Re: A simple question?

MoeBlee wrote:
David Marcus wrote:
MoeBlee wrote:
David Marcus wrote:
MoeBlee wrote:
I don't see why not. There's no modality of "can" in the formal theory.
"can" is a loose way of speaking, which is okay, but I don't know of
anything in IN the theory to distinguish 'can' from 'is'.

I think we can give a formal meaning (and I think Enderton would agree
with this): If we say "S is a well ordered set", then we really mean
"(S,R) is an ordered pair where S is a set, R is an ordering on S, and R
is a well ordering".

You left 'R' free in that formulation. But, other than 'S', there is
no free variable in 'S is a well ordered set'.

Well, just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't (implicitly)
there. If S can be free, then why can't the (invisible) R?

Of course, any unbound variables will be bound by putting "for all"
around the entire statement.

'S' is implicity bound by a universal quantifier. But it doesn't work
for 'R' that way. Or, tell me what formulation you have in mind where
'R' is bound by a universal quantifier to translate, specifically, "S
is a well ordered set".

Does "S is a well ordered set" appear in the hypotheses or in the
conclusion?

So for your formulation
to work, it has to be, "There EXISTS an R such that <S R> is a well
ordered set" or "There EXISTS and R such that <S R> is structure in
which R is a well ordering of S."

I'd do "For all S, for all R, if <S,R> is a well ordered set, then ..."

How is it different from saying "G is an abelian group"?

First, just as a personal matter, I just don't like "<S R> is a well
ordered set." Yes, <S R> is a set, but, to me, what is well ordered is
S, not <S R> (well, actually, quite literally, <S R> is well ordered
since it is {{S} {S R}}, which is a finite set, hence it has a well
ordering; but that is not what we have in mind). So, I say S is well
ordered by R and S is a well ordered set and <S R> is a well order
structure.

I don't really follow. I suppose that technically I'm saying that a
"well ordered set" isn't a set. It is an ordered pair, etc. You seem to
want a "well ordered set" to be a set (ignoring for the moment that
formally everything is a set).

Second, I don't see the relevence of your analogy. We were talking
about formalizing "S is a well ordered set" not some other larger
statement "If S is a well ordered set, then [...]"

--
David Marcus
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... "That doesn't seem to be what WM is saying. ... subset of an ordered set which, if it contains element x, also contains every element with an index in the ordered set which is less than x's. ... then the complete set IS an initial segment of itself. ... If you disagree with thi definition, can you provide a better one? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Interval in a continuum is a fractal
    ... ordered set requires adjacency. ... Saying that the members are ordered ... contradictory to the general definition of order. ... I'm not sure if what you're saying is true or not. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... "That doesn't seem to be what WM is saying. ... No *initial* segment contains every element of its underlying set. ... every element with an index in the ordered set which is less than x's. ... There will then be a natural bijection between any ordered set S and ...
    (sci.math)