NAIVE SET THEORY PDF, EPUB, EBOOK

Paul R Halmos | 114 pages | 05 Apr 2012 | Martino Fine Books | 9781614271314 | English | United States
Naive set theory - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A more important way in which the naive point of view predominates is that set theory is regarded as a body of facts, of which the axioms are a
brief and convenient summary; in the orthodox axiomatic view the logical relations among various axioms are the central objects of study.
Analogously, a study of geometry might be regarded as purely naive if it proceeded on the paper-folding kind of intuition alone; the other extreme,
the purely axiomatic one, is the one in which axioms for the various non-Euclidean geometries are studied with the same amount of attention as
Euclid's. The analogue of the point of view of this book. An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the
problem persists, please try again in a little while. No cover image.
Read preview. Excerpt Every mathematician agrees that every mathematician must know some set theory; the disagreement begins in trying to
decide how much is some. Read preview Overview. As noted above, the book omits the Axiom of Foundation. Halmos repeatedly dances around
the issue of whether or not a set can contain itself. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. See also Naive set theory for the mathematical topic.
Mirkil April , American Mathematical Monthly 68 4 : , doi : Sets of Ordinal Numbers.
Ordinal Arithmetic. Countable Sets. Cardinal Arithmetic. Cardinal Numbers. Back Matter Pages About this book Introduction Every
mathematician agrees that every mathematician must know some set theory; the disagreement begins in trying to decide how much is some. This
book contains my answer to that question. The point of view throughout is that of a prospective mathematician anxious to study groups, or
integrals, or manifolds. From this point of view the concepts and methods of this book are merely some of the standard mathematical tools; the
expert specialist will find nothing new here. Scholarly bibliographical credits and references are out of place in a purely expository book such as
this one.

A constructive naive set theory and infinity

Published on Nov 18, This is based on my paper "A constructive naive set theory and infinity" which was accepted to Notre Dame Journal of
Formal Logic. SlideShare Explore Search You. Submit Search. Home Explore. Successfully reported this slideshow. We use your LinkedIn
profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads.
You can change your ad preferences anytime. A constructive naive set theory and infinity. Upcoming SlideShare. Like this presentation? Why not
share! Embed Size px. Start on. An alternative statement of the axiom of choice is simply to say that a choice function exists for any non-empty
family of sets. Back to thinking about optimization and the extreme edges of sets.
Is is possible for a partially ordered set to contain no chains? Can one order the empty set? All the elements of the greater set such that they can be
unioned with a previously known element of the set and still remain within the non-empty set of subsets of the greater set. Another equivalent
statement to the axiom of choice which concerns the other end of sets is the Well-Ordering Theorem which says that every set can be ordered in
such a way that every non-empty subset of it has a smallest element.
A set so ordered is called Well Ordered. Any well ordered set is also necessarily totally ordered. Which, rather than applying only to the natural
numbers and omega, applies to all well ordered sets. It states that if a subset of a well ordered set is such that if the entire initial segment of an
element of the well ordered set is in the subset then so is the element itself If the strict initial segment is in the subset then the weak initial segment is
as well , then that subset must be equal to the well ordered set.
Transfinite induction differs from mathematical induction in that it makes a jump not from immediate predecessor to successor, but from the set of
all predecessors to a successor. Elements of a well ordered set might not have an immediate predecessor, whereas with the natural numbers, the
immediate predecessor of a natural number is the set of all predecessors to itself, so the distinction is needed. Also, transfinite induction makes no
assumption about a starting, base element in the role that 0 plays for mathematical induction. A set is a Continuation of a well ordered set if the well
ordered set is a subset and initial segment of the continuation, and the continuation has the same ordering as the well ordered set. Of any two
distinct initial segments in a well ordered set, one of them must be a continuation of the other.
The union of a collection of well ordered sets can always be well ordered so that it is a continuation of each set used to assemble it. That ordering,
however, is not necessarily just well ordered continuation. As a last word - a related insight can be applied more generally, which is to say that
while the well ordering theorem guarantees that any set can be well ordered, that ordering might be quite arbitrary and have nothing to do with any
other partial or total orderings on the set.
