Is a 1-to-1 Correspondence Possible Between Any Two Real Numbers in [a,b]?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Organic
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the possibility of establishing a 1-to-1 correspondence between any two real numbers within a defined interval [a,b]. Participants debate the definitions and properties of "x," which is proposed as a connector or correspondence element between real numbers, but they highlight the need for precise mathematical definitions. The conversation also touches on the implications of such connectors for the understanding of real numbers and their relationships, suggesting that these concepts could lead to new areas of mathematical research. There is a call for clarity in defining terms like "connector" and the relations involved, emphasizing the importance of rigorous definitions in mathematical discourse. Overall, the discussion raises questions about the nature of numbers and the potential for expanding mathematical language.
  • #51
Greetings,
Using presence of professional mathematicians at a forum, it would be desirable to ask the following question:
Is it present in the mathematics some a theory about self-organizing, development and complication of functions of information system (between elements of some data set)? I keep in a mind our universe as information system.
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
  • #53
Hi phoenixthoth, Hi Anton A. Ermolenko,

The concept of a set is like a "stage" where you can put elements and then find the rules, operations, relations and so on, within and among these elements.

The {} is the "stage" itself and it is not one of the elements "playing" on it.

The "stage" itself must be simpler than any "player" that plays on it, otherwise no player can express its full propery.

The "stage" has no signature at all, therefore it has no content(=emptiness).

It is as if I said that the silence is the base of any sound.

We cannot find any variations in silence, therefore the silence is invariant by its very own nature.

Therefore silence is more symmetric than any sound.

Now, please change silence by emptiness, and some sound by non-emptiness.


Organic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be {true sentence} or to be {false sentence}, that is not the question.


To be(=~{}), or not to be(={}), that is the question.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
  • #54
Hi Anton A. Ermolenko,

You wrote:
To Organic:

In general, your ideas aren’t new extension of mathematics, but may have application in the computer science.

Please be more spesific.

Thank you.


Organic
 
Last edited:
  • #55
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
zero divisor isn't a term used in set theory. therefore, there's no need to relate it to ZF axioms. zero divisors occur in rings; investigate how rings develop out of set theory. to write down the ZF axioms and then a sequence of statements leading to the definition of zero divisor would take a while.

are A and B allowed to be any two different sets?

is A õ A = A an assumption or a theorem?

is A õ B = A an assumption or a theorem?

is A + B = B an assumption or a theorem?

from the last equation, that B can be "cancelled" is an assumption. cacellation presumes both that there is a zero element and that all elements have inverses. therefore, this is a circular argument.
See link below
http://forum.1tv.ru/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=249955
 
  • #56
Originally posted by Organic
Hi phoenixthoth, Hi Anton A. Ermolenko,

The concept of a set is like a "stage" where you can put elements and then find the rules, operations, relations and so on, within and among these elements.

The {} is the "stage" itself and it is not one of the elements "playing" on it.

The "stage" itself must be simpler than any "player" that plays on it, otherwise no player can express its full propery.

The "stage" has no signature at all, therefore it has no content(=emptiness).

It is as if I said that the silence is the base of any sound.

We cannot find any variations in silence, therefore the silence is invariant by its very own nature.

Therefore silence is more symmetric than any sound.

Now, please change silence by emptiness, and some sound by non-emptiness.


Organic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be {true sentence} or to be {false sentence}, that is not the question.


To be(=~{}), or not to be(={}), that is the question.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, just tell me - how do you define an empty set within the framework of AST
 
  • #57
Originally posted by Organic
Hi Anton A. Ermolenko,

You wrote:


Please be more spesific.

Thank you.


Organic
More specific in what? Why your ideas aren't new extension of mathematics?
Or why your ideas may have application in the computer science?
If first, then I've demonstrate the inconsistency of your definitions and suggestions with AST. There is no new mathematics.
If second, then I think that is wrong way (forum). What kind of physics we research up here?
 
  • #58
Originally posted by Anton A. Ermolenko
Well, just tell me - how do you define an empty set within the framework of AST

i wouldn't know since i wasn't "brought up" with AST; i was brought up on ZF and ZFC with a smattering of the von Neumann/Godel system. maybe a search on http://www.mathworld.com with "AST" will reveal the answer you seek.

in ZF, sets are NOT defined. then it is POSTULATED that there is a "set" with the property that for all x, x is not an alement of this set. the empty set is defined to be a set with this property.
 
  • #59
Originally posted by Anton A. Ermolenko
More specific in what? Why your ideas aren't new extension of mathematics?
Or why your ideas may have application in the computer science?
If first, then I've demonstrate the inconsistency of your definitions and suggestions with AST. There is no new mathematics.
If second, then I think that is wrong way (forum). What kind of physics we research up here?

is there an online reference to AST? I've never heard of it.

the inconsistency of organic's definition with AST is not clear to me nor does it seem relevant because i believe he's using the ZF axioms.

the mathematics is new to me. it may have been already done by someone else, however.

the question about physics is irrelevant because this topic has been moved to the math section.

the connections to computer science aren't clear at all.
 
