Question about set theory and ordered pairs

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the set-theoretic definition of ordered pairs, specifically Kuratowski's definition, which uses the formulation (x,y)={{x},{x,y}}. This definition allows for the identification of the first and second elements without relying on their order. The inquiry raises concerns about an alternative definition, (x,y)={x,{y}}, questioning its validity due to potential counterexamples where pairs could be considered equal despite differing orders. The example provided illustrates that under the simpler definition, pairs like ({0},1) and ({1},0) could be mistakenly deemed equivalent. The consensus emphasizes the necessity of the more complex definition to maintain the integrity of ordered pairs in set theory.
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
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K