What is Complementary Logic and its Role in Set Theory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Organic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Transition
Click For Summary
Complementary Logic proposes that redundancy and uncertainty should be inherent properties of set theory, enhancing its application beyond traditional definitions. This perspective suggests a transition between Boolean and non-Boolean logic, allowing for more complex representations of mathematical concepts. The discussion emphasizes that incorporating these properties can connect set theory with number theory in innovative ways. Critics argue that such enhancements do not fundamentally alter the traditional constructs of sets or numbers. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the need for clearer definitions and a rigorous framework to support these new ideas in mathematics.
  • #31
I use open interval in its standard meaning, which is: {} and (__} are out of the scope of anything that exist between them.

That is not the standard meaning of "open interval".
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #33
{} and (__} are out of the scope of anything that exist between them.

Problem 1: "scope" is not a standard mathematical term.

Problem 2: you have not supplied the ordering required by the term "between".

Problem 3: this statement bears no resemblance to the definition of an open interval.


The definition is:

[tex](a, b) := \{x | a < x \wedge x < b\}[/tex]

(where &lt; is a total ordering)


So, by the standard definition:

[tex](\{\}, \{\_\}) := \{x | \{\} < x \wedge x < \{\_\} \}[/tex]

You tell me how what you said bears any resemblance to the definition.

Also note that a piece is still missing; the standard definition requires one to supply a total ordering, &lt;. Please clarify what this ordering is.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Dear Hurkyl,

Please tell me how can I use this latex notations in my posts?

As you can see it is easy to write my idea by using standard way.

The total ordering is clearly shown in the first post of this thread.

Can you write it in a standard way?


Yours,


Organic
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Originally posted by Organic
The total ordering is clearly shown in the first post of this thread.

I certainly don't see anything about a total ordering in the first thread. You should clarify what ordering you want, instead of just instructing us to re-read your posts and pdfs.


As for LaTeX, there's a post that explains how to use it in the General Physics forum.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
i think with what organic has in mind, the partial ordering is that induced by the subset relation for, i think he means {} to be the empty set at {__} the universal set so that for all sets x,
{}<x<{__}. however, since not all sets are comparable using subset relation, it's not a total order. however, perhaps this is a kind of weak (not meant in a bad way) open interval. it can be likened to a lattice with {} at the bottom and {__} at the top. i was briefly trying to do set theory this way but I'm not sure how to do the subsets axiom with meet ^ and join v in such a way as to remove russell's paradox.
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
326
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K