ZFC and the Pairing Principle .... Searcoid Theorem 1.1.5 ....

The image of this set under the function is $\{a,b\}$, which is a set. Therefore, we can use Axiom III to claim that $\{a,b\}$ is a set.
  • #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,990
48
I am reading Micheal Searcoid's book: Elements of Abstract Nalysis ( Springer Undergraduate Mathematics Series) ...

I am currently focussed on Searcoid's treatment of ZFC in Chapter 1: Sets ...

I am trying to attain a full understanding of Searcoid's proof of the Pairing Principle ...

The Pairing Principle and its proof reads as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/8285
In the above proof by Searcoid we read the following:

" ... ... By applying Axiom III to the set \(\displaystyle \mathcal{P} \mathcal{P} ( \emptyset )\) ... ... " What is \(\displaystyle \mathcal{P} \mathcal{P} ( \emptyset )\) ... what is its value and how (in detail) is it determined ... and further how exactly (in detail) do we apply Axiom III to it .. ?

Peter=========================================================================The above post refers to Axiom I and III ... so I am providing the text of these ... and for context/notation ... the rest of Searcoid's introduction to the ZFC Axioms up to the Pairing Principle ... as follows ...
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/8286
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/8287
View attachment 8288Hope that the provision of the above text helps ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Peter said:
In the above proof by Searcoid we read the following:

" ... ... By applying Axiom III to the set \(\displaystyle \mathcal{P} \mathcal{P} ( \emptyset )\) ... ... "

What is \(\displaystyle \mathcal{P} \mathcal{P} ( \emptyset )\)
The notation $\mathcal{P}(x)$ is introduced after Axiom II. The notation $\mathcal{P}\mathcal{P}(\emptyset)$ means $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(\emptyset))$.

Peter said:
how exactly (in detail) do we apply Axiom III to it .. ?
The axiom of replacement (Axiom III) says that the image of a set under a function is a set. Here we apply the function that maps $\emptyset$ to $a$ and $\{\emptyset\}$ to $b$ (more precisely, the corresponding functional relation) to the set $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(\emptyset))=\{\emptyset,\{\emptyset\}\}$.
 

What is ZFC and how does it relate to the Pairing Principle?

ZFC stands for Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice. It is a foundational theory in mathematics that provides a rigorous basis for defining and manipulating sets. The Pairing Principle is one of the axioms of ZFC and states that for any two sets, there exists a set containing exactly those two sets as elements. This allows us to construct larger sets from smaller ones.

What is the Searcoid Theorem 1.1.5 and how does it relate to ZFC?

The Searcoid Theorem 1.1.5 is a theorem in the field of set theory that states that every set is a subset of a transitive set. This means that for any set, there exists a larger set that contains all of its elements and the elements of its elements, and so on. This theorem is proven using the axioms of ZFC and is an important result in understanding the properties of sets.

Why is ZFC and the Pairing Principle important in mathematics?

ZFC and the Pairing Principle provide a rigorous and consistent foundation for the study of sets and their properties. This is essential in all areas of mathematics, as sets are fundamental elements in many mathematical structures and concepts. Without a solid basis in set theory, many mathematical arguments and proofs would lack rigor and validity.

Can ZFC and the Pairing Principle be used to prove all mathematical statements?

No, ZFC and the Pairing Principle are not capable of proving all mathematical statements. There are mathematical statements, such as the continuum hypothesis, that are independent of ZFC and cannot be proven or disproven using its axioms. However, ZFC and the Pairing Principle are powerful tools that can be used to prove a wide range of mathematical statements and are a crucial part of the foundation of mathematics.

Are there any controversies or criticisms surrounding ZFC and the Pairing Principle?

There are some controversies and criticisms surrounding ZFC and the Pairing Principle, particularly in relation to the axiom of choice. Some mathematicians argue that the axiom of choice leads to counterintuitive or paradoxical results, while others believe it is necessary for certain mathematical arguments. Additionally, there are alternative set theories that have been proposed, such as intuitionistic set theory, which reject the axiom of choice and have their own set of axioms.

Similar threads

MHB ZFC and the Axiom of Power Sets ....
    • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
MHB Set Theory and ZFC - The Subset Principal - Searcoid, Page 7
    • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
2K
MHB Ordinals .... Searcoid, Theorem 1.4.6 ....
    • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
MHB Proper Subsets of Ordinals .... .... Searcoid, Theorem 1.4.4 .... ....
    • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
828
MHB Ordinals .... Searcoid, Corollary 1.4.5 .... ....
    • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
965
MHB Set Theory and ZFC - The Axiom of Replacement - Searcoid, Pages 6-7
    • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
14
Views
3K
MHB Properties of the Ordinals ....
    • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
971
MHB Well Orders and Total Orders .... Searcoid Definition 1.3.10 ....
    • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
1K
MHB Cartesian Products and Families of Sets .... Searcoid, Section 1.2 .... ....
    • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
2K
MHB ZFC and the Axiom of Foundation
    • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top