Understanding ZFC and the Axiom of Infinity: Simple Explanation and Examples

In summary: Now if $I$ were finite, there would be some $n \in \Bbb N$ such that $f(n) = n+1$. But this is impossible, because $f \circ \iota$ is injective, but $f(n)eq n+1$. So $I$ cannot be finite.
  • #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,998
48
I am reading Micheal Searcoid's book: Elements of Abstract Analysis ( Springer Undergraduate Mathematics Series) ...

I am currently focussed on Searcoid's treatment of ZFC in Chapter 1: Sets ...

I am struggling to attain a full understanding of the Axiom of Infinity which reads as shown below:View attachment 5055I am at a loss to see how this Axiom as stated leads to the definition of infinite sets ... indeed I am not even sure how it leads to the definition of finite sets! ... can someone please explain the mechanics of this in simple terms ... hopefully including a simple example(s) ...

It would also be good to know, in particular how all the natural numbers "can be gathered together in a set" ... ...

Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Let's call our set $I$ (for *infinite*).

Since $\emptyset \in I$, $I$ contains a set with no elements (that is, we can form sets of zero cardinality).

Since $\emptyset \cup \{\emptyset\} = \{\emptyset\} \in I$, we know $I$ contains a set with just a single member (a *singleton* subset), so we can form sets of cardinality 1 (at least one such set. Later, when you learn how to define functions as sets, we can create other singleton sets by mapping from our one-element set as the domain of a function).

Similarly, we have a two-element set in $\{\emptyset\} \cup \{\{\emptyset\}\}$ which has the two distinct elements $\emptyset$ and $\{\emptyset\}$.

One can use induction to show that for any finite natural number $n$, that $n \cup \{n\}$ has $n+1$ elements (if you do this right, it's "true by definition").

Now there are many subtle ways to characterize "finite" (some of them quite involved), but as I indicated in another post, we can regard $I$ as a "superset" of the natural numbers, and one way to characterize finite is that there exists a bijection (again, this is a special kind of set) to some $n$ for $n \in \Bbb N$.

Now if $I$ were finite, there would be some bijection $f:I \to \{0,1,2,\dots,n-1\} = n$

Since $\Bbb N \subseteq I$, we have the inclusion injection $\iota$:

$k \mapsto k$

and then $f \circ \iota$ would be an injection of $\Bbb N$ onto $n$!. The impossiblity of this is sometimes called "the pigeonhole principle", we are forced to map the first $n$ elements of $\Bbb N$ to the different $n$ elements of $n$, and then $n+1$ has "nowhere to go", as all the image slots have been filled. And we cannot "double up", because $f \circ \iota$ must be injective!

(Note: these claims about injective and surjective functions and compositions actually entail some logical formalism to back them up, but they can be codified as well-formed formulae that can be quantified over).

Note that positing the existence of $I$ doesn't make $I$ BE the natural numbers, $I$ might be $\Bbb Z[x]$, or the reals, or the Euclidean plane. It just contains a COPY of the natural numbers, it might have "other stuff in it too".
 
  • #3
Deveno said:
Let's call our set $I$ (for *infinite*).

Since $\emptyset \in I$, $I$ contains a set with no elements (that is, we can form sets of zero cardinality).

Since $\emptyset \cup \{\emptyset\} = \{\emptyset\} \in I$, we know $I$ contains a set with just a single member (a *singleton* subset), so we can form sets of cardinality 1 (at least one such set. Later, when you learn how to define functions as sets, we can create other singleton sets by mapping from our one-element set as the domain of a function).

Similarly, we have a two-element set in $\{\emptyset\} \cup \{\{\emptyset\}\}$ which has the two distinct elements $\emptyset$ and $\{\emptyset\}$.

One can use induction to show that for any finite natural number $n$, that $n \cup \{n\}$ has $n+1$ elements (if you do this right, it's "true by definition").

Now there are many subtle ways to characterize "finite" (some of them quite involved), but as I indicated in another post, we can regard $I$ as a "superset" of the natural numbers, and one way to characterize finite is that there exists a bijection (again, this is a special kind of set) to some $n$ for $n \in \Bbb N$.

Now if $I$ were finite, there would be some bijection $f:I \to \{0,1,2,\dots,n-1\} = n$

Since $\Bbb N \subseteq I$, we have the inclusion injection $\iota$:

$k \mapsto k$

and then $f \circ \iota$ would be an injection of $\Bbb N$ onto $n$!. The impossiblity of this is sometimes called "the pigeonhole principle", we are forced to map the first $n$ elements of $\Bbb N$ to the different $n$ elements of $n$, and then $n+1$ has "nowhere to go", as all the image slots have been filled. And we cannot "double up", because $f \circ \iota$ must be injective!

(Note: these claims about injective and surjective functions and compositions actually entail some logical formalism to back them up, but they can be codified as well-formed formulae that can be quantified over).

Note that positing the existence of $I$ doesn't make $I$ BE the natural numbers, $I$ might be $\Bbb Z[x]$, or the reals, or the Euclidean plane. It just contains a COPY of the natural numbers, it might have "other stuff in it too".
Thanks for your help Deveno ... still thinking over this post ...

Sorry to be slow in responding ... away from Tasmania ... traveling in state of Victoria ...

Peter
 

FAQ: Understanding ZFC and the Axiom of Infinity: Simple Explanation and Examples

What is ZFC and the Axiom of Infinity?

ZFC (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice) is a mathematical system used as the foundation for modern set theory. The Axiom of Infinity is one of the axioms in ZFC that allows for the existence of infinite sets.

Why is the Axiom of Infinity important?

The Axiom of Infinity is important because it allows for the existence of infinite sets, which are necessary for many mathematical concepts and proofs. Without this axiom, certain mathematical structures and ideas would not be possible.

How does the Axiom of Infinity relate to Cantor's work on infinity?

The Axiom of Infinity was first introduced by mathematician Georg Cantor as part of his work on infinity and set theory. It is a fundamental axiom in modern set theory and builds upon Cantor's ideas about different sizes of infinity.

Are there any controversies surrounding ZFC and the Axiom of Infinity?

There have been some controversies surrounding ZFC and the Axiom of Infinity, particularly related to the use of the axiom of choice. Some mathematicians have proposed alternative set theories that do not rely on the axiom of choice, but ZFC remains the most widely accepted foundation for set theory.

How is ZFC and the Axiom of Infinity used in other areas of science?

ZFC and the Axiom of Infinity are used in many areas of science, particularly in fields that rely on mathematics such as physics, computer science, and economics. They provide a rigorous foundation for mathematical concepts and allow for the study of infinite sets, which are essential in many scientific theories and models.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top