Why doesn't it come from a cartesian product of sets?

In summary, the sentence is saying that the set $I_A$ defined above is not equal to a Cartesian product of two sets if $|A|>1$.
  • #1
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
3,836
0
Hello! (Wave)

There is the following sentence in my notes:

Let $A$ be a set. We define the set $I_A=\{ <a,a>, a \in A \}$.

$$A \times A=\{ <a_1,a_2>: a_1 \in A \wedge a_2 \in A \}$$

Then $I_A$ is a relation, but does not come from a cartesian product of sets.

Could you explain me the last sentence? (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
To illustrate with an example. Let $A = \{a_1,a_2\}$ then $I_A = \{(a_1,a_1),(a_2,a_2)\}$ and $A \times A = \{(a_1,a_1),(a_1,a_2),(a_2,a_1),(a_2,a_2)\}$. Clearly they're not the same and as you mentioned $I_A$ does not come from a cartesian product. Look at how $I_A$ is defined, it only contains the couples where both elements are the same. The cartesian product contains all the possible couples.
 
  • #3
I still haven't understood why $I_A$ does not come from a cartesian product of sets.. (Sweating)
Could you explain it further to me? (Thinking)
 
  • #4
evinda said:
I still haven't understood why $I_A$ does not come from a cartesian product of sets..
It apparently means that $I_A$ is not equal to a Cartesian product of two sets if $|A|>1$. Indeed, suppose that $a,b\in A$ and $a\ne b$. Then $\langle a,a\rangle\in I_A$ and $\langle b,b\rangle\in I_A$. Suppose now that $I_A=B\times C$. Then $B$ must contain all first elements of pairs from $I_A$; in particular, $a,b\in B$. Similarly, $C$ contains all second elements of pairs from $I_A$; in particular, $a,b\in B$. But then $\langle a,b\rangle\in B\times C$ even though $\langle a,b\rangle\notin I_A$.
 
  • #5
Evgeny.Makarov said:
It apparently means that $I_A$ is not equal to a Cartesian product of two sets if $|A|>1$. Indeed, suppose that $a,b\in A$ and $a\ne b$. Then $\langle a,a\rangle\in I_A$ and $\langle b,b\rangle\in I_A$. Suppose now that $I_A=B\times C$. Then $B$ must contain all first elements of pairs from $I_A$; in particular, $a,b\in B$. Similarly, $C$ contains all second elements of pairs from $I_A$; in particular, $a,b\in B$. But then $\langle a,b\rangle\in B\times C$ even though $\langle a,b\rangle\notin I_A$.

I understand... Thank you very much! (Smile)
 

1. Why can't all elements be expressed as a cartesian product of sets?

Not all elements can be expressed as a cartesian product of sets because not all elements have a clear and distinct relationship to other elements. Some elements may have complex or undefined relationships, making it impossible to represent them as a cartesian product.

2. Can't we just create more sets to accommodate all elements?

Even if we were to create an infinite number of sets, there would still be elements that cannot be expressed as a cartesian product. This is because there are an infinite number of possible relationships between elements, making it impossible to represent all elements using a finite number of sets.

3. Why is the cartesian product not a universal method for representing elements?

The cartesian product is a specific mathematical concept that is useful for representing certain types of relationships between elements. However, it is not a universal method because it is limited by the fact that it can only represent elements with clear and defined relationships.

4. Are there any other methods for representing elements besides the cartesian product?

Yes, there are other mathematical methods for representing elements, such as graphs, matrices, and sets with different properties. Each method has its own strengths and limitations, and the choice of which method to use depends on the specific elements and relationships being represented.

5. How is the cartesian product used in science and other fields?

The cartesian product is used in various fields, including mathematics, computer science, and physics. It is commonly used to represent relationships between sets of objects, such as in graph theory and database design. It is also used in statistics and probability to calculate the likelihood of events occurring together.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
2
Replies
35
Views
584
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
2
Replies
62
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
717
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top