Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How to define a set without set builder notation

  1. Apr 29, 2014 #1
    How do you define a set without using set builder notation? For example, let's say that I want to define set S as:

    S={x ∈ ℕ ∣ 0<x<5}

    Then
    S={1,2,3,4}
    However, suppose that I wanted to define S without set-builder notation, as below?

    ∀x(x ∈ ℕ ^ 0<x<5 ⟺ x∈S )

    Would these two statements be equivalent, or is there something else provided in the set builder notation that I am missing?

    Thanks.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 29, 2014 #2

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    The two statements are completely equivalent.
     
  4. Apr 29, 2014 #3

    jambaugh

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Your definition is fine. In essence a set is isomorphic to the logical predicate defining which elements are in the set. Set algebra and boolean algebra are isomorphic. (This is true provided we forbid self reference in predicates which would allow formulation of a Russell's paradox.)

    So for example {} = X such that for all a in X, True=False. (there is thus never an a in X).

    We typically do the reverse however. We like to map logic into set notation and set concepts. See for example introductory probability theory.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: How to define a set without set builder notation
  1. Set builder notation (Replies: 2)

Loading...