What this axiom accomplishes is to keep out sets that 1. Axiom of Choice Given any collection of nonoverlapping, nonempty sets, it is possible to choose one element from each set. Comments: This is an existence axiom that claims the existence of a set formed from picking one element from a collection of nonempty sets. The objection to this axiom lies in the fact that the axiom provides no rule for how the items are selected from the sets, simply that it can be done. Comments on the t Axiom of Choice A group of mathematicians are attending a buffet dinner and while they pass through the dessert line containing plates full of different kinds of cookies, one mathematician says she will appeal to the Axiom of Choice and selects one cookie from each plate. That s it, that s the Axiom of Choice. The Axiom of Choice says given a family of nonempty sets (plates of cookies) it is possible to select one member from each set. So what s the big fuss over AC? It seems so trivial. But what happens if there are an infinite number of plates, maybe uncountable? Of course if each plate has a biggest cookie, there is an obvious way to pick one cookie from each plate. Pick the biggest cookie. In
11 11 that case one doesn t have to apply the Axiom of Choice. But what if the cookies on each plate look exactly alike, then how do you go about selecting a cookie from each plate? What is your rule of selection? Can you write it on a piece of paper? Of course not. However, there is a rule and we know this since the Axiom of Choice says so. The Axiom of Choice is a pure existence axiom and for that reason it is a bone of contention for many mathematicians who prefer a constructive method for selecting the desired set. There are good consequences and bad consequences proven when adopting the Axiom of Choice (AC). A good result is the proof of Tychonoff s theorem in topology, which states that the product of an arbitrary family of compact topological spaces is compact. On the negative side, a few bad results can be proven if one adopts AC as an axiom (along with the other axioms of ZF) and one is the existence of a nonmeasurable set in measure theory. And last but not least is the rather disconcerting paradox known as the Banach ach Tarski Paradox, which states roughly that any sphere can be decomposed into a finite number of disjoint pieces and then reassembled as two spheres identical in size to the original. Of course, don t try that at home, since the procedure appeals to AC, which means it is a pure existence result with no constructive way to show how its done. That s the nature of results that apply to AC, one arrives somewhere without knowing how one got there. Recently, logicians have tried to find a compromise for AC and seek for new axioms 8 which produces good theorems but does not lead to unwanted consequences 9. Bertrand Russell s Shoe Model for AC Bertrand Russell once gave an intuitive reason why sometimes the Axiom of Choice is required and sometimes when it is not. Suppose you are supplied with an infinite number of pairs of shoes and asked to find a selection rule for picking one shoe from each pair. In this case no Axiom of Choice is required, since you can simply the left shoe (or right) from each pair. On the other, suppose you are supplied with an infinite pair of socks and asked the same question. The socks look alike so you are unable to provide a rule of selection for choosing a sock from each pair. But the Axiom of Choice comes to the rescue, which says there is such a rule, although not explicitly stated, which specifies how to select the socks. It is the non constructive aspect of the axiom that causes angst to some mathematicians and logicians. To some pure intuitionists, the word exists belongs more to religion and not mathematics. 8 See Hamilton, A.G Numbers, Sets and Axioms, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 9 As the American geometer Oswald Veblen once said, The test of any axiom system lies in the theorems it produces.
12 12 Axiom of Choice WellOrdering Principle When Zermelo introduced the Axiom of Choice, most mathematicians accepted it and never gave it a second thought 1. However, in 195 Zermelo proved a theorem that gave everyone second thoughts. He proved that the Axiom of Choice was equivalent to what came to be known as the Well Ordered Principle. We are getting ahead of ourselves since we don t introduce order relations until Chapter 3, but roughly a set is wellordered if there is an ordering of elements of the set in such a way that every nonempty set has N = 1,2,3,... are well a smallest element. For example the natural numbers ordered by the usual 1 < 2 < 3 < The WellOrdered Principle says that any nonempty set can be wellordered by some order relation. As an example the principle says a wellordering exists for the real numbers, although no one has ever exhibited one, which leads one to suspect the axiom as false. Although intuitively the axiom seems hard to believe, Zermelo proved it is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice, which seems obvious. It is a rather strange situation and has caused logicians a great deal of thought. 1 However, many of the foremost mathematicians of the day did object to the axiom, including measure theory analysts Henri Lebesgue and Emile Borel.
13 13 Problems 1. Prove that if we add a member to a denumerable set, we still have a denumerable set. 2. Show that the set of all sequences of s and 1 s has cardinality c. Hint: Relate each sequence of s and 1 s to a subset of natural numbers and then use Cantor s theorem. 3. Show that the set of all onetoone correspondences between N and N is c.
Finite Sets. Theorem 5.1. Two nonempty finite sets have the same cardinality if and only if they are equivalent.
MATH 337 Cardinality Dr. Neal, WKU We now shall prove that the rational numbers are a countable set while R is uncountable. This result shows that there are two different magnitudes of infinity. But we
More informationIf f is a 11 correspondence between A and B then it has an inverse, and f 1 isa 11 correspondence between B and A.
Chapter 5 Cardinality of sets 51 11 Correspondences A 11 correspondence between sets A and B is another name for a function f : A B that is 11 and onto If f is a 11 correspondence between A and B,
More informationIn mathematics you don t understand things. You just get used to them. (Attributed to John von Neumann)
Chapter 1 Sets and Functions We understand a set to be any collection M of certain distinct objects of our thought or intuition (called the elements of M) into a whole. (Georg Cantor, 1895) In mathematics
More informationCARDINALITY, COUNTABLE AND UNCOUNTABLE SETS PART ONE
CARDINALITY, COUNTABLE AND UNCOUNTABLE SETS PART ONE With the notion of bijection at hand, it is easy to formalize the idea that two finite sets have the same number of elements: we just need to verify
More informationSETS, RELATIONS, AND FUNCTIONS
September 27, 2009 and notations Common Universal Subset and Power Set Cardinality Operations A set is a collection or group of objects or elements or members (Cantor 1895). the collection of the four
More information4. TILING AND DISSECTION 4.2. Scissors Congruence
What is Area? Despite being such a fundamental notion of geometry, the concept of area is very difficult to define. As human beings, we have an intuitive grasp of the idea which suffices for our everyday
More information13 Infinite Sets. 13.1 Injections, Surjections, and Bijections. mcsftl 2010/9/8 0:40 page 379 #385
mcsftl 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
More informationSo let us begin our quest to find the holy grail of real analysis.
1 Section 5.2 The Complete Ordered Field: Purpose of Section We present an axiomatic description of the real numbers as a complete ordered field. The axioms which describe the arithmetic of the real numbers
More informationThis chapter is all about cardinality of sets. At first this looks like a
CHAPTER Cardinality of Sets This chapter is all about cardinality of sets At first this looks like a very simple concept To find the cardinality of a set, just count its elements If A = { a, b, c, d },
More informationSets and Subsets. Countable and Uncountable
Sets and Subsets Countable and Uncountable Reading Appendix A Section A.6.8 Pages 788792 BIG IDEAS Themes 1. There exist functions that cannot be computed in Java or any other computer language. 2. There
More information(Refer Slide Time: 1:41)
Discrete Mathematical Structures Dr. Kamala Krithivasan Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Lecture # 10 Sets Today we shall learn about sets. You must
More informationDiscrete Mathematics and Probability Theory Fall 2009 Satish Rao, David Tse Note 20
CS 70 Discrete Mathematics and Probability Theory Fall 009 Satish Rao, David Tse Note 0 Infinity and Countability Consider a function (or mapping) f that maps elements of a set A (called the domain of
More informationf(x) is a singleton set for all x A. If f is a function and f(x) = {y}, we normally write
Math 525 Chapter 1 Stuff If A and B are sets, then A B = {(x,y) x A, y B} denotes the product set. If S A B, then S is called a relation from A to B or a relation between A and B. If B = A, S A A is called
More informationThis asserts two sets are equal iff they have the same elements, that is, a set is determined by its elements.
3. Axioms of Set theory Before presenting the axioms of set theory, we first make a few basic comments about the relevant first order logic. We will give a somewhat more detailed discussion later, but
More informationSets and Cardinality Notes for C. F. Miller
Sets and Cardinality Notes for 620111 C. F. Miller Semester 1, 2000 Abstract These lecture notes were compiled in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics in the University of Melbourne for the use
More informationIntroduction Russell s Paradox Basic Set Theory Operations on Sets. 6. Sets. Terence Sim
6. Sets Terence Sim 6.1. Introduction A set is a Many that allows itself to be thought of as a One. Georg Cantor Reading Section 6.1 6.3 of Epp. Section 3.1 3.4 of Campbell. Familiar concepts Sets can
More informationIt is not immediately obvious that this should even give an integer. Since 1 < 1 5
Math 163  Introductory Seminar Lehigh University Spring 8 Notes on Fibonacci numbers, binomial coefficients and mathematical induction These are mostly notes from a previous class and thus include some
More informationREAL ANALYSIS I HOMEWORK 2
REAL ANALYSIS I HOMEWORK 2 CİHAN BAHRAN The questions are from Stein and Shakarchi s text, Chapter 1. 1. Prove that the Cantor set C constructed in the text is totally disconnected and perfect. In other
More informationA brief history of type theory (or, more honestly, implementing mathematical objects as sets)
A brief history of type theory (or, more honestly, implementing mathematical objects as sets) Randall Holmes, Boise State University November 8, 2012 [notes revised later; this is the day the talk was
More informationMAT2400 Analysis I. A brief introduction to proofs, sets, and functions
MAT2400 Analysis I A brief introduction to proofs, sets, and functions In Analysis I there is a lot of manipulations with sets and functions. It is probably also the first course where you have to take
More information3. Mathematical Induction
3. MATHEMATICAL INDUCTION 83 3. Mathematical Induction 3.1. First Principle of Mathematical Induction. Let P (n) be a predicate with domain of discourse (over) the natural numbers N = {0, 1,,...}. If (1)
More informationTREES IN SET THEORY SPENCER UNGER
TREES IN SET THEORY SPENCER UNGER 1. Introduction Although I was unaware of it while writing the first two talks, my talks in the graduate student seminar have formed a coherent series. This talk can be
More informationSet Theory Basic Concepts and Definitions
Set Theory Basic Concepts and Definitions The Importance of Set Theory One striking feature of humans is their inherent need and ability to group objects according to specific criteria. Our prehistoric
More informationMASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 6.436J/15.085J Fall 2008 Lecture 1 9/3/2008 PROBABILISTIC MODELS AND PROBABILITY MEASURES
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 6.436J/15.085J Fall 2008 Lecture 1 9/3/2008 PROBABILISTIC MODELS AND PROBABILITY MEASURES Contents 1. Probabilistic experiments 2. Sample space 3. Discrete probability
More informationGödel s Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse
Gödel s Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse by Torkel Franzén Summary by Xavier Noria August 2006 fxn@hashref.com This unique exposition of Kurt Gödel s stunning incompleteness theorems for
More informationarxiv: v1 [math.pr] 22 Aug 2008
arxiv:0808.3155v1 [math.pr] 22 Aug 2008 On independent sets in purely atomic probability spaces with geometric distribution Eugen J. Ionascu and Alin A. Stancu Department of Mathematics, Columbus State
More informationGeorg Cantor (18451918):
Georg Cantor (84598): The man who tamed infinity lecture by Eric Schechter Associate Professor of Mathematics Vanderbilt University http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/ schectex/ In papers of 873 and 874,
More information14 Abian and Kemp Theorem 1. For every cardinal k if the union of k many sets of measure zero is of measure zero, then the union of k many measurable
PUBLICATIONS DE L'INSTITUT MATHÉMATIQUE Nouvelle série tome 52 (66), 1992, 13 17 ON MEASURABILITY OF UNCOUNTABLE UNIONS OF MEASURABLE SETS Alexander Abian and Paula Kemp Abstract. This paper deals exclusively
More informationDescriptive Set Theory
Martin Goldstern Institute of Discrete Mathematics and Geometry Vienna University of Technology Ljubljana, August 2011 Polish spaces Polish space = complete metric separable. Examples N = ω = {0, 1, 2,...}.