Since the principle of mathematical induction was only one half of its usage in definition by induction, we need to think about the transfinite analog
of the recursion theorem to establish a transfinite analog of definition by induction. To get to it, we have to generalize the concept of sequences to
Sequences of Given Type. The previous definition of a sequence is just a sequence of given type where the well ordered set is the set of natural
numbers, omega.
A Sequence Function is a function whose domain is all sequences of given type from a well ordered set into another specified set. An exercise like
this one is known as Definition by Transfinite Induction. Since similarities are one-to-one, their inverses must exist and are also similarities.
Composites of similarities are similarities. Well ordered sets can have only one similarity between them, but a well ordered set cannot be similar to
one of its initial segments, but there exists the Comparability Theorem which states that for two well ordered sets, either they are similar to each
other, or one of them is similar to an initial segment of the other. Goku would be proud. What about going even further beyond? In plain language -
you can form a set of all the points for which a particular sentence is true.
It seems to me a kind of super form of the axiom of specification - where that one states you can form a set by paring down a set already known
to exist, this one says you can construct new sets out of anything intelligent you can say about the elements of a set, not just that a subset of them
exists. Ordinal Numbers make use of the axiom of substitution to define themselves as an extension of the concept of natural numbers.
An ordinal number is a set that is well ordered and such that every member in it is constituted of every one of its predecessors inside the well
ordered set. All the natural numbers are ordinal numbers, as is the set containing all the natural numbers, omega though it is not itself a natural
number. The successor of any ordinal number is also an ordinal number. What is the range of this function - in effect the highest ordinal number this
allows us to define? Omega and its successors are called Transfinite Ordinals. One of the subtle things about the way ordinals are defined is that
whereas we originally defined omega as the minimal successor set - making it sort of a special case of a wider type of set, the way they ordinals
are defined directly restricts the concept to the natural numbers and their successors.
Generic successor sets with non-number elements cannot be well ordered, and the requirement that every element be constituted of its
predecessors ensures that every predecessor from 0 up to n- 1 is in ordinal number n. We can at this point make a few more statements about the
ordinals and sets comprised of them. First, explicitly - any element of an ordinal number is itself an ordinal number, and a subset of the larger
ordinal number. Two ordinal numbers cannot be similar unless they are equal. If they are not equal and therefore not similar they one is still
necessarily similar to an initial segment of the other and is an element of the other.
Essentially, any two ordinal numbers are comparable with the natural ordering - any set of ordinal numbers is therefore totally ordered. A
peculiarity is that despite this order within the ordinal numbers, not every ordinal number has an immediate predecessor. I might have referenced it
as a concept earlier, but what ordinal is omega-? These transfinite ordinals without predecessors are called Limit Numbers. If there were a set
claimed to contain all the ordinal numbers, it would be straightforward to define the supremum of the set the smallest ordinal not contained within
the set and show that it must exists trivially the successor of the upper bound of the set , and therefore the set claimed to be the set of all ordinals is
in fact, not.
The idea of the existence of the set of all ordinals is called the Burali-Forti Paradox. So now I know how to count past infinity. I think? Kind of?
Not really. Count to transfinty, I guess. Now that we know how to count properly, instead of defining addition as a series of individual operators
for adding a specified number to an argument, we can simply define adding to ordinals together more generally as the size of the resulting set when
two disjoint sets of similar size to each of the ordinals are unioned together. The resulting union is called the Ordinal Sum of the two sets, and is
typically ordered so that all the elements of one set precede all the elements of the second set. This works just as well for the infinite Transfinite?
Ordinal sums have most of the familiar properties we want. The same sort of behavior crops up when we move onto Ordinal Products. If we
define such, e. A x B as taking A and adding it to itself B times by producing B disjoint copies of A using the ordered pair trick detailed earlier with
each second item in the ordered pair being an element of B , we naturally arrive at the ordinal product of two sets being their Cartesian product
with reverse lexographical order. The good, familiar properties of ordinal multiplication are:. Two things to say at this point. Math history. Since the
well ordering theorem tells us that every set can be well ordered, and the counting theorem tells us that every well ordered set is similar to exactly
one ordinal number, the ordinals appear to provide a fine basis for determining and comparing the size of any two sets, even if they have nothing to
do with each other.
Might different well orderings lead us to different conclusions about the size of a set? We might establish a size comparison of two well ordered
sets on the basis of whether one is equivalent to a subset of the other. In that case, we say that Y Dominates X. Domination forms a relationship
among the power set of some set E , and is a reflexive, and transitive, but not anti-symmetric. That is, any set dominates itself, and if set A
dominates set B which in turn dominates set C , then we can conclude that set A dominates set C. Together, this gives domination a set of
properties sufficient to let it act similarly to a partial order.
The Comparability Theorem for Sets says that for any two sets, one must dominate the other if they mutually dominate, they are equivalent. A set is
only finite if it is strictly dominated by omega. If it is not necessarily strictly dominated by omega, then it is Countable , and if it is equivalent with
omega, then it is Countably Infinite. In fact, if there is a function from any countably infinite set that fully maps onto a set, then the set being mapped
onto is countable and vice-versa - if a set is countable, then there exists a function that maps any countably infinite set onto it.
The union of any finite or countably infinite set of countable set is countable. Since it can be expressed as such, the Cartesian product of countable
sets is also countable. While it might be nice to jump from this so-far all green list of the ways we can know that a set is countable to say that all
sets are countable, this is not to be. If we take X to be omega, then we know that at least the set of all functions from omega into 2 strictly
dominates omega, and is Uncountable. Cardinal Numbers , then, are to be constructed with a few useful properties. The sum of a pair of cardinal
numbers will be the cardinal number of a union of disjoint sets with the original cardinal numbers. Naive set theory can be seen as a stepping-stone
to more formal treatments, and suffices for many purposes.
In the sense of this article, a naive theory is a non-formalized theory, that is, a theory that uses a natural language to describe sets. The words and ,
or , if It is useful to study sets naively at an early stage of mathematics in order to develop facility for working with them. Furthermore, a firm grasp
of set theoretical concepts from a naive standpoint is important as a first stage in understanding the motivation for the formal axioms of set theory.
This article develops a naive theory.
Sets are defined informally and a few of their properties are investigated. Links in this article to specific axioms of set theory describe some of the
relationships between the informal discussion here and the formal axiomatization of set theory, but no attempt is made to justify every statement on
such a basis. The first development of set theory was a naive set theory. It was created at the end of the 19th century by Georg Cantor as part of
his study of infinite sets.
As it turned out, assuming that one can perform any operation on sets without restriction leads to paradoxes such as Russell's paradox and Berry's
paradox. It is undisputed that, by , Cantor was aware of some of the paradoxes and did not believe that they discredited his theory. Gottlob Frege
did explicitly axiomatize a theory in which the formalized version of naive set theory can be interpreted, and it is this formal theory which Bertrand
Russell actually addressed when he presented his paradox.
Axiomatic set theory was developed in response to these early attempts to study set theory, with the goal of determining precisely what operations
were allowed and when. Today, when mathematicians talk about "set theory" as a field, they usually mean axiomatic set theory. Informal
applications of set theory in other fields are sometimes referred to as applications of "naive set theory", but usually are understood to be justifiable
in terms of an axiomatic system normally the Zermelo—Fraenkel set theory. A naive set theory is not necessarily inconsistent, if it correctly
specifies the sets allowed to be considered. This can be done by the means of definitions, which are implicit axioms.
