Is a 1-to-1 Correspondence Possible Between Any Two Real Numbers in [a,b]?

  • Thread starter Organic
  • Start date
In summary: OrganicAs I have said before, this is not "normal" mathematics. It is not "abnormal" mathematics, either. It is not mathematics. It is a word game. In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of a 1-1 correspondence (map) between any two real numbers within a given set [a,b]. The conversation also explores the idea of "non-normal" elements that may exist between two "normal" numbers and how they could potentially be useful in mathematics. However, it is noted that this is not traditional mathematics and is more of a word game.
  • #36
By using the empty set (with the Von Neumann Heirarchy), we can construct the set of all positive integers {0,1,2,3,...}:
code:

0 = { }
Huh... really? Let’s see. How do you define an empty set? The axiomatic theory of sets (ATS) defines it as:
("õ"="direct product", "!="="not equal", "Å"="direct addition", "Ú"="or")
A=Æ defined as "B(B !=Æ & AõB=Æ & A+B=B & "C(C=A equivalent to CõA=Æ)).
However,
"B(B !=Æ & AõB=Æ & A+B=B & "C(C=A equivalent to CõA=Æ)) Þ A=Æ Ú A="zero divisor", i.e. it is non-empty set.

i.e. without a non-empty set no one from mathematicians can’t defines an empty set. And this is nature of an empty set (or ATS) – it is necessary to definition of operations with sets.
1 = {{ }} = {0}
What it precisely means? Either an empty set is a subset of «1» (but «1» is not a natural number) or it is an element of «1». The ATS doesn’t let us define 1 (natural number) by non-number. Only a map correspond the elements of different nature to each other. And so on...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Huh... really? Let’s see. How do you define an empty set? The axiomatic theory of sets (ATS) defines it as:
("õ"="direct product", "<>"="not equal", "+"="direct addition")
AõA=0, B<>0, AõB=0, A+B=0: A=0.
However,
AõA=0, B<>0, AõB=0, A+B=0: A=0 or A="zero divisor", i.e. it is non-empty set.
using axiom 5 in

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zermel...nkelAxioms.html

one can define an empty set to be such an x. then you can prove that all empty sets are equal, so it makes sense to give them all one notation.

the word set is undefined.

i.e. without a non-empty set no one from mathematicians can’t defines an empty set. And this is nature of an empty set (or ATS) – it is necessary to definition of operations with sets.

What it precisely means? Either an empty set is a subset of «1» (but «1» is not a natural number) or it is an element of «1». The ATS doesn’t let us define 1 (natural number) by non-number. Only a map correspond the elements of different nature to each other. And so on...
let's look at the first statement and replace "empty set" by the phrase "concept X." i'll also rule out your double negative. it becomes this: without concept X mathematicans can't define concept X. i disagree with this statement. you can certainly define any concept X you like. whether concept X "exists" is another story...

what do you mean when you add (direct sum) and multiply (direct product) sets? is that the same as union and intersection?

the empty set is an element of 1 in set theory.
0 = { }
1 = {0}

n = {n-1}

n+1 = n U {n}
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
if you prefer, denote the empty set by e. then {e} is a superset of e containing e.
Excuse me, is e a subset of {e}, or e an element of {e}?
If e is a subset of {e}, then you’ll not define either {e} or e, because {e}=e, hence, {e, e}={e} imply e either empty set, or zero divisor. Without a non-empty set neither you, nor anybody else will not prove that e is empty set
If e is an element of {e}, then you’ll not prove that e is empty set, because in this case {e, e} always {e, e}.
 
  • #39
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
using axiom 5 in

one can define an empty set to be such an x. then you can prove that all empty sets are equal, so it makes sense to give them all one notation.

the word set is undefined.
Well, then how do you define zero divisor?
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Originally posted by Anton A. Ermolenko
Excuse me, is e a subset of {e}, or e an element of {e}?
If e is a subset of {e}, then you’ll not define either {e} or e, because {e}=e, hence, {e, e}={e} imply e either empty set, or zero divisor. Without a non-empty set neither you, nor anybody else will not prove that e is empty set
If e is an element of {e}, then you’ll not prove that e is empty set, because in this case {e, e} always {e, e}.

element.

it's not about proving the set is empty. its emptiness is a postulation.

for any x, {x, x} = {x}
 
  • #41
  • #42
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
element.

it's not about proving the set is empty. its emptiness is a postulation.

for any x, {x, x} = {x}
0 = { }
1 = {0}

n = {n-1}

n+1 = n U {n}
Huh... well, well, well... I like it. Then following your logic:
0=1=2=3=4=5=6=7=8=9=...="infinity".
You really think so?
 
