Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In the Fitch le Exercise 15.5, you are asked to give a formal proof of the main step in our proof
of Proposition 1. You should give a complete proof, without using any of the Con rules. (You
will nd the symbol on the Fitch toolbar if you scroll the predicates using the righthand
scroll button.)
15.6
Suppose that a
1
and a
2
are sets, each of which has only the Washington Monument as a
member. Prove (informally) that a
1
= a
2
.
15.9
Give an informal proof that there is only one empty set. (Hint: Use the Axiom of Extensionality.)
15.10
Give an informal proof that the set of even primes greater than 10 is equal to the set of even
primes greater than 100.
15.11
Give an informal proof of the following simple theorem: For every set a, a.
Chapter 15
Intersection and union / 415
15.12
In the le Exercise 15.12, you are asked to give a formal proof of Proposition 2 from the
denition of the subset relation. The proof is very easy, so you should not use any of the Con
rules. (You will nd the symbol if you scroll the predicate window in the Fitch toolbar.)
15.13
In the le Exercise 15.13, you are asked to give a formal proof of Proposition 3 from the Axiom
of Extensionality, the denition of subset, and Proposition 2. The proof is a bit more complex,
so you may use Taut Con if you like.
Section 15.3
Intersection and union
There are two important operations on sets that you have probably seen
before: intersection and union. These operations take two sets and form a
third.
Denition Let a and b be sets.
1. The intersection of a and b is the set whose members are just those intersection ()
objects in both a and b. This set is generally written a b. (a b is a
complex term built up using a binary function symbol placed in inx
notation.
2
) In symbols:
ab z(z a b (z a z b))
2. The union of a and b is the set whose members are just those objects in union ()
either a or b or both. This set is generally written a b. In symbols:
ab z(z a b (z a z b))
At rst sight, these denitions seem no more problematic than the deni-
tion of the subset relation. But if you think about it, you will see that there
is actually something a bit shy about them as they stand. For how do we
know that there are sets of the kind described? For example, even if we know
that a and b are sets, how do we know that there is a set whose members
are the objects in both a and b? And how do we know that there is exactly
one such set? Remember the rules of the road. We have to prove everything
from explicitly given axioms. Can we prove, based on our axioms, that there
is such a unique set?
2
Function symbols are discussed in the optional Section 1.5. You should read this section
now if you skipped over it.
Section 15.3
416 / First-order Set Theory
It turns out that we can, at least with the naive axioms. But later, we
will have to modify the Axiom of Comprehension to avoid inconsistencies.
The modied form of this axiom will allow us to justify only one of these two
operations. To justify the union operation, we will need a new axiom. But we
will get to that in good time.
Proposition 4. (Intersection) For any pair of sets a and b there is one and existence and
uniqueness of a b
only one set c whose members are the objects in both a and b. In symbols:
a b !c x(x c (x a x b))
This proposition is actually just an instance of Proposition 1 on page 409.
Look back at the formula displayed for that proposition, and consider the
special case where z
1
is a, z
2
is b, and P(x) is the w x a x b. So
Proposition 4 is really just a corollary (that is, an immediate consequence) of
Proposition 1.
We can make this same point using our brace notation. Proposition 1
guarantees a unique set x [ P(x) for any formula P(x), and we are simply
noting that the intersection of sets a and b is the set c = x [ x a x b.
Proposition 5. (Union) For any pair of sets a and b there is one and only existence and
uniqueness of a b
one set c whose members are the objects in either a or b or both. In symbols:
a b !c x(x c (x a x b))
Again, this is a corollary of Proposition 1, since c = x [ x a x b.
This set clearly has the desired members.
Here are several theorems we can prove using the above denitions and
results.
Proposition 6. Let a, b, and c be any sets.
1. a b = b a
2. a b = b a
3. a b = b if and only if b a
4. a b = b if and only if a b
5. a (b c) = (a b) (a c)
6. a (b c) = (a b) (a c)
We prove two of these and leave the rest as problems.
Chapter 15
Intersection and union / 417
Proof of 1: This follows quite easily from the denition of intersec-
tion and the Axiom of Extensionality. To show that ab = b a, we
need only show that a b and b a have the same members. By the
denition of intersection, the members of a b are the things that
are in both a and b, whereas the members of ba are the things that
are in both b and a. These are clearly the same things. We will look
at a formal proof of this in the next You try it section.
Proof of 3: Since (3) is the most interesting, we prove it. Let a and
b be arbitrary sets. We need to prove a b = b i b a. To prove
this, we give two conditional proofs. First, assume ab = b. We need
to prove that b a. But this means x(x b x a), so we will
use the method of general conditional proof. Let x be an arbitrary
member of b. We need to show that x a. But since b = ab, we see
that x a b. Thus x a x b by the denition of intersection.
Then it follows, of course, that x a, as desired.
Now lets prove the other half of the biconditional. Thus, assume that
b a and let us prove that a b = b. By Proposition 3, it suces to
prove a b b and b a b. The rst of these is easy, and does not
even use our assumption. So lets prove the second, that b a b.
That is, we must prove that x(x b x (a b)). This is proven
by general conditional proof. Thus, let x be an arbitrary member of
b. We need to prove that x a b. But by our assumption, b a,
so x a. Hence, x a b, as desired.
You try it
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Specify the rules and support steps for each step except the next to last
(i.e., step 22). The heart of the proof is really the steps in which c ac b
is commuted to c b c a, and vice versa.
Section 15.3
418 / First-order Set Theory
4. When you have a completed proof specifying all rules and supports, save
it as Proof Intersection 1.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Congratulations
The following reminder shows us that is the set-theoretic counterpart of
while is the counterpart of .
Remember
Let b and c be sets.
1. x b c if and only if x b x c
2. x b c if and only if x b x c
Exercises
15.14
If you skipped the You try it section, go back and do it now. Submit the le Proof Intersection 1.
15.15
Give an informal proof that for every set a there is a unique set c such that for all x, x c
i x , a. This set c is called the absolute complement of a, and is denoted by a. (This result
will not follow from the axioms we eventually adopt. In fact, it will follow that no set has
an absolute complement.) If you were to formalize this proof, what instance of the Axiom of
Comprehension would you need? Write it out explicitly.
Section 15.4
Sets of sets
The Axiom of Comprehension applies quite generally. In particular, it allows
us to form sets of sets. For example, suppose we form the sets 0 and 0, 1.
These sets can themselves be collected together into a set a = 0, 0, 1.
More generally, we can prove the following:
Proposition 7. (Unordered Pairs) For any objects x and y there is a (unique)
set a = x, y. In symbols: unordered pairs
x y !a w(w a (w = x w = y))
Proof: Let x and y be arbitrary objects, and let
a = w [ w = x w = y
The existence of a is guaranteed by Comprehension, and its unique-
ness follows from the Axiom of Extensionality. Clearly a has x and
y and nothing else as elements.
It is worth noting that our previous observation about the existence of
singletons, which we did not prove then, follows from this result. Thus:
Section 15.4
420 / First-order Set Theory
Proposition 8. (Singletons) For any object x there is a singleton set x. singleton sets
Proof: To prove this, apply the previous proposition in the case
where x = y.
In order for set theory to be a useful framework for modeling structures of
various sorts, it is important to nd a way to represent order. For example, in modeling order
high school you learned about the representation of lines and curves as sets of
ordered pairs of real numbers. A circle of radius one, centered at the origin,
is represented as the following set of ordered pairs:
x, y) [ x
2
+y
2
= 1
But sets themselves are unordered. For example 1, 0 = 0, 1 by Extension-
ality. So how are we to represent ordered pairs and other ordered objects?
What we need is some way of modeling ordered pairs that allows us to
prove the following:
x, y) = u, v) (x = u y = v)
If we can prove that this holds of our representation of ordered pairs, then we
know that the representation allows us to determine which is the rst element
of the ordered pair and which is the second.
It turns out that there are many ways to do this. The simplest and most
widely used is to model the ordered pair x, y) by means of the unlikely set
x, x, y.
Denition For any objects x and y, we take the ordered pair x, y) to be the ordered pair
set x, x, y. In symbols:
xy x, y) = x, x, y
Later, we will ask you to prove that the fundamental property of ordered
pairs displayed above holds when we represent them this way. Here we simply
point out that the set x, x, y exists and is unique, using the previous
two results.
