- #1
bird34
- 8
- 0
I'm not sure if I'm on the right track with any of this, but any insight would be greatly appreciated. I have worked out what I believe to be the correct answer, but I really don't have any idea.
Express <a, b, c> =df <<a, b>, c> in terms of the set-theoretic notation only, using the Kuratowski definition.
Given Kuratowski's set-theoretic definition of ordered pairs: <x,y> = df {{x},{x,y}} it seems that the definition of <a, b, c> = df <<a, b>, c> would be <a, b, c> = df{{a}, {a, b}, {c}}
On that construal, what is |<<a, b>, c>>|?
Answer: 3
Show that <<a, b>, c> ≠ <a, <b, c>>.
Express <a, b, c> =df <<a, b>, c> in terms of the set-theoretic notation only, using the Kuratowski definition.
Given Kuratowski's set-theoretic definition of ordered pairs: <x,y> = df {{x},{x,y}} it seems that the definition of <a, b, c> = df <<a, b>, c> would be <a, b, c> = df{{a}, {a, b}, {c}}
On that construal, what is |<<a, b>, c>>|?
Answer: 3
Show that <<a, b>, c> ≠ <a, <b, c>>.