  • #60
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i wouldn't know since i wasn't "brought up" with AST; i was brought up on ZF and ZFC with a smattering of the von Neumann/Godel system. maybe a search on http://www.mathworld.com with "AST" will reveal the answer you seek.

in ZF, sets are NOT defined. then it is POSTULATED that there is a "set" with the property that for all x, x is not an alement of this set. the empty set is defined to be a set with this property.
You've misunderstood again... "AST" (the axiomatic theory of set), in other word, ZF or NBG (von Neumann/Bernays/Godel). Neither ZF, nor NBG hasn't an "axiom of empty set". Can you demonstrate this axiom within the framework of ZF or NBG? Just tell where it is?
 
Last edited:
  • #61
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
is there an online reference to AST? I've never heard of it.

the inconsistency of organic's definition with AST is not clear to me nor does it seem relevant because i believe he's using the ZF axioms.
Which of them (axioms)?
the mathematics is new to me. it may have been already done by someone else, however.

the question about physics is irrelevant because this topic has been moved to the math section.
Is the section of General physics>Theory Development math section? I thought, that it is a Physics theory development section... If I've misunderstood, then forgive me
 
  • #62
Originally posted by Anton A. Ermolenko
You've misunderstood again... "AST" (the axiomatic theory of set), in other word, ZF or NBG (von Neumann/Bernays/Godel). Neither ZF, nor NBG hasn't an "axiom of empty set". Can you demonstrate this axiom within the framework of ZF or NBG? Just tell where it is?

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AxiomoftheEmptySet.html

note that ! means "not" in this case.
 
  • #63
Originally posted by Anton A. Ermolenko
Which of them (axioms)?

Is the section of General physics>Theory Development math section? I thought, that it is a Physics theory development section... If I've misunderstood, then forgive me

i'm not sure why this topic is under physics theory development.
 
  • #64
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i'm not sure why this topic is under physics theory development.

Would you have it in Math?
 
  • #65
yes. as far as i remember, i found it under math where it had been moved to. i can't see what it's direct relation to physics is.
 
  • #66
Hi Integral,

This thread was opened by me under Mthematics > General Math, and it was there until yesterday.

Please check if it can be returned to its original place.


Maybe it is the right time to open Theory Development under Mathematics.

What do you think ?


Thank you,


Organic
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Hi Anton A. Ermolenko,

The ZF Axiom of the Empty set:

There is a set A such that, given any set B, B is not a member of A.

(There is a "stage" A with no "players" B)


Please tell me if you find any problem in this axiom.


Thank you.


Organic
 
Last edited:
  • #68
Last edited:
  • #69
Æ
 
Last edited:
  • #70
Dear Anton A. Ermolenko,

By [null] do you mean that you accept my point of view
which is:

An analogy: [null] is like an empty sheet of paper with no written thing on it.


Organic
 
  • #71
Originally posted by Organic
Dear Anton A. Ermolenko,

By [null] do you mean that you accept my point of view
which is:

An analogy: [null] is like an empty sheet of paper with no written thing on it.


Organic
No, I don't.
My post is there only because of a technical problem.
 
  • #72
In my opinion, the empty set is the building block of the idea of the set.

Let us call it a zero-order logic object.


A zero-order logic is based on one and only one sentence which is:

"There is x".

In the case of the idea of the set, x is the empty set.


Orgnic
 
  • #73
Originally posted by Organic
In my opinion, the empty set is the building block of the idea of the set.

Let us call it a zero-order logic object.
Why do you need another axiom? Don't you think that we could do with existing ones?
Originally posted by Organic
A zero-order logic is based on one and only one sentence which is:

"There is x".

In the case of the idea of the set, x is the empty set.
In the case of the idea of the set, x is only an uncertain set, nothing else.
 
  • #74
I've been keeping tabs on this thread... but I can't seem to figure out what your point is, Anton, can you enlighten me? :smile:


Some comments on the empty set that haven't been mentioned:

Given the existence of any set S, the ZF axiom of subsets can be used to construct the empty set:

ExAy:(y in x) <=> (y in S and ~(y in S))


It's easy enough to prove that a set constructed this way is unique and doesn't depend on the identity of S. I'll call the empty set 0 because I don't know the code to give me the empty set symbol.

It is easy enough to show that 0, constructed this way, satisfies, for any set T, 0 U T = T, 0 x T = 0, and it is also easy enough to show that 0 is the unique set satisfying these two properties. In fact, in ZF, the four statements:

z = 0
Ay: ~(y in z)
AT: z U T = T
AT: z x T = z

are equivalent; if one holds for a set z, then they all hold.


Why include the axiom of the empty set if you can use the axiom of subsets to construct it? Minimalism. In order to get started, the existence of at least one set must be postulated. Because no matter what set gets postulated one can construct the empty set, the most minimal postulate you can state is that the empty set exists.


Oh, and anyone have an online reference to the axioms of NBG?
 
  • #75
Originally posted by Hurkyl
I've been keeping tabs on this thread... but I can't seem to figure out what your point is, Anton, can you enlighten me? :smile:


Some comments on the empty set that haven't been mentioned:

Given the existence of any set S, the ZF axiom of subsets can be used to construct the empty set:

ExAy:(y in x) <=> (y in S and ~(y in S))


It's easy enough to prove that a set constructed this way is unique and doesn't depend on the identity of S. I'll call the empty set 0 because I don't know the code to give me the empty set symbol.

It is easy enough to show that 0, constructed this way, satisfies, for any set T, 0 U T = T, 0 x T = 0, and it is also easy enough to show that 0 is the unique set satisfying these two properties. In fact, in ZF, the four statements:
Why include the axiom of the empty set if you can use the axiom of subsets to construct it? Minimalism. In order to get started, the existence of at least one set must be postulated. Because no matter what set gets postulated one can construct the empty set, the most minimal postulate you can state is that the empty set exists.
Of course! Bingo! And I think so, too! Maybe I was not clear enough. My point is that ZF exclude an axiom of the empty set because the empty set concept is a theorem within the framework of ZF, not an axiom. But I asked Organic to give the empty set definition of his own, because the ZF empty set definition doesn't allow to make the deductions he has made.

Originally posted by Hurkyl z = 0
Ay: ~(y in z)
AT: z U T = T
AT: z x T = z

are equivalent; if one holds for a set z, then they all hold.[/B]
Could you specify what you mean? And where are the contradictions with my definitions?
 
  • #76
y point is that ZF exclude an axiom of the empty set because the empty set concept is a theorem within the framework of ZF, not an axiom.

That is not the case!

The theorem is that if there exists a set, there exists an empty set. IOW:
(Ex) => (EyAz:!(z is in y))


The catch is that the axiom of the empty set is the only ZFC axiom capable of proving Ex. (Note: you can't even state the axiom of infinity unless the empty set is known to exist)


Let me restate this to emphasize what this means:

Without the axiom of the empty set, ZFC cannot prove the existence of even a single set.



Could you specify what you mean? And where are the contradictions with my definitions?

I am asserting:

Az: [ (z = 0) <=> (Ay: ~(y in z)) <=> (AT: z U T = T) <=> (AT: z x T = z) ]

(where 0 is as I defined it in my previous post)

I'm not sure why you ask about constradictions with your definitions; I think your definition (if I interpret you correctly) is equivalent to the usual definition, but is redundant, complicated, and confusing.
 
  • #77
Originally posted by Hurkyl
That is not the case!

The theorem is that if there exists a set, there exists an empty set. IOW:
(Ex) => (EyAz:!(z is in y))


The catch is that the axiom of the empty set is the only ZFC axiom capable of proving Ex. (Note: you can't even state the axiom of infinity unless the empty set is known to exist)


Let me restate this to emphasize what this means:

Without the axiom of the empty set, ZFC cannot prove the existence of even a single set.





I am asserting:

Az: [ (z = 0) <=> (Ay: ~(y in z)) <=> (AT: z U T = T) <=> (AT: z x T = z) ]

(where 0 is as I defined it in my previous post)

I'm not sure why you ask about constradictions with your definitions; I think your definition (if I interpret you correctly) is equivalent to the usual definition, but is redundant,
complicated, and confusing.
Once more, which of my definitions (formulas) exactly redundant and complicated? The emty set is only a formula, not an axiom (prove me that my definition of FORMULA of empty set is an axiom; the formulas !x=Æ and z=Æ (in Z7 and Z8) can be substituted with full definition of the empty set... am I worng? Just prove it!).
http://physics.nad.ru/img/Sets.gif
 
Last edited:
  • #78
Anton A. Ermolenko,

Please answer to a simple question.

Who needs who to exist ?

Does the formula need the empty set, or the empty set needs the formula ?

I say: There is a set (a collector) with no content.

I don't need any formula to say that, because it is minimal and clear.

From this point any statement or formula that you give, will be more complicated then what I said, therefore cannot be in the same minimal level.

Therefore, you have no argument.



Organic
 
Last edited:
  • #79
Once more, which of my definitions (formulas) exactly redundant and complicated?

Specifically:
z = 0 is defined as
Au(u U z = u & u x z = z & Ev(v = z <=> (v x z = z & v U z = z) & AyAx (y * x = z <=> At(t in z <=> (t not in x & t not in y))))

(where * means set intersection)

is redundant and complicated.

