This proof makes no sense to me.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The theorem to be proved is

Theorem 44. {x,y} = {u,v} → (x = u & y = v) V (x = v & y = u)

where {x,y} and {u,v} are sets with exactly two members, which can be either sets or individuals. The proof relies on:

Theorem 43. z [itex]\in[/itex] {x,y} z = x V z = y.

The given proof is:

"By virtue of Theorem 43

u [itex]\in[/itex] {u,v},and thus by the hypothesis of the theorem

u [itex]\in[/itex] {x,y}.Hence, by virtue of Th. 43 again

(1)u = x V u = y.By exactly similar arguments

(2)v = x V v = y,(3)x = u V x = v,(4)y = u V y = v.We may now consider two cases.

Case 1: x = y. Then by virtue of (1), x = u, and by virtue of (2), y = v."

This is where I got lost. Couldn't I just as easily argue that x = v by virtue of (2) and y = u by virtue of (1)? Or by virtue of (3) and (4)? What's the rationale behind the assumed values of x and y, and couldn't any of the four propositions support it? And if x = y, how could I justify the argument that x and y were equal to two ostensibly different variables without showing that u = v? On one, hand I can sort of see that the assumption x = y and the conditions (1) - (4) would necessarily make it true that u = v...but, given that then either x or y could be said to be equal to either v or u, would there be any need for this part of the proof at all?

In the interest of completeness, the rest of the proof is:

Case 2: x ≠ y. In view of (1), either x = u or y = u. Suppose x ≠ u. Then y = u and by (3) x = v. On the other hand, suppose y ≠ u. Then x = u and by (4), y = v.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Confusing Axiomatic Set Theory Proof

Loading...

Similar Threads - Confusing Axiomatic Theory | Date |
---|---|

A Confused about Weighted Least Squares | Jan 27, 2018 |

I Confusion over using integration to find probability | Jun 27, 2017 |

A Collinearity Confusion | May 25, 2017 |

I Monte Hall Problem confusion? | Oct 21, 2016 |

Other than ZFC, what other axiomatic systems are useful? | Nov 26, 2013 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**