An ordered pair defined as a set

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter radou
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pair Set
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of ordered pairs and n-tuples in set theory, specifically how they can be represented as sets. Participants explore the implications of this representation and the operations that can be performed on ordered pairs within this framework.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why an ordered pair (x, y) can be defined as the set {{x}, {x, y}} and expresses confusion about the representation of n-tuples.
  • Another participant asks about the operations that can be performed on ordered pairs and whether these operations satisfy their expected properties in the set-theoretic model.
  • A participant proposes a method of interpreting the set representation of ordered pairs, suggesting that the structure allows for the identification of the first and second elements based on the sets involved.
  • Another participant acknowledges the previous explanation but points out a technicality regarding the set {a, {a, b}} not always having two distinct elements, indicating a need for careful consideration.
  • A later reply elaborates on the distinction between ordered pairs and sets, emphasizing that ordered pairs allow for the differentiation of elements, and discusses the representation of ordered triples in a similar manner.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and interpretation regarding the representation of ordered pairs and n-tuples. While some agree on the basic concepts, there are technical nuances and potential misunderstandings that remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the elements of sets and the implications of their representations. The discussion also highlights the complexity of distinguishing between elements in ordered pairs versus sets.

radou
Homework Helper
Messages
3,149
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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K