- #1

- 42

- 0

## Homework Statement

Let A, B, and C be sets. Assume the standard ZFC axioms.

Please see below for my updated question.

Thanks.

Last edited:

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter sunmaz94
- Start date

- #1

- 42

- 0

Let A, B, and C be sets. Assume the standard ZFC axioms.

Please see below for my updated question.

Thanks.

Last edited:

- #2

Dick

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 26,263

- 619

- #3

- 42

- 0

- #4

Dick

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 26,263

- 619

- #5

- 42

- 0

Yes I understand this. But how does the chain of set inclusions I mention lead to the fact that C ε C?

(Thanks for all your help!)

- #6

Dick

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 26,263

- 619

Yes I understand this. But how does the chain of set inclusions I mention lead to the fact that C ε C?

(Thanks for all your help!)

You seem to have deleted the question. I thought I suggested you try to prove that A ε B and B ε C doesn't necessarily imply A ε C? Since inclusion is not transitive?

- #7

- 42

- 0

You seem to have deleted the question. I thought I suggested you try to prove that A ε B and B ε C doesn't necessarily imply A ε C? Since inclusion is not transitive?

I agree. I am now asking modified question: How then can I show that if A ε B and B ε C and C ε A, that C ε C (yields the contradiction I require).

Apologies for the confusion.

- #8

Dick

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 26,263

- 619

I agree. I am now asking modified question: How then can I show that if A ε B and B ε C and C ε A, that C ε C (yields the contradiction I require).

Apologies for the confusion.

I think you are reaching way too far for a contradiction. C ε C puts you squarely in Bertrand-Russell paradox territory. A simple example of A ε B and B ε C with simple sets and A not an element of C will serve nicely. I basically gave you one. Follow it up. It shows inclusion isn't transitive. That's all you need.

- #9

- 42

- 0

I think you are reaching way too far for a contradiction. C ε C puts you squarely in Bertrand-Russell paradox territory. A simple example of A ε B and B ε C with simple sets and A not an element of C will serve nicely. I basically gave you one. Follow it up.

This is a separate question. I absolutely want to be in such territory. I need to show that the aforementioned set inclusions yield C ε C and then I can invoke the axiom of regularity/foundation to show it is a contradiction.

- #10

Dick

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 26,263

- 619

This is a separate question. I absolutely want to be in such territory. I need to show that the aforementioned set inclusions yield C ε C and then I can invoke the axiom of regularity/foundation to show it is a contradiction.

I don't think so. Inclusion ISN'T transitive. You can't say A ε B and B ε C implies A ε C. At all.

- #11

- 42

- 0

I don't think so. Inclusion ISN'T transitive. You can't say A ε B and B ε C implies A ε C. At all.

Hmm....

Then how do I go about using the axiom of regularity to prove that no set membership loops like that I described exist?

- #12

Dick

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 26,263

- 619

Hmm....

Then how do I go about using the axiom of regularity to prove that no set membership loops like that I described exist?

C ε C violates regularity. But the statement C ε C doesn't follow from anything you've said before because inclusion isn't transitive.

- #13

- 42

- 0

C ε C already violates regularity. The statement C ε C doesn't follow from anything you've said before because inclusion isn't transitive.

Yes but I want to show that A ε B and B ε C and C ε A violates regularity.

- #14

Dick

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 26,263

- 619

Yes but I want to show that A ε B and B ε C and C ε A violates regularity.

Mmm. I'm not all that hot with set axiomatics. But you can simplify that. Suppose A ε B and B ε A, can you show that violates regularity?? Like I say, I don't have ZFC axioms at my fingertips.

- #15

- 42

- 0

Mmm. I'm not all that hot with set axiomatics. But you can simplify that. Suppose A ε B and B ε A, can you show that violates regularity?? Like I say, I don't have ZFC axioms at my fingertips.

Then I can, but that doesn't help me.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_regularity

It states:

Every non-empty set A contains an element B which is disjoint from A.

I appreciate all of your help.

Share: