|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Bots|deny=AWB}}
| | Every person who wants to have a house relocation or office relocation should pick up the services of the hire man and van hounslow as this will help them to move their things in a simpler and efficient way. With the hire man and van London you will be able to move your belongings with knowing or feeling the pressure of the move. You can hire man and van London throughout London and there are some [http://Www.google.com/search?q=reasons&btnI=lucky reasons] why hire man and van hounslow are considered the best option:<br><br>1. Whenever you are going to move the things big or small you will always need a helping hand, the man and van are the best deal that can help you in this process as they provide both man and van for your purpose. This is a valuable deal mainly if you are going to move some awkward and heavy items which you can neither drive by yourself nor move it on own.<br><br>2. Hire man and van hounslow is very convenient, as you are free from the pressure of arranging the apt vehicle, filling diesel, road map confusion and so on. There will not be much paper works too in this process of hiring and your goods will get moved safely and on time as there will not be any requirement for paper signing or scanning or license and so on.<br><br>3. Hire man and van London have profession and experienced men with them, these people are well versed in packing, loading and unloading so if you are busy and can't manage this work of transferring the van and the man will do it on your behalf. They will pack items intact and arrange the boxes in the van so that there will not be any movement of the goods even when your goods are going to travel far.<br><br>4. The hire man and van London is available for a low cost and so you will be surprised to know that the charges are almost half of what you can get it from other services.<br><br>5. The man and van services will provide low cost storage and this comes with no<br>contract or had minimal term policy. You can keep all the things securely in the van and even if you are going to store last minute items the van will accommodate that too.<br><br>6. The greatest advantage is that you can hire these services for a minimum period too, say for about two hours, this means that you are paying only for the hours used and not for the whole day. Some services charge a huge amount for the whole day but when you hire man and van London you pay only for the time period and you are not going to waste any money extra.<br><br>7. When you hire man and van hounslow you are going to get a personal service as the person or the man whom you hire will have the fullest knowledge of this business and so you needn't worry about any major or minor problems too. They are friendly, polite and offer personal service by taking care of your specific expensive belongings while shifting.<br><br>Should you have any inquiries relating to exactly where along with the best way to utilize [http://masonremovalsandstorage.co.uk/house-removals-reading/ house removals reading], you are able to call us from our web site. |
| In [[mathematics]], an '''ordered pair''' (''a'', ''b'') is a pair of [[mathematical object]]s. The order in which the objects appear in the pair is significant: the ordered pair (''a'', ''b'') is different from the ordered pair (''b'', ''a'') unless ''a'' = ''b''. (In contrast, the [[unordered pair]] {''a'', ''b''} equals the unordered pair {''b'', ''a''}.)
| |
| | |
| Ordered pairs are also called [[tuple|2-tuples]], or [[sequence]]s of length 2; ordered pairs of [[scalar (mathematics)|scalars]] are also called 2-dimensional [[Vector (mathematics and physics)|vectors]].
| |
| The entries of an ordered pair can be other ordered pairs, enabling the recursive definition of ordered [[n-tuple|''n''-tuple]]s (ordered lists of ''n'' objects). For example, the ordered triple (''a'',''b'',''c'') can be defined as (''a'', (''b'',''c'')), i.e., as one pair nested in another.
| |
| | |
| In the ordered pair (''a'', ''b''), the object ''a'' is called the ''first entry'', and the object ''b'' the ''second entry'' of the pair. Alternatively, the objects are called the first and second ''coordinates'', or the left and right ''projections'' of the ordered pair.
| |
| | |
| [[Cartesian product]]s and [[binary relations]] (and hence [[function (mathematics)|functions]]) are defined in terms of ordered pairs.
| |
| | |
| ==Generalities== | |
| Let <math>(a_1, b_1)</math> and <math>(a_2, b_2)</math> be ordered pairs. Then the '''characteristic''' (or ''defining'') '''property''' of the ordered pair is:
| |
| | |
| :<math>(a_1, b_1) = (a_2, b_2)\quad\text{if and only if}\quad a_1 = a_2\text{ and }b_1 = b_2.\!</math>
| |
| | |
| The [[Set (mathematics)|set]] of all ordered pairs whose first entry is in some set ''A'' and whose second entry is in some set ''B'' is called the [[Cartesian product]] of ''A'' and ''B'', and written ''A'' × ''B''. A [[binary relation]] between sets ''A'' and ''B'' is a [[subset]] of ''A'' × ''B''.