It can be done by systematically making explicit all the axioms, as in the case of the well-known book Naive Set Theory by Paul Halmos , which is
actually a somewhat not all that informal presentation of the usual axiomatic Zermelo—Fraenkel set theory. It is 'naive' in that the language and
notations are those of ordinary informal mathematics, and in that it doesn't deal with consistency or completeness of the axiom system. However,
the term naive set theory is also used in some literature to refer to the set theories studied by Frege and Cantor, rather than to the informal
counterparts of modern axiomatic set theory; care is required to tell which sense is intended. In naive set theory, a set is described as a well-
defined collection of objects. These objects are called the elements or members of the set. Objects can be anything: numbers, people, other sets,
etc. For instance, 4 is a member of the set of all even integers. Clearly, the set of even numbers is infinitely large; there is no requirement that a set
be finite.
If x is a member of A , then it is also said that x belongs to A , or that x is in A. Two sets A and B are defined to be equal when they have
precisely the same elements, that is, if every element of A is an element of B and every element of B is an element of A. See axiom of
extensionality. Thus a set is completely determined by its elements; the description is immaterial. For example, the set with elements 2, 3, and 5 is
equal to the set of all prime numbers less than 6. Since a set is determined completely by its elements, there can only be one empty set. See axiom
of empty set. The simplest way to describe a set is to list its elements between curly braces known as defining a set extensionally. See axiom of
pairing. Note the following points:. This notation is called set-builder notation or " set comprehension ", particularly in the context of Functional
programming. Some variants of set builder notation are:. Notice that in particular, B is a subset of itself; a subset of B that isn't equal to B is called
a proper subset.
For clarity, one can explicitly use the symbols " " and " " to indicate non-equality. As an illustration, let R be the set of real numbers, let Z be the set
of integers, let O be the set of odd integers, and let P be the set of current or former U. Then O is a subset of Z , Z is a subset of R , and hence O
is a subset of R , where in all cases subset may even be read as proper subset. Note that not all sets are comparable in this way. For example, it is
not the case either that R is a subset of P nor that P is a subset of R.

Axiom of Specification as in Halmos' Naive set theory - Mathematics Stack Exchange

Axioms are like bedrock, but I want to know what makes up the bedrock. Why is it bedrock? A large part of my interest on systems is why and
where the boundaries are drawn is largely dependent on the value-systems that identify or construct the systems. Hamos was starting to get away
from me. I could sort of follow it, but it was written to support an academic classroom mindset, so it presents thing and expects the instructor to
assist in the understanding.
This means it packs concepts in pretty quick and high if you just read the book. The Philosophy of Set Theory is a bit easier for me as it delves
more into the epistemological history of the considerations of the various infinities and infinitesimals that led to modern set theory. It also has some
diagrams. Ikosa Framework Author View more posts. You are commenting using your WordPress. This is the set consisting of all objects which
are elements of A or of B or of both see axiom of union. The intersection of A and B is the set of all objects which are both in A and in B. Finally,
the relative complement of B relative to A , also known as the set theoretic difference of A and B , is the set of all objects that belong to A but not
to B. Symbolically, these are respectively. To illustrate these ideas, let A be the set of left-handed people, and let B be the set of people with blond
hair.
Now let E be the set of all human beings, and let F be the set of all living things over years old. For any set A , the power set is a Boolean algebra
under the operations of union and intersection. Intuitively, an ordered pair is simply a collection of two objects such that one can be distinguished
as the first element and the other as the second element , and having the fundamental property that, two ordered pairs are equal if and only if their
first elements are equal and their second elements are equal. The notation a , b is also used to denote an open interval on the real number line , but
the context should make it clear which meaning is intended. Otherwise, the notation ] a , b [ may be used to denote the open interval whereas a , b
is used for the ordered pair.
If A and B are sets, then the Cartesian product or simply product is defined to be:. It is even possible to define infinite Cartesian products , but to
do this we need a more recondite definition of the product. Note: In this section, a , b , and c are natural numbers , and r and s are real numbers.
We referred earlier to the need for a formal, axiomatic approach. What problems arise in the treatment we have given? The problems relate to the
formation of sets. One's first intuition might be that we can form any set we want, but this view leads to inconsistencies. For any set x we can ask
whether x is a member of itself. Now for the problem: is Z a member of Z? If yes, then by the defining quality of Z , Z is not a member of itself, i.
This forces us to declare that Z is not a member of Z. Then Z is not a member of itself and so, again by definition of Z , Z is a member of Z. Thus
both options lead us to a contradiction and we have an inconsistent theory. More succinctly, one says that Z is a member of Z if and only if Z is not
a member of Z. Axiomatic developments place restrictions on the sort of sets we are allowed to form and thus prevent problems like our set Z
from arising. This particular paradox is Russell's paradox. The penalty is that one must take more care with one's development, as one must in any
rigorous mathematical argument. In particular, it is problematic to speak of a set of everything, or to be possibly a bit less ambitious, even a set of
all sets. In fact, in the standard axiomatisation of set theory, there is no set of all sets. In areas of mathematics that seem to require a set of all sets
such as category theory , one can sometimes make do with a universal set so large that all of ordinary mathematics can be done within it see
universe.
Alternatively, one can make use of proper classes. Or, one can use a different axiomatisation of set theory, such as W. Quine 's New Foundations
, which allows for a set of all sets and avoids Russell's paradox in another way. This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed
encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors see full disclaimer. Donate to Wikimedia. All translations of naive set theory.
A windows pop-into of information full-content of Sensagent triggered by double-clicking any word on your webpage. Give contextual explanation
and translation from your sites!
With a SensagentBox , visitors to your site can access reliable information on over 5 million pages provided by Sensagent. Choose the design that
fits your site. Please, email us to describe your idea. Lettris is a curious tetris-clone game where all the bricks have the same square shape but
different content. Each square carries a letter. Post as a guest Name. Email Required, but never shown. Featured on Meta. New Feature: Table
Support. Linked 6. Related Hot Network Questions. Question feed. Mathematics Stack Exchange works best with JavaScript enabled.

Naive set theory - Wikipedia

We have a dedicated site for Germany. Shop now! Every mathematician agrees that every mathematician must know some set theory; the
disagreement begins in trying to decide how much is some. This book contains my answer to that question. The point of view throughout is that of
a prospective mathematician anxious to study groups, or integrals, or manifolds. From this point of view the concepts and methods of this book are
merely some of the standard mathematical tools; the expert specialist will find nothing new here. Scholarly bibliographical credits and references
are out of place in a purely expository book such as this one.
The student who gets interested in set theory for its own sake should know, however, that there is much more to the subject than there is in this
book. One of the most beautiful sources of set-theoretic wisdom is still Hausdorff's Set theory. A recent and highly readable addition to the
literature, with an extensive and up-to-date bibliography, is Axiomatic set theory by Suppes. It is also useful to the professional mathematician who
knew these underpinnings at one time but has now forgotten exactly how they go. JavaScript is currently disabled, this site works much better if
you enable JavaScript in your browser. Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics Free Preview. Buy eBook. Buy Hardcover. To do that, the first thing
I think I need to do is get conversant in the formal, precise language and approach to mathematics that my education so far has skirted over as
being unnecessary so long as one can grok the more practical problem-solving techniques.
In short - I need to write this stuff down as I go through it, and figured I might as well publish my take as I go through. Especially once Godel kinda
smashed the hope of a complete and consistent scheme of axioms. As such, much of the book is written with the assumption that the reader is
familiar with much of basic mathematics and arithmetic, and that rather than introducing entirely new concepts, Halmos is instead merely showing
the reader how these concepts can be formulated using only the concept of a set.
That is, while a set is made up of elements and members, there also exists the concept of a subset wherein all the members of one set are also
members of another set, though not necessarily vice-versa. Consider, for example, the set of Kings of England, and separately, the set, Kings of
European Countries. This naturally implies that the first set is a subset of the second, and that the second is a subset of the first, and Halmos makes
the point that most formal proofs of equality between two sets are proved by showing this symmetric subset property. Given these basic ideas of
the relationships between elements and sets, and between sets and sets, we can then begin to introduce ideas of how to make new sets out of old
ones by stacking assertions of belonging and equality and using logical operators as the glue.
