Forming set with infinite elements

jagbrar
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
using only the empty set, pairs, and unions can you form sets with infinitely many elements?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jagbrar said:
using only the empty set, pairs, and unions can you form sets with infinitely many elements?

Pairs? Do you mean direct/cartesian product?
 
jagbrar said:
using only the empty set, pairs, and unions can you form sets with infinitely many elements?

Now, one cannot. We need a separate axiom to be able to form infinite sets. Normally, one uses the axiom that \mathbb{N} exists. But this is (usually) equivalent to asserting that an arbitrary infinite set exists.

Using only the empty set, pairs and unions, one cannot derive that infinite set exists.
 
gb7nash said:
Pairs? Do you mean direct/cartesian product?
The axiom of pair/pairs/pairing says that if x and y are sets, there's a set z such that x and y are both members of z. Link.
 
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...
Back
Top