| |
| | |
| If one wishes to employ the <math>\ (a,b)</math> notation for a different purpose (such as denoting [[open interval]]s on the [[real number line]]) the ordered pair may be denoted by the variant notation <math>\left \langle a,b\right \rangle.</math>
| |
| | |
| The left and right projection of a pair ''p'' is usually denoted by ''π''<sub>1</sub>(''p'') and ''π''<sub>2</sub>(''p''), or by ''π''<sub>''l''</sub>(''p'') and ''π''<sub>''r''</sub>(''p''), respectively.
| |
| In contexts where arbitrary ''n''-tuples are considered, ''π''<sup>''n''</sup><sub>''i''</sub>(''t'')<!---how to get the subscript exactly below the superscript?---> is a common notation for the ''i''-th component of an ''n'' tuple ''t''.
| |
| | |
| ==Defining the ordered pair using set theory==
| |
| The above characteristic property of ordered pairs is all that is required to understand the role of ordered pairs in mathematics. Hence the ordered pair can be taken as a [[primitive notion]], whose associated axiom is the characteristic property. This was the approach taken by the [[Bourbaki|N. Bourbaki]] group in its ''Theory of Sets'', published in 1954, long after Kuratowski discovered his reduction (below). The Kuratowski definition was added in the second edition of ''Theory of Sets'', published in 1970.
| |
| | |
| If one agrees that [[set theory]] is an appealing [[foundations of mathematics|foundation of mathematics]], then all mathematical objects must be defined as [[Set (mathematics)|sets]] of some sort. Hence if the ordered pair is not taken as primitive, it must be defined as a set.<ref>Quine has argued that the set-theoretical implementations of the concept of the ordered pair is a paradigm for the clarification of philosophical ideas (see "Word and Object", section 53).
| |
| The general notion of such definitions or implementations are discussed in Thomas Forster "Reasoning about theoretical entities".
| |
| </ref> Several set-theoretic definitions of the ordered pair are given below. | |
| | |
| ===Wiener's definition===
| |
| [[Norbert Wiener]] proposed the first set theoretical definition of the ordered pair in 1914:<ref>Wiener's paper "A Simplification of the logic of relations" is reprinted, together with a valuable commentary on pages 224ff in van Heijenoort, Jean (1967), ''From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1979-1931'', Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, ISBN 0-674-32449-8 (pbk.). van Heijenoort states the simplification this way: "By giving a definition of the ordered pair of two elements in terms of class operations, the note reduced the theory of relations to that of classes".</ref>
| |
| :<math>\left( a, b \right) :=
| |
| \left\{\left\{ \left\{a\right\},\, \emptyset \right\},\, \left\{\left\{b\right\}\right\}\right\}.</math>
| |
| He observed that this definition made it possible to define the [[type theory|types]] of ''[[Principia Mathematica]]'' as sets. ''Principia Mathematica'' had taken types, and hence [[relation (mathematics)|relations]] of all arities, as [[primitive notion|primitive]].
| |
| | |
| Wiener used <nowiki>{{</nowiki>''b''}} instead of {''b''} to make the definition compatible with [[type theory]] where all elements in a class must be of the same "type". With nesting ''b'' within an additional set its type is made equal to <math>\{\{a\}, \emptyset\}</math>'s.
| |
| | |
| ===Hausdorff's definition===
| |
| About the same time as Wiener (1914), [[Felix Hausdorff]] proposed his definition:
| |
| : <math>(a, b) := \left\{ \{a, 1\}, \{b, 2\} \right\}</math>
| |
| "where 1 and 2 are two distinct objects different from a and b."<ref>cf introduction to Wiener's paper in van Heijenoort 1967:224</ref>
| |
| | |
| ===Kuratowski definition===
| |
| In 1921 [[Kazimierz Kuratowski]] offered the now-accepted definition<ref>cf introduction to Wiener's paper in van Heijenoort 1967:224. van Heijenoort observes that the resulting set that represents the ordered pair "has a type higher by 2 than the elements (when they are of the same type)"; he offers references that show how, under certain circumstances, the type can be reduced to 1 or 0.</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=Sur la notion de l'ordre dans la Théorie des Ensembles|first=Casimir|last=Kuratowski|authorlink=Kazimierz Kuratowski|year=1921|journal=[[Fundamenta Mathematicae]]|pages=161–171|volume=2|number=1|url=http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm2/fm2122.pdf}}</ref>
| |
| of the ordered pair (''a'', ''b''):
| |
| :<math>(a, \ b)_K \; := \ \{ \{ a \}, \ \{ a, \ b \} \}.</math>
| |
| Note that this definition is used even when the first and the second coordinates are identical:
| |
| : <math>(x,\ x)_K = \{\{x\},\{x, \ x\}\} = \{\{x\},\ \{x\}\} = \{\{x\}\}</math>
| |
| | |
| Given some ordered pair ''p'', the property "''x'' is the first coordinate of ''p''" can be formulated as:
| |
| :<math>\forall{Y}{\in}{p}:{x}{\in}{Y}.</math>
| |
| The property "''x'' is the second coordinate of ''p''" can be formulated as: | |
| :<math>(\exist{Y}{\in}{p}:{x}{\in}{Y})\and(\forall{Y_{1},Y_{2}}{\in}{p}:Y_{1}\ne Y_{2}\rarr ({x}{\notin}{Y_{1}}\or{x}{\notin}{Y_{2}})).</math>
| |
| In the case that the left and right coordinates are identical, the right [[conjunct]] <math>(\forall{Y_{1},Y_{2}}{\in}{p}:Y_{1}\ne Y_{2}\rarr ({x}{\notin}{Y_{1}}\or{x}{\notin}{Y_{2}}))</math> is trivially true, since ''Y''<sub>1</sub> ≠ ''Y''<sub>2</sub> is never the case.
