Problem of cardinal assignmentProving $|Acup B|le_c |A|+|B|$$kappacdotsum_iin Ilambda_i=_csum_iin I kappacdot lambda_i$Measurable cardinal existence conditionAbout a proof of “$bigcup A$ is a limit cardinal”Confusion about cofinalityExample of a $kappa$-long sequence of disjoint club subsets of regular cardinal $kappa$What are the fixed points of cardinal exponentiation?Cardinal Arithmetic and a permutation function.Are there non-equivalent cardinal arithmetics?Filters invariant under bijectionsCardinal of differentiable functionsHow can one best visualize a measurable cardinal?

Proof of work - lottery approach

How does buying out courses with grant money work?

Why escape if the_content isnt?

Why, precisely, is argon used in neutrino experiments?

Increase performance creating Mandelbrot set in python

Return the Closest Prime Number

How can I get through very long and very dry, but also very useful technical documents when learning a new tool?

Unreliable Magic - Is it worth it?

How do I extract a value from a time formatted value in excel?

India just shot down a satellite from the ground. At what altitude range is the resulting debris field?

Is this apparent Class Action settlement a spam message?

Sort a list by elements of another list

What is paid subscription needed for in Mortal Kombat 11?

Is exact Kanji stroke length important?

How do we know the LHC results are robust?

Sequence of Tenses: Translating the subjunctive

How to run a prison with the smallest amount of guards?

Was Spock the First Vulcan in Starfleet?

How does it work when somebody invests in my business?

Did Dumbledore lie to Harry about how long he had James Potter's invisibility cloak when he was examining it? If so, why?

Inappropriate reference requests from Journal reviewers

How to check is there any negative term in a large list?

How do scammers retract money, while you can’t?

Large drywall patch supports



Problem of cardinal assignment


Proving $|Acup B|le_c |A|+|B|$$kappacdotsum_iin Ilambda_i=_csum_iin I kappacdot lambda_i$Measurable cardinal existence conditionAbout a proof of “$bigcup A$ is a limit cardinal”Confusion about cofinalityExample of a $kappa$-long sequence of disjoint club subsets of regular cardinal $kappa$What are the fixed points of cardinal exponentiation?Cardinal Arithmetic and a permutation function.Are there non-equivalent cardinal arithmetics?Filters invariant under bijectionsCardinal of differentiable functionsHow can one best visualize a measurable cardinal?













1












$begingroup$



A weak cardinal assignment is any definite operation on sets $Amapsto |A|$ which satisfies (C1) and (C3), and it is a strong cardinal assignment if it also satisfies (C2). The cardinal numbers (relative to a given cardinal assignment) are its values, $$Card(kappa)iff kappa in Cardiff_def (exists A)(kappa=|A|)$$



(C1) $A=_c|A|$ (notation: $A=_c B$ if there is a bijection between the sets $A$ and $B$)



(C2) if $A=_c B$ then $|A|=|B|$



(C3) for each set of sets $mathscr E$, $X$ is a set




How should I understand the word "operation"? Is it a "rule" that assign to every element of the class of sets another element of the class of sets? (So $Card$ is sort of an alanogue of a function between sets; but here we consider classes instead of sets.) Can the notion of "rule" be formalized (as in the case of sets when there is a formal definition of a function)?




Notice that there is only one choice for $|emptyset|$, $$0=_def |emptyset|=emptyset,$$ since only $|emptyset|=emptyset$ satisfies $emptyset=_c|emptyset|$. It is also convenient to set $$1=_def|0|, 2=_def|0,1|$$ so we have handy names for the cardinal numbers of singletons and doubletons.




Why does only $emptyset$ satisfy $emptyset=_c|emptyset|$? Doesn't any set $A$ satisfy $A=_c |A|$ by (C1)? Moreover, isn't $|A|$ supposed to be a set for any set $A$? (According to how I described the operation $Amapsto |A|$.) $0$ is not a set, how can it be equal to the set $|emptyset|$? Further, why does $|emptyset|=emptyset$ hold?



