- #1
- 7,861
- 1,598
- TL;DR Summary
- Do standard versions of set theory assume that there exists an equivalence relation defined on elements of sets? Can this relation be defined without referring to the concept of set?
According to https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zermelo-set-theory/ , Zermelo (translated) said:
I don't know if that quote is part of his formal presentation. It does raise the question of whether set theory must formally assume that there exists an equivalence relation on "elements" of set - or whether the equality or inequality of two elements is taken as a primitive notion and not formalized. (If it is formalized, how can this be done without referring to the concept of set?)
Set theory is concerned with a “domain” 𝔅 of individuals, which we shall call simply “objects” and among which are the “sets”. If two symbols, a and b, denote the same object, we write a = b, otherwise a ≠ b.
I don't know if that quote is part of his formal presentation. It does raise the question of whether set theory must formally assume that there exists an equivalence relation on "elements" of set - or whether the equality or inequality of two elements is taken as a primitive notion and not formalized. (If it is formalized, how can this be done without referring to the concept of set?)