Why is the definition of cardinal number as the set of all sets equivalent to a given set...
$begingroup$
In Fundamentals of Mathematics, Volume 1 Foundations of Mathematics: The Real Number System and Algebra, after defining set equivalence as the ability to put the elements of the related sets in one-to-one correspondence, the following statement appears:
The cardinal number $tilde{x}$ of a set $x$ is then regarded as representing "that which is common" to all sets that are equivalent to $x$. Thus, we might say that the cardinal number of $x$ is simply the set of all sets that are equivalent to $x$, although such a definition is problematical on account of its relationship to the universal set.
The term problematical can have a slightly different connotation than the term problematic. The former implying requires expert handling. In other words, this may not be grounds for completely rejecting the definition. Unfortunately I do not have access to the German Language original to know what "problematical" was translated from.
Regardless of that nuance, the authors are certainly indicating that their proposed definition leads to difficulty in "relationship to the universal set". Is this difficulty simply Russell's antinomy?
elementary-set-theory definition cardinals
asked Feb 17 at 3:37
Steven HattonSteven Hatton
979422
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In Fundamentals of Mathematics, Volume 1 Foundations of Mathematics: The Real Number System and Algebra, after defining set equivalence as the ability to put the elements of the related sets in one-to-one correspondence, the following statement appears:
The cardinal number $tilde{x}$ of a set $x$ is then regarded as representing "that which is common" to all sets that are equivalent to $x$. Thus, we might say that the cardinal number of $x$ is simply the set of all sets that are equivalent to $x$, although such a definition is problematical on account of its relationship to the universal set.
The term problematical can have a slightly different connotation than the term problematic. The former implying requires expert handling. In other words, this may not be grounds for completely rejecting the definition. Unfortunately I do not have access to the German Language original to know what "problematical" was translated from.
Regardless of that nuance, the authors are certainly indicating that their proposed definition leads to difficulty in "relationship to the universal set". Is this difficulty simply Russell's antinomy?
elementary-set-theory definition cardinals
asked Feb 17 at 3:37
Steven HattonSteven Hatton
979422
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It should be noted that there is a way of getting around this issue via Scott's Trick.
$endgroup$
– Hayden
Feb 17 at 7:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In Fundamentals of Mathematics, Volume 1 Foundations of Mathematics: The Real Number System and Algebra, after defining set equivalence as the ability to put the elements of the related sets in one-to-one correspondence, the following statement appears:
The cardinal number $tilde{x}$ of a set $x$ is then regarded as representing "that which is common" to all sets that are equivalent to $x$. Thus, we might say that the cardinal number of $x$ is simply the set of all sets that are equivalent to $x$, although such a definition is problematical on account of its relationship to the universal set.
The term problematical can have a slightly different connotation than the term problematic. The former implying requires expert handling. In other words, this may not be grounds for completely rejecting the definition. Unfortunately I do not have access to the German Language original to know what "problematical" was translated from.
Regardless of that nuance, the authors are certainly indicating that their proposed definition leads to difficulty in "relationship to the universal set". Is this difficulty simply Russell's antinomy?
elementary-set-theory definition cardinals
asked Feb 17 at 3:37
Steven HattonSteven Hatton
979422
$endgroup$
In Fundamentals of Mathematics, Volume 1 Foundations of Mathematics: The Real Number System and Algebra, after defining set equivalence as the ability to put the elements of the related sets in one-to-one correspondence, the following statement appears:
The cardinal number $tilde{x}$ of a set $x$ is then regarded as representing "that which is common" to all sets that are equivalent to $x$. Thus, we might say that the cardinal number of $x$ is simply the set of all sets that are equivalent to $x$, although such a definition is problematical on account of its relationship to the universal set.
The term problematical can have a slightly different connotation than the term problematic. The former implying requires expert handling. In other words, this may not be grounds for completely rejecting the definition. Unfortunately I do not have access to the German Language original to know what "problematical" was translated from.