Similarly, how can the non-set $1$ be equal to the set $|0|$, and similarly for $2$?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Operation is supposed to be understood as synonymous with "function". In set theory, $0 = emptyset, 1 = 0,2 = 0,1$ and so on. Also, $|emptyset|$ must be a set which is in bijection with $emptyset$ by (C1). The only such set is $emptyset$.
    $endgroup$
    – James
    Mar 17 at 23:49







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @James The quoted text defined $0$ to be $emptyset$ and $1$ to be $|0|$, i.e. $|emptyset|$. It did not rely on some "standard" definition. It also did not define $1$ to be $0$. Saying "operation" is synonymous with "function" just kicks the can to what "function" means. If by "function" you mean it in the usual set-theoretic sense, i.e. a set of ordered pairs satisfying some laws, then it definitely is not a function in that sense. If you mean a "function" as in a function symbol added to the theory, then that is more or less what is happening.
    $endgroup$
    – Derek Elkins
    Mar 18 at 3:52











  • $begingroup$
    @derekelkins I missed the part where the finite cardinals are defined. As for the definition of operation, it is not clear to me at what level of sophistication the OP is operating. I think you presume a higher level than I do.
    $endgroup$
    – James
    Mar 19 at 12:08















1












$begingroup$



A weak cardinal assignment is any definite operation on sets $Amapsto |A|$ which satisfies (C1) and (C3), and it is a strong cardinal assignment if it also satisfies (C2). The cardinal numbers (relative to a given cardinal assignment) are its values, $$Card(kappa)iff kappa in Cardiff_def (exists A)(kappa=|A|)$$



(C1) $A=_c|A|$ (notation: $A=_c B$ if there is a bijection between the sets $A$ and $B$)



(C2) if $A=_c B$ then $|A|=|B|$



(C3) for each set of sets $mathscr E$, $X$ is a set




How should I understand the word "operation"? Is it a "rule" that assign to every element of the class of sets another element of the class of sets? (So $Card$ is sort of an alanogue of a function between sets; but here we consider classes instead of sets.) Can the notion of "rule" be formalized (as in the case of sets when there is a formal definition of a function)?




Notice that there is only one choice for $|emptyset|$, $$0=_def |emptyset|=emptyset,$$ since only $|emptyset|=emptyset$ satisfies $emptyset=_c|emptyset|$. It is also convenient to set $$1=_def|0|, 2=_def|0,1|$$ so we have handy names for the cardinal numbers of singletons and doubletons.




Why does only $emptyset$ satisfy $emptyset=_c|emptyset|$? Doesn't any set $A$ satisfy $A=_c |A|$ by (C1)? Moreover, isn't $|A|$ supposed to be a set for any set $A$? (According to how I described the operation $Amapsto |A|$.) $0$ is not a set, how can it be equal to the set $|emptyset|$? Further, why does $|emptyset|=emptyset$ hold?



Similarly, how can the non-set $1$ be equal to the set $|0|$, and similarly for $2$?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Operation is supposed to be understood as synonymous with "function". In set theory, $0 = emptyset, 1 = 0,2 = 0,1$ and so on. Also, $|emptyset|$ must be a set which is in bijection with $emptyset$ by (C1). The only such set is $emptyset$.
    $endgroup$
    – James
    Mar 17 at 23:49







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @James The quoted text defined $0$ to be $emptyset$ and $1$ to be $|0|$, i.e. $|emptyset|$. It did not rely on some "standard" definition. It also did not define $1$ to be $0$. Saying "operation" is synonymous with "function" just kicks the can to what "function" means. If by "function" you mean it in the usual set-theoretic sense, i.e. a set of ordered pairs satisfying some laws, then it definitely is not a function in that sense. If you mean a "function" as in a function symbol added to the theory, then that is more or less what is happening.
    $endgroup$
    – Derek Elkins
    Mar 18 at 3:52











  • $begingroup$
    @derekelkins I missed the part where the finite cardinals are defined. As for the definition of operation, it is not clear to me at what level of sophistication the OP is operating. I think you presume a higher level than I do.
    $endgroup$
    – James
    Mar 19 at 12:08













1












1








1





$begingroup$



A weak cardinal assignment is any definite operation on sets $Amapsto |A|$ which satisfies (C1) and (C3), and it is a strong cardinal assignment if it also satisfies (C2). The cardinal numbers (relative to a given cardinal assignment) are its values, $$Card(kappa)iff kappa in Cardiff_def (exists A)(kappa=|A|)$$



