Can the Universal Set be Defined as the Union of Two Sets?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kamataat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set Universal
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the universal set can be defined as the union of two specific sets. It is permissible to define the universal set this way, provided that the underlying theory does not involve the intersection of their complements. If the axioms or logic of the theory change, a true universal set can be established. There is also a consideration that one might need to include the intersection of the complements in addition to the two sets when defining the universal set. Overall, the definition of the universal set is contingent on the theoretical framework being used.
Kamataat
Messages
137
Reaction score
0
Let's say I have to prove something about two sets and I want to make use of the notion of the universal set. Is it OK then to define the universal set as the union of these two sets?

- Kamataat
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wouldn't you also have to union (in addition to the two sets) the intersection of the complements of the two sets?
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top