More informationMath 582 Introduction to Set Theory
Math 582 Introduction to Set Theory Kenneth Harris kaharri@umich.edu Department of Mathematics University of Michigan January 7, 2009 Kenneth Harris (Math 582) Math 582 Introduction to Set Theory January
More informationStructure of Measurable Sets
Structure of Measurable Sets In these notes we discuss the structure of Lebesgue measurable subsets of R from several different points of view. Along the way, we will see several alternative characterizations
More informationChapter 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
More informationProof: A logical argument establishing the truth of the theorem given the truth of the axioms and any previously proven theorems.
Math 232  Discrete Math 2.1 Direct Proofs and Counterexamples Notes Axiom: Proposition that is assumed to be true. Proof: A logical argument establishing the truth of the theorem given the truth of the
More informationChapter 1. Logic and Proof
Chapter 1. Logic and Proof 1.1 Remark: A little over 100 years ago, it was found that some mathematical proofs contained paradoxes, and these paradoxes could be used to prove statements that were known
More informationCS 3719 (Theory of Computation and Algorithms) Lecture 4
CS 3719 (Theory of Computation and Algorithms) Lecture 4 Antonina Kolokolova January 18, 2012 1 Undecidable languages 1.1 ChurchTuring thesis Let s recap how it all started. In 1990, Hilbert stated a
More informationCHAPTER 1. Basic Ideas
CHPTER 1 asic Ideas In the end, all mathematics can be boiled down to logic and set theory. ecause of this, any careful presentation of fundamental mathematical ideas is inevitably couched in the language
More informationMath212a1010 Lebesgue measure.
Math212a1010 Lebesgue measure. October 19, 2010 Today s lecture will be devoted to Lebesgue measure, a creation of Henri Lebesgue, in his thesis, one of the most famous theses in the history of mathematics.
More informationSet (mathematics) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Set (mathematics) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A set in mathematics is a collection of well defined and distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right. Sets are one of the most fundamental
More informationvertex, 369 disjoint pairwise, 395 disjoint sets, 236 disjunction, 33, 36 distributive laws
Index absolute value, 135 141 additive identity, 254 additive inverse, 254 aleph, 466 algebra of sets, 245, 278 antisymmetric relation, 387 arcsine function, 349 arithmetic sequence, 208 arrow diagram,
More informationPOWER SETS AND RELATIONS
POWER SETS AND RELATIONS L. MARIZZA A. BAILEY 1. The Power Set Now that we have defined sets as best we can, we can consider a sets of sets. If we were to assume nothing, except the existence of the empty
More informationPOSITIVE INTEGERS, INTEGERS AND RATIONAL NUMBERS OBTAINED FROM THE AXIOMS OF THE REAL NUMBER SYSTEM
MAT 1011 TECHNICAL ENGLISH I 03.11.2016 Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Science Department of Mathematics Instructor: Engin Mermut Course assistant: Zübeyir Türkoğlu web: http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/engin.mermut/
More informationAxiom A.1. Lines, planes and space are sets of points. Space contains all points.
73 Appendix A.1 Basic Notions We take the terms point, line, plane, and space as undefined. We also use the concept of a set and a subset, belongs to or is an element of a set. In a formal axiomatic approach
More informationA Foundation for Geometry
MODULE 4 A Foundation for Geometry There is no royal road to geometry Euclid 1. Points and Lines We are ready (finally!) to talk about geometry. Our first task is to say something about points and lines.
