Totally disconnected space: Difference between revisions
en>Jowa fan →References: give MR link to the original publication; the MR page for the Dover edition isn't very informative |
en>Danneks |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{other uses}} | |||
In [[set theory]], a '''universal set''' is a [[Set (mathematics)|set]] which contains all objects, including itself.<ref>Forster 1995 p. 1.</ref> In [[set theory]] as usually formulated, the conception of a set of all sets leads to a [[paradox]]. However, some non-standard variants of set theory include a universal set. | |||
==Reasons for nonexistence== | |||
[[Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory]] and related set theories, which are based on the idea of the [[cumulative hierarchy]], do not allow for the existence of a universal set. Its existence would cause paradoxes which would make the theory inconsistent. | |||
===Russell's paradox=== | |||
[[Russell's paradox]] prevents the existence of a universal set in [[Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory]] and other set theories that include [[Zermelo]]'s [[axiom of comprehension]]. | |||
This axiom states that, for any formula <math>\varphi(x)</math> and any set {{mvar|A}}, there exists another set | |||
:<math>\{x \in A \mid \varphi(x)\}</math> | |||
that contains exactly those elements {{mvar|x}} of {{mvar|A}} that satisfy <math>\varphi</math>. If a universal set {{mvar|V}} existed and the axiom of comprehension could be applied to it, then | |||
there would also exist another set <math>\{x \in V\mid x\not\in x\}</math>, the set of all sets that do not contain themselves. However, as [[Bertrand Russell]] observed, this set is paradoxical. If it contains itself, then it should not contain itself, and vice versa. For this reason, it cannot exist. | |||
===Cantor's theorem=== | |||
A second difficulty with the idea of a universal set concerns the [[power set]] of the set of all sets. Because this power set is a set of sets, it would automatically be a subset of the set of all sets, provided that both exist. However, this conflicts with [[Cantor's theorem]] that the power set of any set (whether infinite or not) always has strictly higher [[cardinality]] than the set itself. | |||
==Theories of universality== | |||
The difficulties associated with a universal set can be avoided either by using a variant of set theory in which the axiom of comprehension is restricted in some way, or by using a universal object that is not considered to be a set. | |||
===Restricted comprehension=== | |||
There are set theories known to be [[consistent]] (if the usual set theory is consistent) in which the universal set {{mvar|V}} does exist (and <math>V \in V</math> is true). In these theories, Zermelo's [[axiom of comprehension]] does not hold in general, and the axiom of comprehension of [[naive set theory]] is restricted in a different way. A set theory containing a universal set is necessarily a [[non-well-founded set theory]]. | |||
The most widely studied set theory with a universal set is [[Willard Van Orman Quine]]’s [[New Foundations]]. [[Alonzo Church]] and [[:de:Arnold Oberschelp|Arnold Oberschelp]] also published work on such set theories. Church speculated that his theory might be extended in a manner consistent with Quine’s,<ref>Church 1974 p. 308. See also Forster 1995 p. 136 or 2001 p. 17.</ref> but this is not possible for Oberschelp’s, since in it the singleton function is provably a set,<ref>Oberschelp 1973 p. 40.</ref> which leads immediately to paradox in New Foundations.<ref>Holmes 1998 p. 110.</ref> | |||
===Universal objects that are not sets=== | |||
{{main|Universe (mathematics)}} | |||
The idea of a universal set seems intuitively desirable in the [[Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory]], particularly because most versions of this theory do allow the use of quantifiers over all sets (see [[universal quantifier]]). One way of allowing an object that behaves similarly to a universal set, without creating paradoxes, is to describe {{mvar|V}} and similar large collections as [[Class (set theory)|proper classes]] rather than as sets. One difference between a universal set and a universal class is that the universal class does not contain itself, because [[proper class]]es cannot be elements of other classes. Russell's paradox does not apply in these theories because the axiom of comprehension operates on sets, not on classes. | |||
The [[category of sets]] can also be considered to be a universal object that is, again, not itself a set. It has all sets as elements, and also includes arrows for all functions from one set to another. | |||