Regardless of that nuance, the authors are certainly indicating that their proposed definition leads to difficulty in "relationship to the universal set". Is this difficulty simply Russell's antinomy?
elementary-set-theory definition cardinals
elementary-set-theory definition cardinals
asked Feb 17 at 3:37
Steven HattonSteven Hatton
979422
asked Feb 17 at 3:37
Steven HattonSteven Hatton
979422
asked Feb 17 at 3:37
Steven HattonSteven Hatton
979422
asked Feb 17 at 3:37
Steven HattonSteven Hatton
979422
asked Feb 17 at 3:37
Steven HattonSteven Hatton
979422
979422
$begingroup$
It should be noted that there is a way of getting around this issue via Scott's Trick.
$endgroup$
– Hayden
Feb 17 at 7:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It should be noted that there is a way of getting around this issue via Scott's Trick.
$endgroup$
– Hayden
Feb 17 at 7:50
$begingroup$
It should be noted that there is a way of getting around this issue via Scott's Trick.
$endgroup$
– Hayden
Feb 17 at 7:50
$begingroup$
It should be noted that there is a way of getting around this issue via Scott's Trick.
$endgroup$
– Hayden
Feb 17 at 7:50
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Basically, yes. The problem is that the collection of all equivalent sets is a proper class (except in the case of the empty set). Thus to work with the notion of cardinality in set theory, it is convenient to define some representative of the class that is a set.
The most common solution is to use the axiom of choice and define the cardinality as the smallest ordinal in the class. In the absence of choice, one can instead appeal to foundation and define it as the subset consisting of the sets of lowest rank.
answered Feb 17 at 3:56
spaceisdarkgreenspaceisdarkgreen
33.5k21753
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3115820%2fwhy-is-the-definition-of-cardinal-number-as-the-set-of-all-sets-equivalent-to-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Basically, yes. The problem is that the collection of all equivalent sets is a proper class (except in the case of the empty set). Thus to work with the notion of cardinality in set theory, it is convenient to define some representative of the class that is a set.
The most common solution is to use the axiom of choice and define the cardinality as the smallest ordinal in the class. In the absence of choice, one can instead appeal to foundation and define it as the subset consisting of the sets of lowest rank.
answered Feb 17 at 3:56
spaceisdarkgreenspaceisdarkgreen
33.5k21753
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Basically, yes. The problem is that the collection of all equivalent sets is a proper class (except in the case of the empty set). Thus to work with the notion of cardinality in set theory, it is convenient to define some representative of the class that is a set.
The most common solution is to use the axiom of choice and define the cardinality as the smallest ordinal in the class. In the absence of choice, one can instead appeal to foundation and define it as the subset consisting of the sets of lowest rank.
answered Feb 17 at 3:56
spaceisdarkgreenspaceisdarkgreen
33.5k21753
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Basically, yes. The problem is that the collection of all equivalent sets is a proper class (except in the case of the empty set). Thus to work with the notion of cardinality in set theory, it is convenient to define some representative of the class that is a set.
The most common solution is to use the axiom of choice and define the cardinality as the smallest ordinal in the class. In the absence of choice, one can instead appeal to foundation and define it as the subset consisting of the sets of lowest rank.
answered Feb 17 at 3:56
spaceisdarkgreenspaceisdarkgreen
33.5k21753
$endgroup$
Basically, yes. The problem is that the collection of all equivalent sets is a proper class (except in the case of the empty set). Thus to work with the notion of cardinality in set theory, it is convenient to define some representative of the class that is a set.
The most common solution is to use the axiom of choice and define the cardinality as the smallest ordinal in the class. In the absence of choice, one can instead appeal to foundation and define it as the subset consisting of the sets of lowest rank.
answered Feb 17 at 3:56
spaceisdarkgreenspaceisdarkgreen
33.5k21753
edited Feb 17 at 4:38
answered Feb 17 at 3:56
spaceisdarkgreenspaceisdarkgreen
33.5k21753
answered Feb 17 at 3:56
spaceisdarkgreenspaceisdarkgreen
33.5k21753
answered Feb 17 at 3:56
spaceisdarkgreenspaceisdarkgreen
33.5k21753
33.5k21753
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3115820%2fwhy-is-the-definition-of-cardinal-number-as-the-set-of-all-sets-equivalent-to-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
It should be noted that there is a way of getting around this issue via Scott's Trick.
$endgroup$
– Hayden
Feb 17 at 7:50