MHB Axioms of Set Theory: Separation Axiom and Garling Theorem 1.2.2 .... ....

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading D. J. H. Garling: "A Course in Mathematical Analysis: Volume I Foundations and Elementary Real Analysis ... ...At present I am focused on Chapter 1: The Axioms of Set Theory and need some help with Theorem 1.2.2 and its relationship to the Separation Axiom ... ...

The Separation Axiom and Theorem 1.2.2 read as follows:
View attachment 6137

Garling argues that the Separation Axiom needs to be in place before we can prove Theorem 1.2.2 ... ... but I cannot see where the Separation Axiom is needed in the proof of Theorem 1.2.2 ...

Can someone give a clear explanation of exactly why we need the Separation Axiom in order to prove Theorem 1.2.2.

Help will be much appreciated ... ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

Peter said:
Garling argues that the Separation Axiom needs to be in place before we can prove Theorem 1.2.2 ... ... but I cannot see where the Separation Axiom is needed in the proof of Theorem 1.2.2 ...

The application of the Separation Axiom is what justifies the statement "and so there exists a set $b=\ldots$" The set $A$ in the axiom statement is $\Omega$ in the theorem. Does this help?
 
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...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top