(C1) $A=_c|A|$ (notation: $A=_c B$ if there is a bijection between the sets $A$ and $B$)



(C2) if $A=_c B$ then $|A|=|B|$



(C3) for each set of sets $mathscr E$, $X$ is a set




How should I understand the word "operation"? Is it a "rule" that assign to every element of the class of sets another element of the class of sets? (So $Card$ is sort of an alanogue of a function between sets; but here we consider classes instead of sets.) Can the notion of "rule" be formalized (as in the case of sets when there is a formal definition of a function)?




Notice that there is only one choice for $|emptyset|$, $$0=_def |emptyset|=emptyset,$$ since only $|emptyset|=emptyset$ satisfies $emptyset=_c|emptyset|$. It is also convenient to set $$1=_def|0|, 2=_def|0,1|$$ so we have handy names for the cardinal numbers of singletons and doubletons.




Why does only $emptyset$ satisfy $emptyset=_c|emptyset|$? Doesn't any set $A$ satisfy $A=_c |A|$ by (C1)? Moreover, isn't $|A|$ supposed to be a set for any set $A$? (According to how I described the operation $Amapsto |A|$.) $0$ is not a set, how can it be equal to the set $|emptyset|$? Further, why does $|emptyset|=emptyset$ hold?



Similarly, how can the non-set $1$ be equal to the set $|0|$, and similarly for $2$?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$





A weak cardinal assignment is any definite operation on sets $Amapsto |A|$ which satisfies (C1) and (C3), and it is a strong cardinal assignment if it also satisfies (C2). The cardinal numbers (relative to a given cardinal assignment) are its values, $$Card(kappa)iff kappa in Cardiff_def (exists A)(kappa=|A|)$$



(C1) $A=_c|A|$ (notation: $A=_c B$ if there is a bijection between the sets $A$ and $B$)



(C2) if $A=_c B$ then $|A|=|B|$



(C3) for each set of sets $mathscr E$, $X$ is a set




How should I understand the word "operation"? Is it a "rule" that assign to every element of the class of sets another element of the class of sets? (So $Card$ is sort of an alanogue of a function between sets; but here we consider classes instead of sets.) Can the notion of "rule" be formalized (as in the case of sets when there is a formal definition of a function)?




Notice that there is only one choice for $|emptyset|$, $$0=_def |emptyset|=emptyset,$$ since only $|emptyset|=emptyset$ satisfies $emptyset=_c|emptyset|$. It is also convenient to set $$1=_def|0|, 2=_def|0,1|$$ so we have handy names for the cardinal numbers of singletons and doubletons.




Why does only $emptyset$ satisfy $emptyset=_c|emptyset|$? Doesn't any set $A$ satisfy $A=_c |A|$ by (C1)? Moreover, isn't $|A|$ supposed to be a set for any set $A$? (According to how I described the operation $Amapsto |A|$.) $0$ is not a set, how can it be equal to the set $|emptyset|$? Further, why does $|emptyset|=emptyset$ hold?



Similarly, how can the non-set $1$ be equal to the set $|0|$, and similarly for $2$?







logic set-theory cardinals






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 18 at 2:12









Andrés E. Caicedo

65.8k8160251




65.8k8160251










asked Mar 17 at 23:32









logiclogic

948




948







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Operation is supposed to be understood as synonymous with "function". In set theory, $0 = emptyset, 1 = 0,2 = 0,1$ and so on. Also, $|emptyset|$ must be a set which is in bijection with $emptyset$ by (C1). The only such set is $emptyset$.
    $endgroup$
    – James
    Mar 17 at 23:49







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @James The quoted text defined $0$ to be $emptyset$ and $1$ to be $|0|$, i.e. $|emptyset|$. It did not rely on some "standard" definition. It also did not define $1$ to be $0$. Saying "operation" is synonymous with "function" just kicks the can to what "function" means. If by "function" you mean it in the usual set-theoretic sense, i.e. a set of ordered pairs satisfying some laws, then it definitely is not a function in that sense. If you mean a "function" as in a function symbol added to the theory, then that is more or less what is happening.
    $endgroup$
    – Derek Elkins
    Mar 18 at 3:52











  • $begingroup$
    @derekelkins I missed the part where the finite cardinals are defined. As for the definition of operation, it is not clear to me at what level of sophistication the OP is operating. I think you presume a higher level than I do.
    $endgroup$
    – James
    Mar 19 at 12:08












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Operation is supposed to be understood as synonymous with "function". In set theory, $0 = emptyset, 1 = 0,2 = 0,1$ and so on. Also, $|emptyset|$ must be a set which is in bijection with $emptyset$ by (C1). The only such set is $emptyset$.
    $endgroup$
    – James
    Mar 17 at 23:49







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @James The quoted text defined $0$ to be $emptyset$ and $1$ to be $|0|$, i.e. $|emptyset|$. It did not rely on some "standard" definition. It also did not define $1$ to be $0$. Saying "operation" is synonymous with "function" just kicks the can to what "function" means. If by "function" you mean it in the usual set-theoretic sense, i.e. a set of ordered pairs satisfying some laws, then it definitely is not a function in that sense. If you mean a "function" as in a function symbol added to the theory, then that is more or less what is happening.
    $endgroup$
    – Derek Elkins
    Mar 18 at 3:52











  • $begingroup$
    @derekelkins I missed the part where the finite cardinals are defined. As for the definition of operation, it is not clear to me at what level of sophistication the OP is operating. I think you presume a higher level than I do.
    $endgroup$
    – James
    Mar 19 at 12:08







2




2




$begingroup$
Operation is supposed to be understood as synonymous with "function". In set theory, $0 = emptyset, 1 = 0,2 = 0,1$ and so on. Also, $|emptyset|$ must be a set which is in bijection with $emptyset$ by (C1). The only such set is $emptyset$.
$endgroup$
– James
Mar 17 at 23:49





$begingroup$
Operation is supposed to be understood as synonymous with "function". In set theory, $0 = emptyset, 1 = 0,2 = 0,1$ and so on. Also, $|emptyset|$ must be a set which is in bijection with $emptyset$ by (C1). The only such set is $emptyset$.
$endgroup$
– James
Mar 17 at 23:49





1




1




$begingroup$
@James The quoted text defined $0$ to be $emptyset$ and $1$ to be $|0|$, i.e. $|emptyset|$. It did not rely on some "standard" definition. It also did not define $1$ to be $0$. Saying "operation" is synonymous with "function" just kicks the can to what "function" means. If by "function" you mean it in the usual set-theoretic sense, i.e. a set of ordered pairs satisfying some laws, then it definitely is not a function in that sense. If you mean a "function" as in a function symbol added to the theory, then that is more or less what is happening.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Mar 18 at 3:52





$begingroup$
@James The quoted text defined $0$ to be $emptyset$ and $1$ to be $|0|$, i.e. $|emptyset|$. It did not rely on some "standard" definition. It also did not define $1$ to be $0$. Saying "operation" is synonymous with "function" just kicks the can to what "function" means. If by "function" you mean it in the usual set-theoretic sense, i.e. a set of ordered pairs satisfying some laws, then it definitely is not a function in that sense. If you mean a "function" as in a function symbol added to the theory, then that is more or less what is happening.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Mar 18 at 3:52













$begingroup$
@derekelkins I missed the part where the finite cardinals are defined. As for the definition of operation, it is not clear to me at what level of sophistication the OP is operating. I think you presume a higher level than I do.
$endgroup$
– James
Mar 19 at 12:08




$begingroup$
@derekelkins I missed the part where the finite cardinals are defined. As for the definition of operation, it is not clear to me at what level of sophistication the OP is operating. I think you presume a higher level than I do.
$endgroup$
– James
Mar 19 at 12:08










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

The most formalistic way to understand what is going on is that to ZFC (or whatever set theory we're using) we've added a new function symbol that we happen to write in outfix notation. That is, if $t$ is some term in the new extended theory, then $|t|$ is also a term. There is no notion of "rule" that needs to be explained. You can understand this as a "function" except between classes but this doesn't really help and can lead to a lot of confusion, in my opinion. It is $|_|$ that is the "operation", not $Card$. $Card$ is a predicate symbol. In this case, though, this predicate symbol can be added to our extended ZFC via an extension by definition. Indeed, the definition is $Card(kappa)iff exists A.kappa=|A|$. Personally, I would not write $kappain Card$ since this suggests that $Card$ is a set which it is not. Many authors like to describe sets as special kinds of classes and use the $in$ syntax for arbitrary classes. I think this is a mistake and is definitely not what's happening formally speaking in ZFC. Some other set theories do have a formal notion of "class", but this is a very subtly different thing. Personally, I strongly prefer to just talk about predicates rather than talking about classes.



As James states, $|emptyset|=emptyset$ because, by C1, we must have $|emptyset|=_cemptyset$ but there is only one set that is in bijection with $emptyset$, namely $emptyset$ itself. This doesn't hold for any other set. As I stated in the comment, the text you quoted is explicitly defining $0$ to be $emptyset$. It's also explicitly defining $1$ to be $|emptyset|$, and similarly for $2$. This does not actually tell us which sets $1$ or $2$ are. All we know is that they are in bijection with $emptyset$ and $$ respectively. Formalistically, you can view these as additional extensions by definitions. To drive this home a bit, formal presentations of ZFC, e.g. this one, usually do not define any closed terms. For example, $emptyset$ is not a term of ZFC. All the "normal" set theoretic notation can be understood as various extensions by definitions over these minimalistic presentations of ZFC. Regardless, it doesn't make sense to say "$0$ is not a set". Either $0$ is a term of your set theory, in which case it is a set because we're working in a single-sorted logic and thus all terms are the same kind of thing, which is sets in a set theory1, or $0$ is not a term and it is simply meaningless to talk about expressions involving it at all. That is, either $0$ is a set because there's nothing else for it to be, or any statement about $0$ is meaningless.



1 We could work in a multi-sorted logic to allow different kinds of terms. Alternatively, there are (single-sorted) set theories, even variations of ZFC, that have urelements (aka atoms). In these theories, it would be possible to define $0$ to be an atom and thus not a set. The individuals of these theories, though, are no longer just sets.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3152232%2fproblem-of-cardinal-assignment%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1












    $begingroup$

    The most formalistic way to understand what is going on is that to ZFC (or whatever set theory we're using) we've added a new function symbol that we happen to write in outfix notation. That is, if $t$ is some term in the new extended theory, then $|t|$ is also a term. There is no notion of "rule" that needs to be explained. You can understand this as a "function" except between classes but this doesn't really help and can lead to a lot of confusion, in my opinion. It is $|_|$ that is the "operation", not $Card$. $Card$ is a predicate symbol. In this case, though, this predicate symbol can be added to our extended ZFC via an extension by definition. Indeed, the definition is $Card(kappa)iff exists A.kappa=|A|$. Personally, I would not write $kappain Card$ since this suggests that $Card$ is a set which it is not. Many authors like to describe sets as special kinds of classes and use the $in$ syntax for arbitrary classes. I think this is a mistake and is definitely not what's happening formally speaking in ZFC. Some other set theories do have a formal notion of "class", but this is a very subtly different thing. Personally, I strongly prefer to just talk about predicates rather than talking about classes.



    As James states, $|emptyset|=emptyset$ because, by C1, we must have $|emptyset|=_cemptyset$ but there is only one set that is in bijection with $emptyset$, namely $emptyset$ itself. This doesn't hold for any other set. As I stated in the comment, the text you quoted is explicitly defining $0$ to be $emptyset$. It's also explicitly defining $1$ to be $|emptyset|$, and similarly for $2$. This does not actually tell us which sets $1$ or $2$ are. All we know is that they are in bijection with $emptyset$ and $$ respectively. Formalistically, you can view these as additional extensions by definitions. To drive this home a bit, formal presentations of ZFC, e.g. this one, usually do not define any closed terms. For example, $emptyset$ is not a term of ZFC. All the "normal" set theoretic notation can be understood as various extensions by definitions over these minimalistic presentations of ZFC. Regardless, it doesn't make sense to say "$0$ is not a set". Either $0$ is a term of your set theory, in which case it is a set because we're working in a single-sorted logic and thus all terms are the same kind of thing, which is sets in a set theory1, or $0$ is not a term and it is simply meaningless to talk about expressions involving it at all. That is, either $0$ is a set because there's nothing else for it to be, or any statement about $0$ is meaningless.



