Question about set theory and ordered pairs

reb659
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Hi

I was reading through a textbook and I came across the set theoretic definition of an ordered pair (Kuratowski), where (x,y)={{x},{x,y}}, which apparently can be shortened to {x,{x,y}}. This seems to be the standard definition for an ordered pair in set theory so that we can determine both the first and second element using only set theory and no notions of "first" or "second". However, I am wondering why the less complicated definition (x,y)={x,{y}} does not also work.

Can anyone enlighten me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If {x,{y}}={a,{b}} then either x=a and {y}={b} which is what we want, or
x={b} and a={y}. So if we just pick y and b arbitrarily we can come up with counterexamples to what an ordered pair should satisfy. So for example ({0},1)=({1},0) under your proposed definition
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top