  • #43
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
using axiom 5 in

0 = { }
1 = {0}

n = {n-1}

n+1 = n U {n}
In the real
f: f({0})=1
The NBG (not ZF, because ZF hasn't the classes, hence, hasn't a the hierarchies) system of axioms.
 
  • #44
Originally posted by Anton A. Ermolenko
Huh... well, well, well... I like it. Then following your logic:
0=1=2=3=4=5=6=7=8=9=...="infinity".
You really think so?

i don't see how you get 0 = 1 = 2 = ...

0 = { }
1 = {0}

two sets x and y are equal iff (a is an element of x iff a is an element in y).

0 is an element of 1 but 0 is not an element of 0 = { }.

therefore, it is not the case that a is an element of 1 iff a is an element of 0.

therefore, 0 != 1.
 
  • #45
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i don't see how you get 0 = 1 = 2 = ...

0 = { }
1 = {0}

two sets x and y are equal iff (a is an element of x iff a is an element in y).

0 is an element of 1 but 0 is not an element of 0 = { }.

therefore, it is not the case that a is an element of 1 iff a is an element of 0.

therefore, 0 != 1.
Exactly 0!=1, because 0! is number of permutations (there is an order!) {01}=1
but if {01}=1, then neither {01,02} nor {02,01} is not equal to {01}, because either a set has the order relations between the elements (even if there is only one element), or hasn't the order relations...
In the real your {0} (0 is an element of {0}) is equal to 0õ{1}, otherwise this {0} is imply that 0 is a subset of {0}, hence, {0}=0...
 
Last edited:
  • #46
!= means "does not equal."

i said, "therefore, 0 != 1." if ! is factorial, then it would be directly adjacent to the zero, which it is not.

if i meant ! as factorial, the statement 0! = 1 is a non-sequitor from my argument.

the statements above the conclusion demonstrated how the pair 0 and 1 don't fit the definition of set equality.

the conclusion was that the two sets are not equal.

i urge you to check out "elements of set theory" by enderton, "set theory" by stoll, or "axiomatic set theory" by suppes for all the details.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
!= means "does not equal."

i said, "therefore, 0 != 1." if ! is factorial, then it would be directly adjacent to the zero, which it is not.

if i meant ! as factorial, the statement 0! = 1 is a non-sequitor from my argument.

the statements above the conclusion demonstrated how the pair 0 and 1 don't fit the definition of set equality.

the conclusion was that the two sets are not equal.

i urge you to check out "elements of set theory" by enderton, "set theory" by stoll, or "axiomatic set theory" by suppes for all the details.
From the ZF system of axioms may be proved (almost) all mathematics. In spite of the fact that the actual number of axiom is equal to infinity (Z5 and ZF9 are not the axioms, only schemes), but there is no these: {0,0}={0}. Empty set (or zero element) defined as the result of these operations:
B != A, A õ A = A, A õ B= A, A + B = B: A=0.
Otherwise, how do you define a zero divisor or a nilpotent device?
 
  • #48
Originally posted by Anton A. Ermolenko
From the ZF system of axioms may be proved (almost) all mathematics. In spite of the fact that the actual number of axiom is equal to infinity (Z5 and ZF9 are not the axioms, only schemes), but there is no these: {0,0}={0}. Empty set (or zero element) defined as the result of these operations:
B != A, A õ A = A, A õ B= A, A + B = B: A=0.
Otherwise, how do you define a zero divisor or a nilpotent device?

{0,0} = {0} is not an axiom but it can be proven from the axiom of extensionality.

what are the definitions of A and B?

x is a zero divisor if it is nonzero and there is a nonzero y such that x õ y = 0. (source: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ZeroDivisor.html )

in your equations above, neither B nor A is conclusively a zero divisor because A = 0. in every ring, B õ 0 = 0; that doesn't make B a zero divisor since then, every element would be a zero divisor.

here's how i would define nilponency:
this is pseudo-code:
let N be given. let m be a natural number and x = 1.
N^1 := N. (by, :=, i mean, "is defined to equal")
1. N^(x+1) := N õ N^x. update x so that x = x+1.
2. repeat step 1 until x = m.
when finished, N^m is defined. intuitively, N^m is
N õ N õ ... õ N, where there are m copies of N.

definition: N is nilpotent if N^m = 0 for some m.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
{0,0} = {0} is not an axiom but it can be proven from the axiom of extensionality.

what are the definitions of A and B?
sets

x is a zero divisor if it is nonzero and there is a nonzero y such that x õ y = 0. [/qoute]
I want to see your definition of a zero divisor by ZF system axioms.

in your equations above, neither B nor A is conclusively a zero divisor because A = 0. in every ring, B õ 0 = 0; that doesn't make B a zero divisor since then, every element would be a zero divisor.
You've misunderstood. I define an empty set (or zero element). In other words, iif B != A, A õ A = A, A õ B= A, A + B = B, then A=0. If B != A, A õ A = A, A õ B= A, A + B != B, then A is a zero divisor. Your postulate {0,0}={0} doesn't allow defining a zero divisor.
 
  • #50
Originally posted by Anton A. Ermolenko
sets


You've misunderstood. I define an empty set (or zero element). In other words, iif B != A, A õ A = A, A õ B= A, A + B = B, then A=0. If B != A, A õ A = A, A õ B= A, A + B != B, then A is a zero divisor. Your postulate {0,0}={0} doesn't allow defining a zero divisor.

zero divisor isn't a term used in set theory. therefore, there's no need to relate it to ZF axioms. zero divisors occur in rings; investigate how rings develop out of set theory. to write down the ZF axioms and then a sequence of statements leading to the definition of zero divisor would take a while.

are A and B allowed to be any two different sets?

is A õ A = A an assumption or a theorem?

is A õ B = A an assumption or a theorem?

is A + B = B an assumption or a theorem?

from the last equation, that B can be "cancelled" is an assumption. cacellation presumes both that there is a zero element and that all elements have inverses. therefore, this is a circular argument.
 
  • #51
Greetings,
Using presence of professional mathematicians at a forum, it would be desirable to ask the following question:
Is it present in the mathematics some a theory about self-organizing, development and complication of functions of information system (between elements of some data set)? I keep in a mind our universe as information system.
Thanks.
 
  • #53
Hi phoenixthoth, Hi Anton A. Ermolenko,

The concept of a set is like a "stage" where you can put elements and then find the rules, operations, relations and so on, within and among these elements.

The {} is the "stage" itself and it is not one of the elements "playing" on it.

The "stage" itself must be simpler than any "player" that plays on it, otherwise no player can express its full propery.

The "stage" has no signature at all, therefore it has no content(=emptiness).

It is as if I said that the silence is the base of any sound.

We cannot find any variations in silence, therefore the silence is invariant by its very own nature.

Therefore silence is more symmetric than any sound.

Now, please change silence by emptiness, and some sound by non-emptiness.


Organic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be {true sentence} or to be {false sentence}, that is not the question.


To be(=~{}), or not to be(={}), that is the question.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
  • #54
Hi Anton A. Ermolenko,

You wrote:
To Organic:

In general, your ideas aren’t new extension of mathematics, but may have application in the computer science.

Please be more spesific.

Thank you.


Organic
 
Last edited:
  • #55
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
zero divisor isn't a term used in set theory. therefore, there's no need to relate it to ZF axioms. zero divisors occur in rings; investigate how rings develop out of set theory. to write down the ZF axioms and then a sequence of statements leading to the definition of zero divisor would take a while.

are A and B allowed to be any two different sets?

is A õ A = A an assumption or a theorem?

is A õ B = A an assumption or a theorem?

is A + B = B an assumption or a theorem?

from the last equation, that B can be "cancelled" is an assumption. cacellation presumes both that there is a zero element and that all elements have inverses. therefore, this is a circular argument.
See link below
http://forum.1tv.ru/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=249955
 
  • #56
Originally posted by Organic
Hi phoenixthoth, Hi Anton A. Ermolenko,

The concept of a set is like a "stage" where you can put elements and then find the rules, operations, relations and so on, within and among these elements.

The {} is the "stage" itself and it is not one of the elements "playing" on it.

The "stage" itself must be simpler than any "player" that plays on it, otherwise no player can express its full propery.

The "stage" has no signature at all, therefore it has no content(=emptiness).

It is as if I said that the silence is the base of any sound.

We cannot find any variations in silence, therefore the silence is invariant by its very own nature.

Therefore silence is more symmetric than any sound.

Now, please change silence by emptiness, and some sound by non-emptiness.


Organic

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be {true sentence} or to be {false sentence}, that is not the question.


To be(=~{}), or not to be(={}), that is the question.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, just tell me - how do you define an empty set within the framework of AST
 
  • #57
Originally posted by Organic
Hi Anton A. Ermolenko,

You wrote:


Please be more spesific.

Thank you.


Organic
More specific in what? Why your ideas aren't new extension of mathematics?
Or why your ideas may have application in the computer science?
If first, then I've demonstrate the inconsistency of your definitions and suggestions with AST. There is no new mathematics.
If second, then I think that is wrong way (forum). What kind of physics we research up here?
 