Once we have gured out how to represent ordered pairs, the way is open
for us to represent ordered triples, quadruples, etc. For example, we will repre-
sent the ordered triple x, y, z) as x, y, z)). More generally, we will represent ordered n-tuples
ordered n-tuples as x
1
, x
2
, . . . x
n
)).
By the way, as with brace notation for sets, the ordered pair notation
x, y) is not part of the ocial language of set theory. It can be eliminated
from formulas without diculty, though the formulas get rather long.
Chapter 15
Sets of sets / 421
Exercises
15.23
Using the previous two propositions, let a = 2, 3 and let b = a. How many members does
a have? How many members does b have? Does a = b? That is, is 2, 3 = 2, 3?
15.24
Apply the Unordered Pair theorem to x = y = . What set is obtained? Call this set c. Now
apply the theorem to x = , y = c. Do you obtain the same set or a dierent set?
15.26
This exercise and the one to follow lead you through the basic properties of ordered pairs.
1. How many members does the set x, x, y contain if x ,= y? How many if x = y?
2. Recall that we dened x, y) = x, x, y. How do we know that for any x and y
there is a unique set x, y)?
3. Give an informal proof that the easy half of the fundamental property of ordered pairs
holds with this denition:
(x = u y = v) x, y) = u, v)
4. () Finally, prove the harder half of the fundamental property:
x, y) = u, v) (x = u y = v)
[Hint: Break into two cases, depending on whether or not x = y.]
15.27
Building on Problem 15.26, prove that for any two sets a and b, there is a set of all ordered
pairs x, y) such that x a and y b. This set is called the Cartesian Product of a and b, and
is denoted by a b.
15.28
Suppose that a has three elements and b has ve. What can you say about the size of a b,
a b, and a b? (a b is dened in Exercise 15.27.) [Hint: in some of these cases, all you can
do is give upper and lower bounds on the size of the resulting set. In other words, youll have
to say the set contains at least such and such members and at most so and so.]
Section 15.4
422 / First-order Set Theory
Section 15.5
Modeling relations in set theory
Intuitively, a binary predicate like Larger expresses a binary relation between
objects in a domain D. In set theory, we model this relation by means of a
set of ordered pairs, specically the set
x, y) [ x D, y D, and x is larger than y
This set is sometimes called the extension of the predicate or relation. More extension
generally, given some set D, we call any set of pairs x, y), where x and y are
in D, a binary relation on D. We model ternary relations similarly, as sets of relation in set theory
ordered triples, and so forth for higher arities.
It is important to remember that the extension of a predicate can depend
on the circumstances that hold in the domain of discourse. For example, if we
rotate a world 90 degrees clockwise in Tarskis World, the domain of objects
remains unchanged but the extension of left of becomes the new extension of
back of. Similarly, if someone in the domain of discourse sits down, then the ex-
tension of is sitting changes. The binary predicates themselves do not change,
nor does what they express, but the things that stand in these relations do,
that is, their extensions change.
There are a few special kinds of binary relations that it is useful to have properties of relations
names for. In fact, we have already talked about some of these informally in
Chapter 2. A relation R is said to be transitive if it satises the following:
Transitivity: xyz[(R(x, y) R(y, z)) R(x, z)]
As examples, we mention that the relation larger than is transitive, whereas
the relation adjoins is not. Since we are modeling relations by sets of ordered
pairs, this condition becomes the following condition on a set R of ordered
pairs: if x, y) R and y, z) R then x, z) R.
Here are several more special properties of binary relations:
Reexivity: x R(x, x)
Irreexivity: x R(x, x)
Symmetry: xy(R(x, y) R(y, x))
Asymmetry: xy(R(x, y) R(y, x))
Antisymmetry: xy[(R(x, y) R(y, x)) x = y]
Each of these conditions can be expressed as conditions on the extension of
the relation. The rst, for example, says that for every x D, x, x) R.
Chapter 15
Modeling relations in set theory / 423
To check whether you understand these properties, see if you agree with
the following claims: The larger than relation is irreexive and asymmetric.
The adjoins relation is irreexive but symmetric. The relation of being the
same shape as is reexive, symmetric, and transitive. The relation of on
natural numbers is reexive, antisymmetric, and transitive.