More informationConsistency, completeness of undecidable preposition of Principia Mathematica. Tanmay Jaipurkar
Consistency, completeness of undecidable preposition of Principia Mathematica Tanmay Jaipurkar October 21, 2013 Abstract The fallowing paper discusses the inconsistency and undecidable preposition of Principia
More informationProblem Set. Problem Set #2. Math 5322, Fall December 3, 2001 ANSWERS
Problem Set Problem Set #2 Math 5322, Fall 2001 December 3, 2001 ANSWERS i Problem 1. [Problem 18, page 32] Let A P(X) be an algebra, A σ the collection of countable unions of sets in A, and A σδ the collection
More informationMEASURE ZERO SETS WITH NONMEASURABLE SUM
INROADS Real Analysis Exchange Vol. 7(), 001/00, pp. 78 794 Krzysztof Ciesielski, Department of Mathematics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 6506610, USA. email: K Cies@math.wvu.edu web page:
More informationSection 1.3: Predicate Logic
1 Section 1.3: Purpose of Section: To introduce predicate logic (or firstorder logic) which the language of mathematics. We see how predicate logic extends the language of sentential calculus studied
More informationProbability Foundations for Electrical Engineers Prof. Krishna Jagannathan Department of Electrical Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
Probability Foundations for Electrical Engineers Prof. Krishna Jagannathan Department of Electrical Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Lecture  9 Borel Sets and Lebesgue Measure 1 (Refer
More informationThe Foundations of Mathematics
The Foundations of Mathematics c 2005,2006,2007 Kenneth Kunen Kenneth Kunen October 29, 2007 Contents 0 Introduction 3 0.1 Prerequisites.................................. 3 0.2 Logical Notation...............................
More informationGeorg Cantor and Set Theory
Georg Cantor and Set Theory. Life Father, Georg Waldemar Cantor, born in Denmark, successful merchant, and stock broker in St Petersburg. Mother, Maria Anna Böhm, was Russian. In 856, because of father
More informationChap2: The Real Number System (See Royden pp40)
Chap2: The Real Number System (See Royden pp40) 1 Open and Closed Sets of Real Numbers The simplest sets of real numbers are the intervals. We define the open interval (a, b) to be the set (a, b) = {x
More informationSet theory as a foundation for mathematics
V I I I : Set theory as a foundation for mathematics This material is basically supplementary, and it was not covered in the course. In the first section we discuss the basic axioms of set theory and the
More informationSets. A set is a collection of (mathematical) objects, with the collection treated as a single mathematical object.
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
More informationLogic and Incidence Geometry
Logic and Incidence Geometry February 27, 2013 1 Informal Logic Logic Rule 0. No unstated assumption may be used in a proof. 2 Theorems and Proofs If [hypothesis] then [conclusion]. LOGIC RULE 1. The following
More informationTopology and Convergence by: Daniel Glasscock, May 2012
Topology and Convergence by: Daniel Glasscock, May 2012 These notes grew out of a talk I gave at The Ohio State University. The primary reference is [1]. A possible error in the proof of Theorem 1 in [1]
More informationHow many numbers there are?