    1 We could work in a multi-sorted logic to allow different kinds of terms. Alternatively, there are (single-sorted) set theories, even variations of ZFC, that have urelements (aka atoms). In these theories, it would be possible to define $0$ to be an atom and thus not a set. The individuals of these theories, though, are no longer just sets.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      1












      $begingroup$

      The most formalistic way to understand what is going on is that to ZFC (or whatever set theory we're using) we've added a new function symbol that we happen to write in outfix notation. That is, if $t$ is some term in the new extended theory, then $|t|$ is also a term. There is no notion of "rule" that needs to be explained. You can understand this as a "function" except between classes but this doesn't really help and can lead to a lot of confusion, in my opinion. It is $|_|$ that is the "operation", not $Card$. $Card$ is a predicate symbol. In this case, though, this predicate symbol can be added to our extended ZFC via an extension by definition. Indeed, the definition is $Card(kappa)iff exists A.kappa=|A|$. Personally, I would not write $kappain Card$ since this suggests that $Card$ is a set which it is not. Many authors like to describe sets as special kinds of classes and use the $in$ syntax for arbitrary classes. I think this is a mistake and is definitely not what's happening formally speaking in ZFC. Some other set theories do have a formal notion of "class", but this is a very subtly different thing. Personally, I strongly prefer to just talk about predicates rather than talking about classes.



      As James states, $|emptyset|=emptyset$ because, by C1, we must have $|emptyset|=_cemptyset$ but there is only one set that is in bijection with $emptyset$, namely $emptyset$ itself. This doesn't hold for any other set. As I stated in the comment, the text you quoted is explicitly defining $0$ to be $emptyset$. It's also explicitly defining $1$ to be $|emptyset|$, and similarly for $2$. This does not actually tell us which sets $1$ or $2$ are. All we know is that they are in bijection with $emptyset$ and $$ respectively. Formalistically, you can view these as additional extensions by definitions. To drive this home a bit, formal presentations of ZFC, e.g. this one, usually do not define any closed terms. For example, $emptyset$ is not a term of ZFC. All the "normal" set theoretic notation can be understood as various extensions by definitions over these minimalistic presentations of ZFC. Regardless, it doesn't make sense to say "$0$ is not a set". Either $0$ is a term of your set theory, in which case it is a set because we're working in a single-sorted logic and thus all terms are the same kind of thing, which is sets in a set theory1, or $0$ is not a term and it is simply meaningless to talk about expressions involving it at all. That is, either $0$ is a set because there's nothing else for it to be, or any statement about $0$ is meaningless.



      1 We could work in a multi-sorted logic to allow different kinds of terms. Alternatively, there are (single-sorted) set theories, even variations of ZFC, that have urelements (aka atoms). In these theories, it would be possible to define $0$ to be an atom and thus not a set. The individuals of these theories, though, are no longer just sets.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        The most formalistic way to understand what is going on is that to ZFC (or whatever set theory we're using) we've added a new function symbol that we happen to write in outfix notation. That is, if $t$ is some term in the new extended theory, then $|t|$ is also a term. There is no notion of "rule" that needs to be explained. You can understand this as a "function" except between classes but this doesn't really help and can lead to a lot of confusion, in my opinion. It is $|_|$ that is the "operation", not $Card$. $Card$ is a predicate symbol. In this case, though, this predicate symbol can be added to our extended ZFC via an extension by definition. Indeed, the definition is $Card(kappa)iff exists A.kappa=|A|$. Personally, I would not write $kappain Card$ since this suggests that $Card$ is a set which it is not. Many authors like to describe sets as special kinds of classes and use the $in$ syntax for arbitrary classes. I think this is a mistake and is definitely not what's happening formally speaking in ZFC. Some other set theories do have a formal notion of "class", but this is a very subtly different thing. Personally, I strongly prefer to just talk about predicates rather than talking about classes.



