An ordered pair defined as a set

  • Thread starter Thread starter radou
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pair Set
radou
Homework Helper
Messages
3,148
Reaction score
8
Why can an ordered pair (x, y) be defined as a set {{x}, {x, y}}? Further on, (x, y, z) can de defined as {{x}, {{x}, {{y}, {y, z}}}}... I don't quite understand this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What operations can you perform on ordered pairs?

Now, interpret those operations in this set-theoretic model.

Do those operations satisfy the properties they're supposed to?
 
Ok, I think I got it.. There is no order among the elements of a set, hence, since an ordered pair (or n-touple in general) is a set, there has to be a way to imply order in set notation, as well as to keep the fact that (a, b) = (a', b') <=> a=a' & b=b' true. So, from a set {{a}, {a, b}} we can 'read': the set with only one element is {a}, which makes a the first element in the ordered pair (a, b). Assuming a does not equal b, we 'jump' to the next set {a, b}, and select the element b as the second element of (a, b).

Analogically, if we have a set { {a}, { {a}, {{b}, {b, c}} } }, we see that the set with one element is {a}, which makes a the first element in (a, b, c). Let's assume a, b and b, c are different. So, we 'jump' to the next set { {a}, {{b}, {b, c}} }. Since, a and b are different, we directly jump to the set {{b}, {b, c}} and select b for the second element of (a, b, c), since {b} is a singleton. And, finally, since b and c are different, we select c for the third element of (a, b, c)... Is this a correct way of thinking?
 
Right; you got the idea behind it.

There is a slight technicality, though -- the set {a, {a, b}} doesn't always have two elements. So you have to take that into consideration if you want to get everything completely right.
 
Last edited:
The whole point of "ordered pair" is that, unlike the set {a, b}, we distinguish between the two members. Writing (a,b)= {{a},{a,b}} just means that there are two members, a and b, and we distinguish between the two. Hurkyl's point about "the set {a, {a, b}} doesn't always have two elements" is that the "pair" (a,b) corresponds to the set {{a},{a,a}}. But since {a, a} is a set where we don't "double list" the same thing, {a,a} is the same as {a}. That means that {{a}, {a,a}}= {{a},{a}} which is exactly the same as {{a}}.

When talking about "ordered triples", we can think of (a,b,c) as the "ordered pair" ((a,b),c) where the first member is the ordered pair (a,b). That is the same as the set {{(a,b)}, {(a,b),c}}. But (a,b) is {{a},{a,b}} so {{(a,b)},{(a,b),c}}= {{{{a},{a,b}}},{{{a},{a,b}},c}}. Or we could write it as (a, (b,c))= {{a},{a,(b,c)}= {{a},{a,{b,{b,c}}}.

(That reminds me of the computer language "LISP"- "Lots of Insane, Silly Parentheses"!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...

Similar threads

Replies
30
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top