Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: apoorv <sudhir_sh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
We have A =B iff Ax [x e A <--> x e B] .
However, the relation 'e' itself is undefined,
and so can be interpreted in different ways.
For example,we could take a e b to mean
'a is a child of b '.Thus, if A and B have children
p and q , ( who have no children) we have
p e A and q e A , as also p e B and q e B .
Then , we have P =Q, though P and Q are
not identical.
Additionally, we also have
Ax ~ x e p as also Ax ~x e q , that is,
both p and q have no members. So, we have
p=q , but again p and q are not identical.
What allows us to assert that the 'e' we
have in set theory ensures that equal sets are
identical sets ? How do we assert that there is
only one null set ( although all null sets may be equal )?
How do we infer from A = B that {A} ={B}, unless we
assume that A and B are identical ?
-apoorv
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: Zaljohar
- Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: Zaljohar
- Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- From: Marshall
- Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- Prev by Date: Re: The relation between the three different versions of PRA
- Next by Date: Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- Previous by thread: Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?
- Next by thread: Re: Equal Sets and Identical Sets
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading