What is the difference between sets and classes in set theory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Venomily
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Element
AI Thread Summary
In set theory, a set can indeed be an element of another set, as illustrated by examples like X being an element of Y without its individual members being members of Y. The discussion emphasizes that sets function as "packages," where one set can contain another set as an element, similar to having a package of sausages in a shopping bag. The concept of the empty set is also explored, noting its relationship to other sets and how it doesn't fit neatly into certain structures. Additionally, the distinction between naive set theory and class theory is highlighted, with class theory preventing sets from containing other sets, establishing a hierarchy of classes. Understanding these concepts is crucial for grasping the foundational principles of set theory.
Venomily
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Question 2 (a)

how is it possible? B is a set (since A is a set), how can a set be an element of another set?

Rather than saying: B is an element of C

I thought it would be better to say: B is a subset of C.



Also, can someone explain question 2 (d) to me? thanks
 

Attachments

  • mathsprob.png
    mathsprob.png
    17.4 KB · Views: 501
Physics news on Phys.org
im quite desperate.
 
Yes, a set can be an element of another set. There may be a set X={a,b,c}, where X is an element of Y.
But neither a, nor b, nor c becomes a member of Y; only the sets are members.

But you can have a set Z = {a, X} ... so X contains a,b,c, but neither b nor c is a member of Z.

Sets are "packages", and the set Z has the package X as an element - like having an apple and a package of sausages in your shopping bag. You can reach in and pull out the apple, but you cannot pull out a sausage - only a package of sausages.

But you could reach into that package of sausages and pull out a sausage!
 
2(d) is the null set. Try it with the package concept!
 
UltrafastPED said:
Yes, a set can be an element of another set. There may be a set X={a,b,c}, where X is an element of Y.
But neither a, nor b, nor c becomes a member of Y; only the sets are members.

But you can have a set Z = {a, X} ... so X contains a,b,c, but neither b nor c is a member of Z.

Sets are "packages", and the set Z has the package X as an element - like having an apple and a package of sausages in your shopping bag. You can reach in and pull out the apple, but you cannot pull out a sausage - only a package of sausages.

But you could reach into that package of sausages and pull out a sausage!

Great explanation, I understand now, thanks.

But how would I go about 2 (d)? we have the empty set, {}:

{A} = { { 0, {}, {{}} } }

Judging by what you said, I don't see how {} can be related to the above set? it is neither an element nor a set.
 
{} = sausages
{{}} = packet of sausages
0 = Orange

{ 0, {}, {{}} } = Shopping bag of (Orange + sausages + Packet of sausages).

{ { 0, {}, {{}} } } = car boot of Shopping bag.

We want {{}} i.e. the packet of sausages. It is not related to the Car boot because it is neither a SET nor a MEMBER of the Car boot, it is too deep inside.
 
Last edited:
By the way, this is true in "Naive set theory" which suffers from "Russel's Paradox". In "class theory" we do NOT allow "sets" to be contained in sets, but have a hierarchy of "classes" in which classes in one tier can be contained in classes of a higher tier. "Sets" are the lowest tier of classes.
 

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top