| |
| | |
| This is how we can extract the first coordinate of a pair (using the notation for [[Intersection_(set_theory)#Arbitrary_intersections|arbitrary intersection]] and [[Union_(set_theory)#Arbitrary_unions|arbitrary union]]):
| |
| | |
| :<math>\pi_1(p) = \bigcup\bigcap p</math>
| |
| | |
| This is how the second coordinate can be extracted:
| |
| | |
| :<math>\pi_2(p) = \bigcup\{x \in \bigcup p \mid \bigcup p \not= \bigcap p \rarr x \notin \bigcap p \}</math>
| |
| | |
| ==== Variants ====
| |
| The above Kuratowski definition of the ordered pair is "adequate" in that it satisfies the characteristic property that an ordered pair must satisfy, namely that <math>(a,b) = (x,y) \leftrightarrow (a=x) \and (b=y)</math>. In particular, it adequately expresses 'order', in that <math>(a,b) = (b,a)</math> is not necessarily true. There are other definitions, of similar or lesser complexity, that are equally adequate:
| |
| * <math>( a, b )_{\text{reverse}} := \{ \{ b \}, \{a, b\}\};</math>
| |
| * <math>( a, b )_{\text{short}} := \{ a, \{a, b\}\};</math>
| |
| * <math>( a, b )_{\text{01}} := \{\{0, a \}, \{1, b \}\}.</math>{{clarify|reason=This definition seems to be quite similar to Hausdorff's definition explained above. Unless there is a particular reason (which then should be made explicit here), it should be omitted here.|date=July 2013}}
| |
| The '''reverse''' definition is merely a trivial variant of the Kuratowski definition, and as such is of no independent interest. The definition '''short''' is so-called because it requires two rather than three pairs of [[bracket|braces]]. Proving that '''short''' satisfies the characteristic property requires the [[Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory]] [[axiom of regularity]].<ref>Tourlakis, George (2003) ''Lectures in Logic and Set Theory. Vol. 2: Set Theory''. Cambridge Univ. Press. Proposition III.10.1.</ref> Moreover, if one accepts the [[Natural_number#A_standard_construction|standard set-theoretic construction of the natural numbers]], then 2 is defined as the set {0, 1} = {0, {0}}, which is indistinguishable from the pair (0, 0)<sub>short</sub>. Yet another disadvantage of the '''short''' pair is the fact, that even if ''a'' and ''b'' are of the same type, the elements of the '''short''' pair are not. (However, if ''a'' = ''b'' then the '''short''' version keeps having cardinality 2, which is something one might expect of any "pair", including any "ordered pair". Also note that the '''short''' version is used in [[Tarski–Grothendieck set theory]], upon which the [[Mizar system]] is founded.)
| |
| | |
| ====Proving that definitions satisfy the characteristic property====
| |
| Prove: (''a'', ''b'') = (''c'', ''d'') [[if and only if]] ''a'' = ''c'' and ''b'' = ''d''.
| |
| | |
| '''Kuratowski''':<br>
| |
| ''If''. If ''a = c'' and ''b = d'', then {{''a''}, {''a, b''}} = {{''c''}, {''c, d''}}. Thus (''a, b'')<sub>K</sub> = (''c, d'')<sub>K</sub>.
| |
| | |
| ''Only if''. Two cases: ''a'' = ''b'', and ''a'' ≠ ''b''.
| |
| | |
| If ''a'' = ''b'':
| |
| :(''a, b'')<sub>K</sub> = {{''a''}, {''a, b''}} = {{''a''}, {''a, a''}} = <nowiki>{{</nowiki>''a''}}.
| |
| :(''c, d'')<sub>K</sub> = {{''c''}, {''c, d''}} = <nowiki>{{</nowiki>''a''}}.
| |
| :Thus {''c''} = {''c, d''} = {''a''}, which implies ''a'' = ''c'' and ''a'' = ''d''. By hypothesis, ''a'' = ''b''. Hence ''b'' = ''d''.
| |
| | |
| If ''a'' ≠ ''b'', then (''a, b'')<sub>K</sub> = (''c, d'')<sub>K</sub> implies {{''a''}, {''a, b''}} = {{''c''}, {''c, d''}}.
| |
| | |
| :Suppose {''c, d''} = {''a''}. Then ''c = d = a'', and so {{''c''}, {''c, d''}} = {{''a''}, {''a, a''}} = {{''a''}, {''a''}} = <nowiki>{{</nowiki>''a''}}. But then {{''a''}, {''a, b''}} would also equal <nowiki>{{</nowiki>''a''}}, so that ''b = a'' which contradicts ''a'' ≠ ''b''.
| |
| | |
| :Suppose {''c''} = {''a, b''}. Then ''a = b = c'', which also contradicts ''a'' ≠ ''b''.
| |
| | |
| :Therefore {''c''} = {''a''}, so that ''c = a'' and {''c, d''} = {''a, b''}.
| |
| | |
| :If ''d = a'' were true, then {''c, d''} = {''a, a''} = {''a''} ≠ {''a, b''}, a contradiction. Thus ''d = b'' is the case, so that ''a = c'' and ''b = d''.
| |
| | |
| '''Reverse''':<br>
| |
| (''a, b'')<sub>reverse</sub> = {{''b''}, {''a, b''}} = {{''b''}, {''b, a''}} = (''b, a'')<sub>K</sub>.
| |
| | |
| ''If''. If (''a, b'')<sub>reverse</sub> = (''c, d'')<sub>reverse</sub>,
| |
| (''b, a'')<sub>K</sub> = (''d, c'')<sub>K</sub>. Therefore ''b = d'' and ''a = c''.
| |
| | |
| ''Only if''. If ''a = c'' and ''b = d'', then {{''b''}, {''a, b''}} = {{''d''}, {''c, d''}}.
| |
| Thus (''a, b'')<sub>reverse</sub> = (''c, d'')<sub>reverse</sub>.
| |
| | |
| '''Short:'''<ref>For a formal [[Metamath]] proof of the adequacy of '''short''', see [http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/opthreg.html here (opthreg).] Also see Tourlakis (2003), Proposition III.10.1.</ref>
| |
| | |
| ''If'': Obvious.
| |
| | |
| ''Only if'': Suppose {''a'', {''a, b''}} = {''c'', {''c, d''}}.
| |
| Then ''a'' is in the left hand side, and thus in the right hand side.
| |
| Because equal sets have equal elements, one of ''a = c'' or ''a'' = {''c, d''} must be the case.
| |
| :If ''a'' = {''c, d''}, then by similar reasoning as above, {''a, b''} is in the right hand side, so {''a, b''} = ''c'' or {''a, b''} = {''c, d''}.
| |
| ::If {''a, b''} = ''c'' then ''c'' is in {''c, d''} = ''a'' and ''a'' is in ''c'', and this combination contradicts the axiom of regularity, as {''a, c''} has no minimal element under the relation "element of."
| |
| ::If {''a, b''} = {''c, d''}, then ''a'' is an element of ''a'', from ''a'' = {''c, d''} = {''a, b''}, again contradicting regularity.
| |
| :Hence ''a = c'' must hold.
| |
| | |
| Again, we see that {''a, b''} = ''c'' or {''a, b''} = {''c, d''}.
| |
| :The option {''a, b''} = ''c'' and ''a = c'' implies that ''c'' is an element of ''c'', contradicting regularity.
| |
| :So we have ''a = c'' and {''a, b''} = {''c, d''}, and so: {''b''} = {''a, b''} \ {''a''} = {''c, d''} \ {''c''} = {''d''}, so ''b'' = ''d''.
| |
| | |
| === Quine-Rosser definition ===
| |
| [[J. Barkley Rosser|Rosser]] (1953)<ref>[[J. Barkley Rosser]], 1953. ''Logic for Mathematicians''. McGraw-Hill.</ref> employed a definition of the ordered pair due to [[Willard van Orman Quine|Quine]] which requires a prior definition of the [[natural number]]s. Let <math>\N</math> be the set of natural numbers
| |
| and <math>x \setminus \N</math> be the elements of <math>x</math> not in <math>\N</math>. Define | |
| | |
| :<math>\varphi(x) = (x \setminus \N) \cup \{n+1 : n \in (x \cap \N) \}.</math>
| |
| | |
| Applying this function simply increments every natural number in ''x''. In particular, <math>\varphi(x)</math> does not contain the number 0, so that for any sets ''x'' and ''y'',
| |
| :<math>\varphi(x) \not= \{0\} \cup \varphi(y).</math>
| |
| | |
| Define the ordered pair (''A'', ''B'') as
| |
| | |
| :<math>(A, B) = \{\varphi(a) : a \in A\} \cup \{\varphi(b) \cup \{0\} : b \in B \}.</math>
| |
| | |
| Extracting all the elements of the pair that do not contain 0 and undoing <math>\varphi</math> yields ''A''. Likewise, ''B'' can be recovered from the elements of the pair that do contain 0.
| |
| | |
| In [[type theory]] and in outgrowths thereof such as the axiomatic set theory [[New Foundations|NF]], the Quine-Rosser pair has the same type as its projections and hence is termed a "type-level" ordered pair. Hence this definition has the advantage of enabling a [[function (mathematics)|function]], defined as a set of ordered pairs, to have a type only 1 higher than the type of its arguments. This definition works only if the set of natural numbers is infinite. This is the case in [[New Foundations|NF]], but not in [[type theory]] or in [[New Foundations|NFU]]. [[J. Barkley Rosser]] showed that the existence of such a type-level ordered pair (or even a "type-raising by 1" ordered pair) implies the [[axiom of infinity]]. For an extensive discussion of the ordered pair in the context of Quinian set theories, see Holmes (1998).<ref>Holmes, Randall (1998) ''[http://math.boisestate.edu/~holmes/holmes/head.pdf Elementary Set Theory with a Universal Set]''. Academia-Bruylant. The publisher has graciously consented to permit diffusion of this monograph via the web. Copyright is reserved.</ref>
| |
| | |
| === Morse definition ===
| |
| [[Morse-Kelley set theory]] (Morse 1965)<ref>Morse, Anthony P., 1965. ''A Theory of Sets''. Academic Press</ref> makes free use of [[proper class]]es. Morse defined the ordered pair so that its projections could be proper classes as well as sets. (The Kuratowski definition does not allow this.) He first defined ordered pairs whose projections are sets in Kuratowski's manner. He then ''redefined'' the pair
| |
| | |
| :<math> (x, y) = (\{0\} \times s(x)) \cup (\{1\} \times s(y))</math>
| |
| | |
| where the component Cartesian products are Kuratowski pairs of sets and where
| |
| | |
| :<math> s(x) = \{\emptyset \} \cup \{\{t\} | t \in x\} </math>
| |
| | |
| This renders possible pairs whose projections are proper classes. The Quine-Rosser definition above also admits [[proper class]]es as projections. Similarly the triple is defined as a 3-tuple as follows:
| |
| | |
| :<math> (x, y, z) = (\{0\} \times s(x)) \cup (\{1\} \times s(y)) \cup (\{2\} \times s(z))</math>
| |
| | |
| The use of the singleton set <math> s(x) </math> which has an inserted empty set allows tuples to have the uniqueness
| |
| property that if a is an n-tuple and b is an m-tuple
| |
| and a = b then n = m. Ordered triples which are defined as ordered pairs do not have this property with respect to ordered pairs.
| |
| | |
| ==Category theory==
| |
| A category-theoretic [[Product (category theory)|product]] ''A'' × ''B'' in a [[category of sets]] represents the set of ordered pairs, with the first element coming from ''A'' and the second coming from ''B''. In this context the characteristic property above is a consequence of the [[universal property]] of the product and the fact that elements of a set ''X'' can be identified with morphisms from 1 (a one element set) to ''X''. While different objects may have the universal property, they are all [[naturally isomorphic]].
| |
| | |
| == References ==
| |
| <references />
| |
| | |
| {{Logic}}
| |
| | |
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Ordered Pair}}
| |
| [[Category:Basic concepts in set theory]]
| |
| [[Category:Order theory]]
| |
| [[Category:Type theory]]
| |