  • #58
Originally posted by Anton A. Ermolenko
Well, just tell me - how do you define an empty set within the framework of AST

i wouldn't know since i wasn't "brought up" with AST; i was brought up on ZF and ZFC with a smattering of the von Neumann/Godel system. maybe a search on http://www.mathworld.com with "AST" will reveal the answer you seek.

in ZF, sets are NOT defined. then it is POSTULATED that there is a "set" with the property that for all x, x is not an alement of this set. the empty set is defined to be a set with this property.
 
  • #59
Originally posted by Anton A. Ermolenko
More specific in what? Why your ideas aren't new extension of mathematics?
Or why your ideas may have application in the computer science?
If first, then I've demonstrate the inconsistency of your definitions and suggestions with AST. There is no new mathematics.
If second, then I think that is wrong way (forum). What kind of physics we research up here?

is there an online reference to AST? I've never heard of it.

the inconsistency of organic's definition with AST is not clear to me nor does it seem relevant because i believe he's using the ZF axioms.

the mathematics is new to me. it may have been already done by someone else, however.

the question about physics is irrelevant because this topic has been moved to the math section.

the connections to computer science aren't clear at all.
 
  • #60
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i wouldn't know since i wasn't "brought up" with AST; i was brought up on ZF and ZFC with a smattering of the von Neumann/Godel system. maybe a search on http://www.mathworld.com with "AST" will reveal the answer you seek.

in ZF, sets are NOT defined. then it is POSTULATED that there is a "set" with the property that for all x, x is not an alement of this set. the empty set is defined to be a set with this property.
You've misunderstood again... "AST" (the axiomatic theory of set), in other word, ZF or NBG (von Neumann/Bernays/Godel). Neither ZF, nor NBG hasn't an "axiom of empty set". Can you demonstrate this axiom within the framework of ZF or NBG? Just tell where it is?
 
Last edited:
  • #61
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
is there an online reference to AST? I've never heard of it.

the inconsistency of organic's definition with AST is not clear to me nor does it seem relevant because i believe he's using the ZF axioms.
Which of them (axioms)?
the mathematics is new to me. it may have been already done by someone else, however.

the question about physics is irrelevant because this topic has been moved to the math section.
Is the section of General physics>Theory Development math section? I thought, that it is a Physics theory development section... If I've misunderstood, then forgive me
 
  • #62
Originally posted by Anton A. Ermolenko
You've misunderstood again... "AST" (the axiomatic theory of set), in other word, ZF or NBG (von Neumann/Bernays/Godel). Neither ZF, nor NBG hasn't an "axiom of empty set". Can you demonstrate this axiom within the framework of ZF or NBG? Just tell where it is?

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AxiomoftheEmptySet.html

note that ! means "not" in this case.
 
  • #63
Originally posted by Anton A. Ermolenko
Which of them (axioms)?

Is the section of General physics>Theory Development math section? I thought, that it is a Physics theory development section... If I've misunderstood, then forgive me

i'm not sure why this topic is under physics theory development.
 
  • #64
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i'm not sure why this topic is under physics theory development.

Would you have it in Math?
 
  • #65
yes. as far as i remember, i found it under math where it had been moved to. i can't see what it's direct relation to physics is.
 
  • #66
Hi Integral,

This thread was opened by me under Mthematics > General Math, and it was there until yesterday.

Please check if it can be returned to its original place.


Maybe it is the right time to open Theory Development under Mathematics.

What do you think ?


Thank you,


Organic
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Hi Anton A. Ermolenko,

The ZF Axiom of the Empty set:

There is a set A such that, given any set B, B is not a member of A.

(There is a "stage" A with no "players" B)


Please tell me if you find any problem in this axiom.


Thank you.


Organic
 
Last edited:
  • #68
Last edited:
  • #69
Æ
 
Last edited:
  • #70
Dear Anton A. Ermolenko,

By [null] do you mean that you accept my point of view
which is:

An analogy: [null] is like an empty sheet of paper with no written thing on it.


Organic
 

Similar threads

B Exploring the equivalences between mass, time and length
Replies
8
Views
2K
B Too much energy -- thought experiment
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
I How to find a point that corresponds to hyperreal number?
Replies
10
Views
2K
B How can hyperreal numbers make infinitesimals logically sound in calculus?
Replies
24
Views
4K
I Question about data analysis and error
Replies
16
Views
2K
I Understanding Ewald's sphere in the context of X-Ray diffraction
Replies
3
Views
4K
I Discussion about least squares method
Replies
2
Views
1K
Insights What Are Numbers?
Replies
13
Views
4K
I Trouble understanding the SI definition of 1 second
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
B How physics equations transform under inverse of parameters
Replies
6
Views
11K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top