- #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:

- 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

- 26,260

- 619

- #3

- 42

- 0

- #4

Dick

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 26,260

- 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

- 26,260

- 619

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?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!)

- #7

- 42

- 0

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).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?

Apologies for the confusion.

- #8

Dick

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 26,260

- 619

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.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.

- #9

- 42

- 0

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 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.

- #10

Dick

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 26,260

- 619

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.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.

- #11

- 42

- 0

Hmm....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.

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

- 26,260

- 619

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.Hmm....

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

- #13

- 42

- 0

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

- #14

Dick

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 26,260

- 619

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

- #15

- 42

- 0

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

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.

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 789

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 889