Incidentally, I think it's complicated enough that you didn't even write down your intent correctly; "Ev" should have been "Av".


This formula is equivalent to each of the following statements:

(z = 0) := Au(u U z)
(z = 0) := Au(u x z = z)
(z = 0) := Au(~(u in z))

Your definition is redundant because you only need to have one of these three terms, and then the rest of your definition could be proven as a theorem.


And, as per the observation I made earlier, without the axiom of the empty set, 0 cannot be a formula. You cannot prove 0 exists, so you cannot use it as a constant. The basic formula involving 0 is the relation z = 0.

BTW, your page doesn't specify what Inf(x) is.
 
  • #80
I say: There is a set (a collector) with no content.

That is (directly translatable into) a formula:

EzAy: ~(y is in z)

There exists a z such that for all y, y is not in z.
 
  • #81
Originally posted by Organic
Anton A. Ermolenko,

Please answer to a simple question.

Who needs who to exist ?

Does the formula need the empty set, or the empty set needs the formula ?

I say: There is a set (a collector) with no content.

I don't need any formula to say that, because it is minimal and clear.

From this point any statement or formula that you give, will be more complicated then what I said, therefore cannot be in the same minimal level.

Therefore, you have no argument.
Originally posted by Hurkyl

Specifically:
z = 0 is defined as
Au(u U z = u & u x z = z & Ev(v = z <=> (v x z = z & v U z = z) & AyAx (y * x = z <=> At(t in z <=> (t not in x & t not in y))))

(where * means set intersection)

is redundant and complicated.

Incidentally, I think it's complicated enough that you didn't even write down your intent correctly; "Ev" should have been "Av".


This formula is equivalent to each of the following statements:

(z = 0) := Au(u U z)
(z = 0) := Au(u x z = z)
(z = 0) := Au(~(u in z))

Your definition is redundant because you only need to have one of these three terms, and then the rest of your definition could be proven as a theorem.


And, as per the observation I made earlier, without the axiom of the empty set, 0 cannot be a formula. You cannot prove 0 exists, so you cannot use it as a constant. The basic formula involving 0 is the relation z = 0.

BTW, your page doesn't specify what Inf(x) is.
Well... one and the last time. The set theory operates sets by using operations such as x - direct product of sets, Å - direct addition of sets, U - join of sets, Ï - intersection of sets. The main requirement is that the results of all the above operations with sets are sets as well. Only this requrement makes the set theory use the empty set concept, therefore the empty set can only be defined by non-empty sets and operations. NOTHING ELSE! BECAUSE THE EQUALITY OR UNEQUALITY TO THE EMPTY SET (=Æ OR !=Æ) ARE ONLY FORMULAS. THE ICON Æ WITHOUT "=", "!=", "Î" or "Ï" MAKES NO SENSE. And this is really for the last time.
 
Last edited:
  • #82
Or...

0 is a constant in language of formal set theory that represents the empty set.


(incidentally, none of your math symbols appear as math symbols on my computer)


And I will repeat that without an axiom explicity specifying that some set exists, no set can be proven to exist... the existence of at least one set is a crutial part of the proof that (most of) the rest of mathematics is consistent relative to ZFC, so it really serve a practical purpose.
 
  • #83
Hi Hurkyl,

That is (directly translatable into) a formula:

There exists a z such that for all y, y is not in z.

By using at least two variables (in this case z and y) we need some formula to describe the relations between them.

No set can be separated from the property of its content, therefore
we have an interesting situation here.

On one hand a collector can exist with no content, but on the other hand its property is depended on the property of its content.

But we also know that the content concept can't exist without a collector.

To define the exact definition of an existing thing z(a collector), is not in the same level of to define the existence of y(a content).

So z can exist with no clear property, but y can't exist at all without z.

Please tell me how Math language deals with these distinguished two levels.

If we say "There is a collector" , do you think that we can come to the conclusion that it has no content, as its minimal existence?



Thank you.



Organic
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

B What is the physical significance of mass-time-length equivalences in physics?
Replies
8
Views
2K
B Too much energy -- thought experiment
Replies
42
Views
4K
I How to find a point that corresponds to hyperreal number?
Replies
10
Views
3K
B How can hyperreal numbers make infinitesimals logically sound in calculus?
Replies
24
Views
6K
I Question about data analysis and error
Replies
16
Views
2K
I Understanding Ewald's sphere in the context of X-Ray diffraction
Replies
3
Views
5K
I Discussion about least squares method
Replies
2
Views
2K
Insights What Are Numbers?
Replies
13
Views
4K
I Trouble understanding the SI definition of 1 second
2
Replies
56
Views
6K
B Imaginary distance is nonsense
Replies
21
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top