Why Is $\{ x: \phi(x) \}$ a Set Given $Y$?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Theorem
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the theorem that states if a set $Y$ exists such that for all $x$, if $\phi(x)$ holds, then $x$ is an element of $Y$, then the set $\{ x: \phi(x) \}$ also exists. This is proven using the Axiom Schema of Specification, which allows the formation of a set $B$ containing elements from $Y$ that satisfy $\phi$. The proof concludes that $Z = \{ x: \phi(x) \}$ is indeed a set, as it is derived from the elements of $Y$ that meet the condition $\phi(x)$. The discussion emphasizes the distinction between forming a set of all objects satisfying $\phi$ and selecting from a pre-existing set.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory and axioms, particularly the Axiom Schema of Specification.
  • Familiarity with logical quantifiers and implications in mathematical proofs.
  • Knowledge of set notation and operations, such as intersection and union.
  • Basic comprehension of types and their role in formal logic.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Axiom Schema of Specification in detail to understand its implications in set theory.
  • Explore the concept of types in formal logic and their applications in mathematical proofs.
  • Learn about the differences between sets and classes in set theory to clarify the limitations of set formation.
  • Investigate additional theorems related to set existence and construction, such as Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, logicians, and students of set theory who are interested in the foundations of mathematics and the principles governing set formation and existence.

evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Smile)

Theorem:

Let $\phi$ a type. We suppose that the set $Y$ exists, such that: $\forall x (\phi(x) \rightarrow x \in Y)$. Then there is the set $\{ x: \phi(x) \}$.

Proof:

From the Axiom schema of specification

("Let $\phi$ a type. For each set $A$, there is a set $B$, that consists of these elements of $A$, that satisfy the identity $\phi$, so:

$$ \exists B \forall x (x \in B \leftrightarrow x \in A \wedge \phi(x))$$

so: $B=\{ x: x \in A \wedge \phi(x) \}$ is a set."
)

there is the set $Z=\{ x \in Y: \phi(x) \}$

$$x \in Z \leftrightarrow (x \in Y \wedge \phi(x) ) \leftrightarrow \phi(x)$$

Therefore:

$$Z=\{ x: \phi(x) \}$$

and so, $\{x: \phi(x) \}$ is a set.Could you explain me the proof of the theorem? (Worried) (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Intuitively, one is not allowed to form the set of all objects $x$ satisfying $\phi(x)$. One is, however, allowed to pick such objects (i.e., those that satisfy $\phi$) from a previously constructed set $A$, and call the result a set. That is, if you ask the set-robot: "Collect everything satisfying $\phi$", it will answer: "Sorry, can't do. Too much work. The search scope is undefined". But if you say, "Collect everything satisfying $\phi$ from the set continuum to the power continuum", the robot will say, "Here you are".

In your proof, all sets satisfying $\phi$ are already in $Y$, so if you collect all elements of $Y$ satisfying $\phi$ (which is allowed by the axiom schema of specification), you'll get the set of all sets satisfying $\phi$ at all, whether in $Y$ or not.

For more help, please write the specific place in the proof you don't understand and what you think about it.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Intuitively, one is not allowed to form the set of all objects $x$ satisfying $\phi(x)$. One is, however, allowed to pick such objects (i.e., those that satisfy $\phi$) from a previously constructed set $A$, and call the result a set. That is, if you ask the set-robot: "Collect everything satisfying $\phi$", it will answer: "Sorry, can't do. Too much work. The search scope is undefined". But if you say, "Collect everything satisfying $\phi$ from the set continuum to the power continuum", the robot will say, "Here you are".

In your proof, all sets satisfying $\phi$ are already in $Y$, so if you collect all elements of $Y$ satisfying $\phi$ (which is allowed by the axiom schema of specification), you'll get the set of all sets satisfying $\phi$ at all, whether in $Y$ or not.

For more help, please write the specific place in the proof you don't understand and what you think about it.
Axiom schema of specification:
"Let $\phi$ a type. For each set $A$, there is a set $B$, that consists of these elements of $A$, that satisfy the identity $\phi$, so:

$$ \exists B \forall x (x \in B \leftrightarrow x \in A \wedge \phi(x))$$

so: $B=\{ x: x \in A \wedge \phi(x) \}$ is a set."

We know that $\exists Y$, such that $\forall x(\phi(x) \rightarrow x \in Y)$

From the above theorem, $\exists$ a set $B$, that contains these elements of $Y$, that satisfy $\phi$, so:

$\exists B \forall (x \in B \leftrightarrow x \in Y \wedge \phi(x))$

so: $B=\{ x: x \in Y \wedge \phi(x) \}$ is a set.

But, why will we get then the set of all sets satisfying $\phi$ at all, whether in $Y$ or not, although it is:

$$x \in Z \leftrightarrow (x \in Y \wedge \phi(x))$$

? (Thinking)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
968
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K