Halmos lists 7 logical operators for stacking and slicing sets and their elements:. This set is already redundant, but makes for a nice, compact group
that covers most of the bases. The Axiom of Specification simply states that there exists some set B for every set A which is arrived at when you
apply a logical condition to A. Which, by the axiom of specification must exist, and yet cannot if the Set that Contains Everything truly contains
everything. By the axiom of specification, this set must exist, and yet it contains nothing.
Are the any members of the empty set which are not in every set? Then, we get one more rule of set construction - the Axiom of Pairing which
states that for any two sets, there exists a set that they both belong to. Note that this third set is a set-of-sets. This, however, naturally results in a
set that contains only one member, which is termed a Singleton. In this way, we begin to blur the line between sets and elements of those sets,
since we can now define the basic concept of an element belonging in a set as the singleton of that element being included in the set.
Where the axiom of pairing was about constructing a set of sets out of a pair of sets, our next rule, the Axiom of Unions is about constructing a set
out of the members of a collection of sets. It states specifically that for any collection a set of sets there exists a set that contains all the elements
that belong to at least one of the the sets in the collection. Note that there are many sets which might have that property. This minimal set is known
as the Union of the sets we began with. Where the union is the set of all members in any set in a collection, the intersection is the set of all members
in every set of the collection. Unions and intersections share several similar properties which are familiar from elementary school arithmetic,
including commutativity, associativity, idempotemce, and distributivity.
Additionally, the union of any set with the empty set is the original set, and the intersection of any set with the empty set is the empty set. Unions
and intersections can be useful for showing inclusion, since A includes B if an only if the union of A and B is A , and their intersection is B. The next
kind of constructed set we encounter is the Relative Complement , which is intuitively analogous to the difference between them. Talking about
complements is easier if we assume the existence of a larger set, which Halmos calls E , in order to refer to how complements are constructed
relative to that set E.
This sets acts somewhat like the Set That Contains Everything, though obviously it is not that set in order to avoid violating the axiom of
specification. That said, we can then proceed to define the Absolute Complement of a set as everything in E not contained in the set under
consideration, which has a few natural and intuitive properties. The absolute complement of the empty set is E and vice-versa. The intersection of a
set and its absolute complement is the empty set, and the union of a set and its absolute complement is E.
The most complicated but still basic rules about complements, which Halmos calls the most important are the De Morgan laws :. For every set,
there exists a set of sets that contains as its elements, all the subsets of the set under consideration. With those basic rules of set construction under
our belt, Halmos then moves on to introducing the set theoretic ways of constructing some familiar concepts from arithmetic and algebra. Although
somewhat unintuitive, considering a power set points us in the direction of imposing the concept of order onto the elements of a set.
As far as I can remember, I was first introduced to the concept of an ordered pair some time in middle school when learning about the coordinate
plane, and plotting functions. We can think of the Cartesian plane as the set containing all the ordered pairs x, y where x and y are real numbers.
The related but more general concept is the Cartesian Product of two sets - which is a set containing all the possible ordered pairs which can be
formed with the elements of one set occupying the first slot, and the elements of another set occupying the second slot.
The elements of each of those sets which are part of the ordered pairs in the original set are known as the Projections of the ordered pair set onto
the sets which form the Cartesian product. The use of functions and curves to explain some of the concepts of ordered pairs is premature, but not
hugely as we can immediately use ordered pairs to explore the fundamental concept of Relations between sets. The somewhat brute force nature
of set theory is on display here, as we define relations simply as being a set of ordered pairs where we claim that a certain relationship exists
between the elements of the pairs in the relation set. The example Halmos uses is that we could define marriage simply by assembling a set of
ordered pairs of everyone who is married to each other.
This concept seems somewhat counter intuitive, to me at least. The set containing all examples of such a relationship would seem to be a natural
consequence, but in set theory the set of all examples is the definition. Indeed in some cases the only human-intuitable relationship between two
points might be that they have the relation implied by the set of ordered pairs. A few points of technical importance - relations are only one way
when defined in this way, though we naturally tend to think of some as symmetric. Relations that have this property are called Symmetric. Other
significant properties a relation might have include being Reflexive , wherein the set contains x, x for all x in X - that is, every member of a certain
set stands in relation to itself by this relationship.