Again, it does not contain itself, because it is not itself a set. | |||
== Notes == | |||
{{Reflist}} | |||
== References == | |||
* [[Alonzo Church]] (1974). [http://books.google.com/books?id=6GFNxtPAK8UC&hl=en&output=reader&pg=GBS.PA297 “Set Theory with a Universal Set,”] [http://www.ams.org/books/pspum/025/pspum025-endmatter.pdf ''Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics XXV,''] ed. L. Henkin, American Mathematical Society, pp. 297–308. | |||
* {{cite book | author=[[T. E. Forster]] | title= Set Theory with a Universal Set: Exploring an Untyped Universe (Oxford Logic Guides 31) | publisher=Oxford University Press | year=1995 | isbn=0-19-851477-8}} | |||
* [http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~tf/ T. E. Forster] (2001). [http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~tf/church2001.ps “Church’s Set Theory with a Universal Set.”] | |||
* [http://math.boisestate.edu/~holmes/holmes/setbiblio.html Bibliography: Set Theory with a Universal Set], originated by T. E. Forster and maintained by Randall Holmes at Boise State University. | |||
* [http://math.boisestate.edu/~holmes Randall Holmes] (1998). ''[http://math.boisestate.edu/~holmes/holmes/head.ps Elementary Set theory with a Universal Set,]'' volume 10 of the Cahiers du Centre de Logique, Academia, Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium). | |||
* [[:de:Arnold Oberschelp|Arnold Oberschelp]] (1973). “Set Theory over Classes,” ''Dissertationes Mathematicae'' 106. | |||
* [[Willard Van Orman Quine]] (1937) “New Foundations for Mathematical Logic,” ''American Mathematical Monthly'' 44, pp. 70–80. | |||
== External links == | |||
*{{MathWorld |title=Universal Set |id=UniversalSet }} | |||
{{Set theory}} | |||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Universal Set}} | |||
[[Category:Basic concepts in set theory]] | |||
[[Category:Set families]] | |||
[[Category:Paradoxes of naive set theory]] | |||
[[Category:Systems of set theory]] | |||
[[Category:Wellfoundedness]] | |||
[[Category:Self-reference]] |
Revision as of 14:29, 16 October 2013
I'm Fernando (21) from Seltjarnarnes, Iceland.
I'm learning Norwegian literature at a local college and I'm just about to graduate.
I have a part time job in a the office.
my site; wellness [continue reading this..]
In set theory, a universal set is a set which contains all objects, including itself.[1] In set theory as usually formulated, the conception of a set of all sets leads to a paradox. However, some non-standard variants of set theory include a universal set.
Reasons for nonexistence
Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory and related set theories, which are based on the idea of the cumulative hierarchy, do not allow for the existence of a universal set. Its existence would cause paradoxes which would make the theory inconsistent.
Russell's paradox
Russell's paradox prevents the existence of a universal set in Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory and other set theories that include Zermelo's axiom of comprehension. This axiom states that, for any formula and any set Template:Mvar, there exists another set
that contains exactly those elements Template:Mvar of Template:Mvar that satisfy . If a universal set Template:Mvar existed and the axiom of comprehension could be applied to it, then there would also exist another set , the set of all sets that do not contain themselves. However, as Bertrand Russell observed, this set is paradoxical. If it contains itself, then it should not contain itself, and vice versa. For this reason, it cannot exist.
Cantor's theorem
A second difficulty with the idea of a universal set concerns the power set of the set of all sets. Because this power set is a set of sets, it would automatically be a subset of the set of all sets, provided that both exist. However, this conflicts with Cantor's theorem that the power set of any set (whether infinite or not) always has strictly higher cardinality than the set itself.
Theories of universality
The difficulties associated with a universal set can be avoided either by using a variant of set theory in which the axiom of comprehension is restricted in some way, or by using a universal object that is not considered to be a set.
Restricted comprehension
There are set theories known to be consistent (if the usual set theory is consistent) in which the universal set Template:Mvar does exist (and is true). In these theories, Zermelo's axiom of comprehension does not hold in general, and the axiom of comprehension of naive set theory is restricted in a different way. A set theory containing a universal set is necessarily a non-well-founded set theory.
