When is a collection of sets too large to be a set?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter GargleBlast42
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set Sets
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of collections of sets, specifically addressing when such collections become too large to be classified as sets. Participants explore foundational aspects of set theory, particularly in relation to Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC) and alternative frameworks like NBG set theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to determine when a collection of sets is too large to be a set, using the collection of all groups and vector spaces as examples.
  • Another participant suggests that a collection X can be shown to be a proper class by exhibiting a surjection from X to the class of all sets or an injection from the class of all sets to X.
  • It is proposed that Russell's paradox and diagonal arguments can be applied to demonstrate that certain collections are not sets.
  • A participant inquires about how these concepts are framed within ZFC, specifically how to exhibit the surjection or injection for classes like all groups or all sets.
  • One response indicates that the relation P(X,Y) can define an injective function from the collection of all sets (Set) to the collection of all groups (Grp), suggesting a method to establish these relationships within ZFC.
  • There is mention of NBG set theory as a more convenient framework for dealing with proper classes, allowing classes to be treated as objects rather than predicates.
  • Another participant notes that adopting a large cardinal axiom is a stronger assumption than ZFC alone, implying a potential avenue for further exploration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the nature of collections and their classification as sets or proper classes. There is no consensus on the best approach or framework for addressing these questions, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific definitions of sets and classes, as well as unresolved mathematical steps related to the surjections and injections discussed. The discussion also reflects differing interpretations of foundational set theory principles.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying set theory, mathematical logic, or foundational mathematics, particularly in the context of ZFC and NBG frameworks.

GargleBlast42
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Is there any easy way to say when a collection of sets is too big to be a set? For example, why is the collection of all groups, vector spaces, etc. not a set anymore? How do I determine that a given collection is still a set?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One good way to show a collection X is a proper class is to exhibit an surjection X --> Set to the class of all sets. Or, similarly, an injection Set --> X.

Sometimes, you can directly translate Russell's paradox or other diagonal arguments to apply to X


To show something is a set, the easiest way is usually to show it's a subclass of something you know is a set.
 
ZFC seems to be the preferred basis for mathematics. How would that work in ZFC? I.e. how would you exhibit your surjection or injection. How would you refer to the class of all groups or all sets?
 
By it's graph, as usual. For example, the relation P(X,Y) defined by
P(X,Y) := (Y is a group) and (Y is the* free group on X)​
is an injective function from Set to Grp.

Set is, of course, the collection of all things in ZFC. Grp is the collection of all things that are groups. Both are easily definable by predicate in ZFC.


Incidentally, when dealing with proper classes, NBG set theory is essentially the same as ZFC, but is more convenient, since it allows us us treat classes as objects rather than as first-order logical predicates.

Even more convenient is to adopt a large cardinal axiom, although doing so really is a stronger assumption than merely assuming ZFC.


*: Normally we only care about free groups up to isomorphism -- but here, for simplicity, I will suppose we have fixed a particular construction of the free group on a set[/size]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
470
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
10K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K