Another important property is being Transitive where x, y and y, z being in the set implies that x, z is in the set. The most obvious relationship that
has all three of these properties is equality - the set containing only x, x for all x in X. Equality is in fact the smallest set of a type of relation called
Equivalence Relations. A Cartesian product with itself is the largest possible equivalence relation on a set..
A particularly interesting kind of relationship is the kind that subdivides a set into subsets so that each member of a subset is in relation to the same
element. Think of rounding - take the entire number line and establish a relationship between every point on it and its nearest integer. Any disjoint,
non-empty collection of subsets of a given set whose union comprises that set is known as a Partition of the set. Any partition for which each of the
subsets has all of its elements stand in relation to the same element of the greater set is known as an Equivalence Class.
If, instead, you come at it from the other end, and already have a partition on X , the relationship implied by that partition is said to be Induced by
the partition. Mostly Halmos talks about relations existing within a set, whereas in dictionaries I tend to think of the keys and their associated values
as being two different sets which are mapping from one to the other. In, for example, a crude model of an atmosphere, we can establish a relation
between altitude and pressure, density or temperature - everything from , feet would map to one set of values, everything from 10,, feet would map
to another. In this sense and feet are equivalent under this relation.
The easy, cheaty way of establishing a relationship between two sets is to use the axioms of pairing and specification to lump the two sets together
into an augmented set and establish the relation between members of that new set. What is interesting is the concept of a Function - a relationship
that relates every element of one set onto a unique element of another set.
Note that while a function might relate from set X onto set Y , and the domain of the function is all of X unless otherwise specified in which case
the specified subset might as well be called X , the range need not necessarily be all of Y. There appears to be some dispute about this however as
some people prefer to think of the function as a nebulous sort of thing that does something to turn an element of X into and element of Y , and the
set of ordered pairs associated with the function is then called the Graph of the function, rather than being the only and essential definition of the
function. If we restrict ourselves to consider a subset of X , then the resultant part of the graph which corresponds to that subset is known as the
Image of the subset under the function.
If that subset is identical to the larger set, i. Functions used in this manner are known as Restrictions or Extensions depending on whether they
establish a relationship to a smaller or larger set than they were originally defined on. Sometimes, functions have the special property that they map
distinct elements to distinct elements. That is, any two different elements in the domain take on distinct values in the range. Such a function is known
as a One-to-One Correspondence. A natural example is between values in the range and the equivalence classes that produce them.
Note, the correspondence does not exist between the value and the elements within the class, but between the value and the class itself. An
interesting kind of function Halmos introduces is the Characteristic Function - which is a sort of indicator function that returns either 0 or 1,
depending on whether an element in its domain is part of a chosen subset. Since there is only one possible characteristic function for each subset of
a given set, there exists a natural one-to-one correspondence between power sets the set of all possible subsets of a set and the set of all possible
functions on a set that map to the binary set of 0 and 1. A type of function that Halmos dedicates an entire chapter to just because of its
importance is the Family , which is the technical term referring to the common and familiar practice of mapping to elements of the range from a set
of Indices.
In fact, imagine you had a set consisting only of two elements, a and b. Speaking of 8th grade math, we come up next against the concept of an
Inverse Function. It is a necessary and sufficient condition for f to fully map X onto Y that the inverse image of every non-empty subset of Y be a
non-empty subset of X. For f to be one-to-one, the inverse image of each singleton in Y must be a singleton in X. The last kind of function to come
under consideration is the Composite Function. Care must be taken at times to note that the second condition is satisfied - the range of the inner
function being contained within the domain of the the outer function. Thankfully, composition plays nice with inversion in the case that functions fully
map one set onto another. Care must be taken when generalizing inversion and composition to all relations, not just the input-to-unique-output
form of functions. Composite relations only exist in the case, for instance, of xRy and ySz allowing there to exist xTz.