        As James states, $|emptyset|=emptyset$ because, by C1, we must have $|emptyset|=_cemptyset$ but there is only one set that is in bijection with $emptyset$, namely $emptyset$ itself. This doesn't hold for any other set. As I stated in the comment, the text you quoted is explicitly defining $0$ to be $emptyset$. It's also explicitly defining $1$ to be $|emptyset|$, and similarly for $2$. This does not actually tell us which sets $1$ or $2$ are. All we know is that they are in bijection with $emptyset$ and $$ respectively. Formalistically, you can view these as additional extensions by definitions. To drive this home a bit, formal presentations of ZFC, e.g. this one, usually do not define any closed terms. For example, $emptyset$ is not a term of ZFC. All the "normal" set theoretic notation can be understood as various extensions by definitions over these minimalistic presentations of ZFC. Regardless, it doesn't make sense to say "$0$ is not a set". Either $0$ is a term of your set theory, in which case it is a set because we're working in a single-sorted logic and thus all terms are the same kind of thing, which is sets in a set theory1, or $0$ is not a term and it is simply meaningless to talk about expressions involving it at all. That is, either $0$ is a set because there's nothing else for it to be, or any statement about $0$ is meaningless.



        1 We could work in a multi-sorted logic to allow different kinds of terms. Alternatively, there are (single-sorted) set theories, even variations of ZFC, that have urelements (aka atoms). In these theories, it would be possible to define $0$ to be an atom and thus not a set. The individuals of these theories, though, are no longer just sets.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        The most formalistic way to understand what is going on is that to ZFC (or whatever set theory we're using) we've added a new function symbol that we happen to write in outfix notation. That is, if $t$ is some term in the new extended theory, then $|t|$ is also a term. There is no notion of "rule" that needs to be explained. You can understand this as a "function" except between classes but this doesn't really help and can lead to a lot of confusion, in my opinion. It is $|_|$ that is the "operation", not $Card$. $Card$ is a predicate symbol. In this case, though, this predicate symbol can be added to our extended ZFC via an extension by definition. Indeed, the definition is $Card(kappa)iff exists A.kappa=|A|$. Personally, I would not write $kappain Card$ since this suggests that $Card$ is a set which it is not. Many authors like to describe sets as special kinds of classes and use the $in$ syntax for arbitrary classes. I think this is a mistake and is definitely not what's happening formally speaking in ZFC. Some other set theories do have a formal notion of "class", but this is a very subtly different thing. Personally, I strongly prefer to just talk about predicates rather than talking about classes.



        As James states, $|emptyset|=emptyset$ because, by C1, we must have $|emptyset|=_cemptyset$ but there is only one set that is in bijection with $emptyset$, namely $emptyset$ itself. This doesn't hold for any other set. As I stated in the comment, the text you quoted is explicitly defining $0$ to be $emptyset$. It's also explicitly defining $1$ to be $|emptyset|$, and similarly for $2$. This does not actually tell us which sets $1$ or $2$ are. All we know is that they are in bijection with $emptyset$ and $$ respectively. Formalistically, you can view these as additional extensions by definitions. To drive this home a bit, formal presentations of ZFC, e.g. this one, usually do not define any closed terms. For example, $emptyset$ is not a term of ZFC. All the "normal" set theoretic notation can be understood as various extensions by definitions over these minimalistic presentations of ZFC. Regardless, it doesn't make sense to say "$0$ is not a set". Either $0$ is a term of your set theory, in which case it is a set because we're working in a single-sorted logic and thus all terms are the same kind of thing, which is sets in a set theory1, or $0$ is not a term and it is simply meaningless to talk about expressions involving it at all. That is, either $0$ is a set because there's nothing else for it to be, or any statement about $0$ is meaningless.



        1 We could work in a multi-sorted logic to allow different kinds of terms. Alternatively, there are (single-sorted) set theories, even variations of ZFC, that have urelements (aka atoms). In these theories, it would be possible to define $0$ to be an atom and thus not a set. The individuals of these theories, though, are no longer just sets.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Mar 18 at 4:41









        Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins

        17.4k11437




        17.4k11437



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3152232%2fproblem-of-cardinal-assignment%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer

            random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

            Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye