1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Logic + Definability (R,<)

  1. Oct 25, 2007 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    What subsets of the real line R are definable in (R;<)? What subsets of the plan R x R are definable in (R:<)?


    3. The attempt at a solution

    R and the empty set are the only definable subsets of (R;<) since:

    x to x+1
    Is an automorphism and changes all subsets except for R and the empty set, therefore those subsets are the only possible definable subsets.

    R(x) := All x ~(x<x)

    ie: All real numbers hold this property

    Empty Set (x) := All x (x<x)

    ie: Nothing holds this property.

    Question: When answering the second part of this question for RxR. I'm not completley sure how you can say (a,b) < (c,d). My answer which I'm a little unsure of right now is that you can define (R,a) and (R,a) for some fixed a. (As well as the empty set). Any help would be appreciated.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 25, 2007 #2

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Perhaps it would help if you defined "definable"! What is the definition of "definable set" you are using?

    You can't say (a,b)< (c,d). That's why you problem says "(R: <)". The order relation is still on the real numbers.
     
  4. Oct 25, 2007 #3

    AKG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    x to x+1 doesn't change the set Z.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Logic + Definability (R,<)
  1. Defining Projection (Replies: 0)

Loading...