How many numbers there are? RADEK HONZIK Radek Honzik: Charles University, Department of Logic, Celetná 20, Praha 1, 116 42, Czech Republic radek.honzik@ff.cuni.cz Contents 1 What are numbers 2 1.1 Natural
More informationAffine Planes: An Introduction to Axiomatic Geometry
Affine Planes: An Introduction to Axiomatic Geometry Here we use Euclidean plane geometry as an opportunity to introduce axiomatic systems. Keep in mind that the axiomatic approach is not the only approach
More informationAxiomatic Set Theory. Alexandru Baltag (ILLC, University of Amsterdam) Go to. website:
Axiomatic Set Theory Alexandru Baltag (ILLC, University of Amsterdam) Go to website: http://alexandru.tiddlyspot.com then click on Teaching, then click on Axiomatic Set Theory 1 Course Administration Instructor:
More informationResearch Statement. 1. Introduction. 2. Background Cardinal Characteristics. Dan Hathaway Department of Mathematics University of Michigan
Research Statement Dan Hathaway Department of Mathematics University of Michigan 1. Introduction My research is in set theory. The central theme of my work is to combine ideas from descriptive set theory
More informationDedekind s forgotten axiom and why we should teach it (and why we shouldn t teach mathematical induction in our calculus classes)
Dedekind s forgotten axiom and why we should teach it (and why we shouldn t teach mathematical induction in our calculus classes) by Jim Propp (UMass Lowell) March 14, 2010 1 / 29 Completeness Three common
More informationMath 230a HW3 Extra Credit
Math 230a HW3 Extra Credit Erik Lewis November 15, 2006 1 Extra Credit 16. Regard Q, the set of all rational numbers, as a metric space, with d(p, q) = p q. Let E be the set of all p Q such that 2 < p
More informationCHAPTER 7 GENERAL PROOF SYSTEMS
CHAPTER 7 GENERAL PROOF SYSTEMS 1 Introduction Proof systems are built to prove statements. They can be thought as an inference machine with special statements, called provable statements, or sometimes
More informationSets and functions. {x R : x > 0}.
Sets and functions 1 Sets The language of sets and functions pervades mathematics, and most of the important operations in mathematics turn out to be functions or to be expressible in terms of functions.
More informationFoundations of Mathematics I Set Theory (only a draft)
Foundations of Mathematics I Set Theory (only a draft) Ali Nesin Mathematics Department Istanbul Bilgi University Kuştepe Şişli Istanbul Turkey anesin@bilgi.edu.tr February 12, 2004 2 Contents I Naive
More informationMath 563 Measure Theory Project 1 (Funky Functions Group) Luis Zerón, Sergey Dyachenko
Math 563 Measure Theory Project (Funky Functions Group) Luis Zerón, Sergey Dyachenko 34 Let C and C be any two Cantor sets (constructed in Exercise 3) Show that there exists a function F: [,] [,] with
More information4.1. Definitions. A set may be viewed as any well defined collection of objects, called elements or members of the set.
Section 4. Set Theory 4.1. Definitions A set may be viewed as any well defined collection of objects, called elements or members of the set. Sets are usually denoted with upper case letters, A, B, X, Y,
More informationFinite and Infinite Sets
Chapter 9 Finite and Infinite Sets 9. Finite Sets Preview Activity (Equivalent Sets, Part ). Let A and B be sets and let f be a function from A to B..f W A! B/. Carefully complete each of the following
More informationCHAPTER 3. Methods of Proofs. 1. Logical Arguments and Formal Proofs
CHAPTER 3 Methods of Proofs 1. Logical Arguments and Formal Proofs 1.1. Basic Terminology. An axiom is a statement that is given to be true. A rule of inference is a logical rule that is used to deduce
More information2. Methods of Proof Types of Proofs. Suppose we wish to prove an implication p q. Here are some strategies we have available to try.
2. METHODS OF PROOF 69 2. Methods of Proof 2.1. Types of Proofs. Suppose we wish to prove an implication p q. Here are some strategies we have available to try. Trivial Proof: If we know q is true then
More information) + ˆf (n) sin( 2πnt. = 2 u x 2, t > 0, 0 < x < 1. u(0, t) = u(1, t) = 0, t 0. (x, 0) = 0 0 < x < 1.
Introduction to Fourier analysis This semester, we re going to study various aspects of Fourier analysis. In particular, we ll spend some time reviewing and strengthening the results from Math 425 on Fourier
More informationSection 3.3 Equivalence Relations
1 Section 3.3 Purpose of Section To introduce the concept of an equivalence relation and show how it subdivides or partitions a set into distinct categories. Introduction Classifying objects and placing
More informationSets, Relations and Functions
Sets, Relations and Functions Eric Pacuit Department of Philosophy University of Maryland, College Park pacuit.org epacuit@umd.edu ugust 26, 2014 These notes provide a very brief background in discrete
More informationINCIDENCEBETWEENNESS GEOMETRY
INCIDENCEBETWEENNESS GEOMETRY MATH 410, CSUSM. SPRING 2008. PROFESSOR AITKEN This document covers the geometry that can be developed with just the axioms related to incidence and betweenness. The full
More information1. Prove that the empty set is a subset of every set.
1. Prove that the empty set is a subset of every set. Basic Topology Written by MenGen Tsai email: b89902089@ntu.edu.tw Proof: For any element x of the empty set, x is also an element of every set since
More informationMATHEMATICS 117/E217, SPRING 2012 PROBABILITY AND RANDOM PROCESSES WITH ECONOMIC APPLICATIONS Module #5 (Borel Field and Measurable Functions )
MATHEMATICS 117/E217, SPRING 2012 PROBABILITY AND RANDOM PROCESSES WITH ECONOMIC APPLICATIONS Module #5 (Borel Field and Measurable Functions ) Last modified: May 1, 2012 Reading Dineen, pages 5767 Proof
More informationChapter 3. Cartesian Products and Relations. 3.1 Cartesian Products
Chapter 3 Cartesian Products and Relations The material in this chapter is the first real encounter with abstraction. Relations are very general thing they are a special type of subset. After introducing
More informationFree groups. Contents. 1 Free groups. 1.1 Definitions and notations
Free groups Contents 1 Free groups 1 1.1 Definitions and notations..................... 1 1.2 Construction of a free group with basis X........... 2 1.3 The universal property of free groups...............
More informationMathematics for Computer Science
Mathematics for Computer Science Lecture 2: Functions and equinumerous sets Areces, Blackburn and Figueira TALARIS team INRIA Nancy Grand Est Contact: patrick.blackburn@loria.fr Course website: http://www.loria.fr/~blackbur/courses/math
More informationaxiomatic vs naïve set theory
ED40 Discrete Structures in Computer Science 1: Sets Jörn W. Janneck, Dept. of Computer Science, Lund University axiomatic vs naïve set theory s ZermeloFraenkel Set Theory w/choice (ZFC) extensionality
More informationIntroduction to mathematical arguments
Introduction to mathematical arguments (background handout for courses requiring proofs) by Michael Hutchings A mathematical proof is an argument which convinces other people that something is true. Math
More informationIntroducing Functions
Functions 1 Introducing Functions A function f from a set A to a set B, written f : A B, is a relation f A B such that every element of A is related to one element of B; in logical notation 1. (a, b 1
More informationFun With Nonstandard Models
Fun With Nonstandard Models A selfcontained sequel to: 2500 Years of very Small Numbers David A. Ross Department of Mathematics University of Hawai i Outline of Talk: Slides 1..3 Random Blather Slides
More informationMATH INTRODUCTION TO PROBABILITY FALL 2011
MATH 755001 INTRODUCTION TO PROBABILITY FALL 2011 Lecture 4. Measurable functions. Random variables. I have told you that we can work with σalgebras generated by classes of sets in some indirect ways.
More informationDiscrete Mathematics, Chapter 5: Induction and Recursion
Discrete Mathematics, Chapter 5: Induction and Recursion Richard Mayr University of Edinburgh, UK Richard Mayr (University of Edinburgh, UK) Discrete Mathematics. Chapter 5 1 / 20 Outline 1 Wellfounded
More informationTheorem 2. If x Q and y R \ Q, then. (a) x + y R \ Q, and. (b) xy Q.
