Why Is $\{ x: \phi(x) \}$ a Set Given $Y$?

In summary: The theorem states that there is a set $Z$ which contains all elements of $Y$ which satisfy $\phi$. Since $Z$ already contains all elements of $Y$, and $\phi(x) \in Z$, we can conclude that $\phi(x) \in Z$.
  • #1
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
3,836
0
Hello! (Smile)

Theorem:

Let $\phi$ a type. We suppose that the set $Y$ exists, such that: $\forall x (\phi(x) \rightarrow x \in Y)$. Then there is the set $\{ x: \phi(x) \}$.

Proof:

From the Axiom schema of specification

("Let $\phi$ a type. For each set $A$, there is a set $B$, that consists of these elements of $A$, that satisfy the identity $\phi$, so:

$$ \exists B \forall x (x \in B \leftrightarrow x \in A \wedge \phi(x))$$

so: $B=\{ x: x \in A \wedge \phi(x) \}$ is a set."
)

there is the set $Z=\{ x \in Y: \phi(x) \}$

$$x \in Z \leftrightarrow (x \in Y \wedge \phi(x) ) \leftrightarrow \phi(x)$$

Therefore:

$$Z=\{ x: \phi(x) \}$$

and so, $\{x: \phi(x) \}$ is a set.Could you explain me the proof of the theorem? (Worried) (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Intuitively, one is not allowed to form the set of all objects $x$ satisfying $\phi(x)$. One is, however, allowed to pick such objects (i.e., those that satisfy $\phi$) from a previously constructed set $A$, and call the result a set. That is, if you ask the set-robot: "Collect everything satisfying $\phi$", it will answer: "Sorry, can't do. Too much work. The search scope is undefined". But if you say, "Collect everything satisfying $\phi$ from the set continuum to the power continuum", the robot will say, "Here you are".

In your proof, all sets satisfying $\phi$ are already in $Y$, so if you collect all elements of $Y$ satisfying $\phi$ (which is allowed by the axiom schema of specification), you'll get the set of all sets satisfying $\phi$ at all, whether in $Y$ or not.

For more help, please write the specific place in the proof you don't understand and what you think about it.
 
  • #3
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Intuitively, one is not allowed to form the set of all objects $x$ satisfying $\phi(x)$. One is, however, allowed to pick such objects (i.e., those that satisfy $\phi$) from a previously constructed set $A$, and call the result a set. That is, if you ask the set-robot: "Collect everything satisfying $\phi$", it will answer: "Sorry, can't do. Too much work. The search scope is undefined". But if you say, "Collect everything satisfying $\phi$ from the set continuum to the power continuum", the robot will say, "Here you are".

In your proof, all sets satisfying $\phi$ are already in $Y$, so if you collect all elements of $Y$ satisfying $\phi$ (which is allowed by the axiom schema of specification), you'll get the set of all sets satisfying $\phi$ at all, whether in $Y$ or not.

For more help, please write the specific place in the proof you don't understand and what you think about it.
Axiom schema of specification:
"Let $\phi$ a type. For each set $A$, there is a set $B$, that consists of these elements of $A$, that satisfy the identity $\phi$, so:

$$ \exists B \forall x (x \in B \leftrightarrow x \in A \wedge \phi(x))$$

so: $B=\{ x: x \in A \wedge \phi(x) \}$ is a set."

We know that $\exists Y$, such that $\forall x(\phi(x) \rightarrow x \in Y)$

From the above theorem, $\exists$ a set $B$, that contains these elements of $Y$, that satisfy $\phi$, so:

$\exists B \forall (x \in B \leftrightarrow x \in Y \wedge \phi(x))$

so: $B=\{ x: x \in Y \wedge \phi(x) \}$ is a set.

But, why will we get then the set of all sets satisfying $\phi$ at all, whether in $Y$ or not, although it is:

$$x \in Z \leftrightarrow (x \in Y \wedge \phi(x))$$

? (Thinking)
 

FAQ: Why Is $\{ x: \phi(x) \}$ a Set Given $Y$?

What is a proof of theorem?

A proof of theorem is a logical argument that shows the validity of a mathematical statement. It is a series of logical steps that demonstrate that the statement is true.

Why is it important to provide a proof for a theorem?

Providing a proof for a theorem is important because it allows others to understand and verify the validity of the statement. It also ensures that the statement is not simply a conjecture or assumption, but has been rigorously tested and proven to be true.

What are the key components of a proof of theorem?

The key components of a proof of theorem include the statement to be proven, known axioms and definitions, logical reasoning and deduction, and a conclusion that follows from the previous steps.

How is a proof of theorem different from a mathematical proof?

A proof of theorem is a specific type of mathematical proof that focuses on proving the validity of a mathematical statement or theorem. It is often more complex and rigorous than a general mathematical proof, which may be used to verify smaller, simpler statements.

Are there different types of proofs for theorems?

Yes, there are different types of proofs for theorems, including proof by contradiction, direct proof, proof by induction, and proof by construction. Each type of proof may be more suitable for certain types of theorems or mathematical statements.

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Back
Top