Register to reply 
Set of all groupsby V0ODO0CH1LD
Tags: groups 
Share this thread: 
#1
Feb2714, 09:02 PM

P: 264

Why do I run into trouble if I try to define the set of all groups? I get that defining the set of all sets could lead to paradoxes. But how is it that defining the set of all groups somehow leads to the same kind of problems?
If I define the set of all groups as all the ordered pairs (x,y) such that y is a closed operation on x that satisfies all the axioms of a group. How will that get me in trouble?? 


#2
Feb2714, 10:25 PM

P: 160

Start with the fact that any set can be equipped with an operation that makes it a group. If the set is finite then you identify the elements of the set with 0, 1, ..., n1 and then use the operation "addition mod n". If the set is infinite you identify the elements of the set with its finite subsets and use the operation "symmetric difference". Either way, you have turned the set into a group.
Now consider G, the set of all groups that are not elements of themselves. If the set of all groups is welldefined, then this is also welldefined since it is a subset of the set of all groups. Now place a group operation on G as above, so that G is in fact a group. You now have Russell's paradox, since G must be both a member of itself and not a member of itself. 


#3
Feb2814, 09:32 AM

P: 264

Okay, thanks!
Now on the matter of fixing this problem. If I use the definition of a class I can then define the class of all groups, right?? But could I also fix the problem by restricting the domain of discourse on the sets that I can make groups on?? And still get a set of ALL groups? 


#4
Mar114, 07:52 PM

Mentor
P: 18,346

Set of all groups



#5
Mar414, 11:18 PM

P: 264

I meant to restrict the sets I can use to create groups so to get a set of all groups, and still get a set of ALL groups.



#6
Mar1214, 12:51 AM

P: 13

The answer is yes. For example, you can use ZF set theory with one more axiom: the existence of Grothendieck universes. This is equivalent to the existence of strongly inaccessible cardinals. More formally, the following two axioms are equivalent
(i) For each set x, there exists a Grothendieck universe U such that x∈U. (ii) For each cardinal κ, there is a strongly inaccessible cardinal λ that is strictly larger than κ. The second is known to not arise contradictions in ZF. Then every set that is an element of U is usually called a "small set". For every practical purposes, the entire math can be built only of small sets and you can define groups only with small sets or define groups and small groups (the definition is the obvious one). Then you can build the set of all groups (which are made with small sets), or the set of all small groups. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Group Theory Question involving nonabelian simple groups and cyclic groups  Calculus & Beyond Homework  1  
Groups of permutations and cyclic groups  Linear & Abstract Algebra  5  
Homology groups from Homotopy groups  Differential Geometry  6  
Groups, Normalizer, Abstract Algebra, Dihedral Groups...help?  Calculus & Beyond Homework  12  
Wallpaper Groups, Free Groups, and Trees  Introductory Physics Homework  13 