Math 305 Fall 011 The Density of Q in R The following two theorems tell us what happens when we add and multiply by rational numbers. For the first one, we see that if we add or multiply two rational numbers
More informationMath/CSE 1019: Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science Fall Suprakash Datta
Math/CSE 1019: Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science Fall 2011 Suprakash Datta datta@cse.yorku.ca Office: CSEB 3043 Phone: 4167362100 ext 77875 Course page: http://www.cse.yorku.ca/course/1019 1
More informationChapter 6 Finite sets and infinite sets. Copyright 2013, 2005, 2001 Pearson Education, Inc. Section 3.1, Slide 1
Chapter 6 Finite sets and infinite sets Copyright 013, 005, 001 Pearson Education, Inc. Section 3.1, Slide 1 Section 6. PROPERTIES OF THE NATURE NUMBERS 013 Pearson Education, Inc.1 Slide Recall that denotes
More informationLecture 4: Probability Spaces
EE5110: Probability Foundations for Electrical Engineers JulyNovember 2015 Lecture 4: Probability Spaces Lecturer: Dr. Krishna Jagannathan Scribe: Jainam Doshi, Arjun Nadh and Ajay M 4.1 Introduction
More informationMathematical Induction
Mathematical Induction (Handout March 8, 01) The Principle of Mathematical Induction provides a means to prove infinitely many statements all at once The principle is logical rather than strictly mathematical,
More informationRecursion Theory in Set Theory
Contemporary Mathematics Recursion Theory in Set Theory Theodore A. Slaman 1. Introduction Our goal is to convince the reader that recursion theoretic knowledge and experience can be successfully applied
More informationCHAPTER 2. Inequalities
CHAPTER 2 Inequalities In this section we add the axioms describe the behavior of inequalities (the order axioms) to the list of axioms begun in Chapter 1. A thorough mastery of this section is essential
More informationNOTES ON MEASURE THEORY. M. Papadimitrakis Department of Mathematics University of Crete. Autumn of 2004
NOTES ON MEASURE THEORY M. Papadimitrakis Department of Mathematics University of Crete Autumn of 2004 2 Contents 1 σalgebras 7 1.1 σalgebras............................... 7 1.2 Generated σalgebras.........................
More informationSet theory as a foundation for mathematics
Set theory as a foundation for mathematics Waffle Mathcamp 2011 In school we are taught about numbers, but we never learn what numbers really are. We learn rules of arithmetic, but we never learn why these
More informationGod created the integers and the rest is the work of man. (Leopold Kronecker, in an afterdinner speech at a conference, Berlin, 1886)
Chapter 2 Numbers God created the integers and the rest is the work of man. (Leopold Kronecker, in an afterdinner speech at a conference, Berlin, 1886) God created the integers and the rest is the work
More informationWe give a basic overview of the mathematical background required for this course.
1 Background We give a basic overview of the mathematical background required for this course. 1.1 Set Theory We introduce some concepts from naive set theory (as opposed to axiomatic set theory). The
More information2.1 Sets, power sets. Cartesian Products.
Lecture 8 2.1 Sets, power sets. Cartesian Products. Set is an unordered collection of objects.  used to group objects together,  often the objects with similar properties This description of a set (without
More information2.1.1 Examples of Sets and their Elements
Chapter 2 Set Theory 2.1 Sets The most basic object in Mathematics is called a set. As rudimentary as it is, the exact, formal definition of a set is highly complex. For our purposes, we will simply define
More informationLecture 2 : Basics of Probability Theory
Lecture 2 : Basics of Probability Theory When an experiment is performed, the realization of the experiment is an outcome in the sample space. If the experiment is performed a number of times, different
More informationarxiv:0804.4490v1 [math.gm] 28 Apr 2008
Infinite sequences in the framework of classical logic arxiv:0804.4490v1 [math.gm] 28 Apr 2008 V.V. Ivanov N.N. Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Kosygin str.4, Moscow,
More informationMATHS 315 Mathematical Logic
MATHS 315 Mathematical Logic Second Semester, 2006 Contents 2 Formal Statement Logic 1 2.1 Post production systems................................. 1 2.2 The system L.......................................
More information