The most widely studied set theory with a universal set is Willard Van Orman Quine’s New Foundations. Alonzo Church and Arnold Oberschelp also published work on such set theories. Church speculated that his theory might be extended in a manner consistent with Quine’s,[2] but this is not possible for Oberschelp’s, since in it the singleton function is provably a set,[3] which leads immediately to paradox in New Foundations.[4]
Universal objects that are not sets
Mining Engineer (Excluding Oil ) Truman from Alma, loves to spend time knotting, largest property developers in singapore developers in singapore and stamp collecting. Recently had a family visit to Urnes Stave Church. The idea of a universal set seems intuitively desirable in the Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, particularly because most versions of this theory do allow the use of quantifiers over all sets (see universal quantifier). One way of allowing an object that behaves similarly to a universal set, without creating paradoxes, is to describe Template:Mvar and similar large collections as proper classes rather than as sets. One difference between a universal set and a universal class is that the universal class does not contain itself, because proper classes cannot be elements of other classes. Russell's paradox does not apply in these theories because the axiom of comprehension operates on sets, not on classes.
The category of sets can also be considered to be a universal object that is, again, not itself a set. It has all sets as elements, and also includes arrows for all functions from one set to another. Again, it does not contain itself, because it is not itself a set.
Notes
43 year old Petroleum Engineer Harry from Deep River, usually spends time with hobbies and interests like renting movies, property developers in singapore new condominium and vehicle racing. Constantly enjoys going to destinations like Camino Real de Tierra Adentro.
References
- Alonzo Church (1974). “Set Theory with a Universal Set,” Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics XXV, ed. L. Henkin, American Mathematical Society, pp. 297–308.
- 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.
My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534 - T. E. Forster (2001). “Church’s Set Theory with a Universal Set.”
- Bibliography: Set Theory with a Universal Set, originated by T. E. Forster and maintained by Randall Holmes at Boise State University.
- Randall Holmes (1998). Elementary Set theory with a Universal Set, volume 10 of the Cahiers du Centre de Logique, Academia, Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium).
- Arnold Oberschelp (1973). “Set Theory over Classes,” Dissertationes Mathematicae 106.
- Willard Van Orman Quine (1937) “New Foundations for Mathematical Logic,” American Mathematical Monthly 44, pp. 70–80.
External links
I had like 17 domains hosted on single account, and never had any special troubles. If you are not happy with the service you will get your money back with in 45 days, that's guaranteed. But the Search Engine utility inside the Hostgator account furnished an instant score for my launched website. Fantastico is unable to install WordPress in a directory which already have any file i.e to install WordPress using Fantastico the destination directory must be empty and it should not have any previous installation files. When you share great information, others will take note. Once your hosting is purchased, you will need to setup your domain name to point to your hosting. Money Back: All accounts of Hostgator come with a 45 day money back guarantee. If you have any queries relating to where by and how to use Hostgator Discount Coupon, you can make contact with us at our site. If you are starting up a website or don't have too much website traffic coming your way, a shared plan is more than enough. Condition you want to take advantage of the worldwide web you prerequisite a HostGator web page, -1 of the most trusted and unfailing web suppliers on the world wide web today. Since, single server is shared by 700 to 800 websites, you cannot expect much speed.
Hostgator tutorials on how to install Wordpress need not be complicated, especially when you will be dealing with a web hosting service that is friendly for novice webmasters and a blogging platform that is as intuitive as riding a bike. After that you can get Hostgator to host your domain and use the wordpress to do the blogging. Once you start site flipping, trust me you will not be able to stop. I cut my webmaster teeth on Control Panel many years ago, but since had left for other hosting companies with more commercial (cough, cough) interfaces. If you don't like it, you can chalk it up to experience and go on. First, find a good starter template design. When I signed up, I did a search for current "HostGator codes" on the web, which enabled me to receive a one-word entry for a discount. Your posts, comments, and pictures will all be imported into your new WordPress blog.