A general relation between all members of X and all members of Z might not exist, even if one does exists for specific members. When they do
exist, however, the inversion algebraic rules are the same as for the restricted case of functions. Completing our regression, we now move from the
heady space of 8th grade math into the perhaps the more challenging world of 1st grade math and Numbers. Specifically, the natural numbers, like
0, 1, 2, 3,… etc. We might be tempted to define, say, 2 as the set of all sets having two members, but that gets pretty circular, pretty fast. This
makes a bit more sense when we consider the subject at hand - the natural numbers. If we want the set which we define to be a sort of standard,
we can start by setting zero to be a set with zero elements.
A Natural Number then, is any of the elements of that minimal successor set, omega. A precise definition worth noting is that a Sequence is a
family using a natural number as its index set - i. This is why arrays start at 0. Having them start at 1 is unnatural. If two elements of omega have the
same successor, they are the same element. These are known as the Peano Axioms.
It seems the Peano axioms predate this formulation of set theory, and may have needed to be taken as a given to do arithmetic in the period after
their supposition. While the principle of mathematical induction establishes that such a function would be unique, it does not establish that it must
exist. For that, we need the Recursion Theorem which says precisely that if f exists, the corresponding u exists as well. Using these two in
conjunction, we can thereby establish new functions through Definition by Induction.
Indeed, we can use definition by induction to begin to define some of the more familiar arithmetic operations, like Addition. Thus, although kinda
weird and unintuitive, we can see that addition is not one single function or operation, but a sequence of functions defined for every natural number.
For the natural numbers order is straightforward, and we say that one member of omega is Less Than another if it is a member of that number as a
set, or equivalently, that it is a subset of that number.
If there exists a one-to-one correspondence between two sets, they are called Equivalent. Some hijinks ensue when considering infinite sets.
Moreover, any finite set is equivalent to one and only one natural number, which is known as the Number of Elements in that set. We define orders
naturally as a kind of set - specifically a relation between members of a set that is called a Partial Order if it has three properties:.
If xRy and yRz , then xRz. At first blush this seems to me insufficient to establish any kind of order. Yes, an order must have those properties, but
these alone seem insufficient. Of course, the relation which defines the order which is itself a subset of the Cartesian product of X with itself implies
a definition of X , as so the ordered pair bit is somewhat redundant. Some more vocab. The Initial Segment Defined by an Element are all the
elements of a set that are less than the defining element - and it may be a weak or strict segment.
The natural definitions for Successors though this overloads the earlier definition of a set that contains all the elements of its predecessor plus its
predecessor , and being Between two elements follow. When we get to the edges or partial ordering, there are subtle distinctions between a Least
Element one which is less than or equal to all the other elements in the set and the Minimal Element one for which there is no element strictly smaller
than it. There can only be one least element in a set if it exists, but there may be many minimal elements. The mirror is true for Greatest Elements
and Maximal Elements. If set is a subset of a larger set, then elements of the greater set which are less than than all the elements of that subset are
Lower Bounds of the subset, and those that are greater than all the elements of the subset are Upper Bounds.

https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/0512671f-406b-4fd2-9ad5-b197869a17ef/der-erste-mensch-144.pdf

https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/0aff8db6-5f98-4df6-8ec0-87620fdc2d8d/uli-muss-in-den-knast-und-andere-dramen-im-marz-2014-
103.pdf

https://files8.webydo.com/9586453/UploadedFiles/486A18DD-8CD9-0C77-DBE3-085D6360EEEB.pdf

https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4638414/normal_6020510c9174f.pdf

https://files8.webydo.com/9587537/UploadedFiles/AABFAF10-B5D5-9139-B327-FE7197C39450.pdf

https://files8.webydo.com/9585862/UploadedFiles/53FD0004-975D-B947-63D3-E30232875A05.pdf
https://files8.webydo.com/9588891/UploadedFiles/62A96287-0B75-3C92-86FA-BE32FB307A49.pdf

https://files8.webydo.com/9589676/UploadedFiles/E6017936-11E2-B3B1-98DA-F82BA0065DA3.pdf