These properties of relations are intimately connected with the logic of
atomic sentences discussed in Chapter 2. For example, to say that the follow-
ing argument is valid is equivalent to saying that the predicate in question
(Larger, for example) has a transitive extension under all logically possible
circumstances. In that case the following inference scheme is valid: inference scheme
R(a, b)
R(b, c)
R(a, c)
Similarly, to say of some binary predicate R that
x R(x, x)
is logically true is to say that the extension of R is reexive in all logically
possible circumstances. Identity is an example of this.
In connection with the logic of atomic sentences, lets look at two partic-
ularly important topics, inverse relations and equivalence relations, in a bit
more detail.
Inverse relations
In our discussion of the logic of atomic sentences in Section 2.2, we noted that
some of the logical relations between atomic sentences stem from the fact that
one relation is the inverse of another (page 52). Examples were right of and
left of, larger and smaller, and less than and greater than. We can now see
what being inverses of one another says about the extensions of such pairs of
predicates.
Given any set-theoretic binary relation R on a set D, the inverse (some- inverse or converse
times called the converse) of that relation is the relation R
1
dened by
R
1
= x, y) [ y, x) R
Thus, for example, the extension of smaller in some domain is always the
inverse of the extension of larger. In an exercise, we ask you to prove some
simple properties of inverse relations, including one showing that if S is the
inverse of R, then R is the inverse of S.
Section 15.5
424 / First-order Set Theory
Equivalence relations and equivalence classes
Many relations have the properties of reexivity, symmetry, and transitivity.
We have seen one example: being the same shape as. Such relations are called
equivalence relations, since they each express some kind of equivalence among equivalence relations
objects. Some other equivalence relations expressible in the blocks language
include being the same size as, being in the same row as, and being in the same
column as. Other equivalence relations include has the same birthday as, has
the same parents as, and wears the same size shoes as. The identity relation
is also an equivalence relation, even though it never classies distinct objects
as equivalent, the way others do.
As these examples illustrate, equivalence relations group together objects
that are the same in some dimension or other. This fact makes it natural to
talk about the collections of objects that are the same as one another along the
given dimension. For example, if we are talking about the same size relation,
say among shirts in a store, we can talk about all the shirts of a particular size,
say small, medium, and large, and even group them onto three appropriate
racks.
We can model this grouping process very nicely in set theory with an im-
portant construction known as equivalence classes. This construction is widely
used in mathematics and will be needed in our proof of the Completeness The-
orem for the formal proof system T.
Given any equivalence relation R on a set D, we can group together the
objects that are deemed equivalent by means of R. Specically, for each x D,
let [x]
R
be the set
y D [ x, y) R
In words, [x]
R
is the set of things equivalent to x with respect to the relation
R. It is called the equivalence class of x. (If x is a small shirt, then think equivalence classes
of [x]
SameSize
as the stores small rack.) The fact that this grouping opera-
tion behaves the way we would hope and expect is captured by the following
proposition. (We typically omit writing the subscript R from [x]
R
when it is
clear from context, as in the following proposition.)
Proposition 9. Let R be an equivalence relation on a set D.
1. For each x, x [x].
2. For all x, y, [x] = [y] if and only if x, y) R.
3. For all x, y, [x] = [y] if and only if [x] [y] ,= .
Proof: (1) follows from the fact that R is reexive on D. (2) is more
substantive. Suppose that [x] = [y]. By (1), y [y], so y [x]. But
Chapter 15
Modeling relations in set theory / 425
then by the denition of [x], x, y) R. For the converse, suppose
that x, y) R. We need to show that [x] = [y]. To do this, it suces
to prove that [x] [y] and [y] [x]. We prove the rst, the second
being entirely similar. Let z [x]. We need to show that z [y]. Since
z [x], x, z) R. From the fact that x, y) R, using symmetry,
we obtain y, x) R. By transitivity, from y, x) R and x, z) R
we obtain y, z) R. But then z [y], as desired. The proof of (3)
is similar and is left as an exercise.
Exercises
15.29
Open the Fitch le Exercise 15.29. This le contains as goals the sentences expressing that the
same shape relation is reexive, symmetric, and transitive (and hence an equivalence relation).
You can check that each of these sentences can be proven outright with a single application
of Ana Con. However, in this exercise we ask you to prove this applying Ana Con only to
atomic sentences. Thus, the exercise is to show how these sentences follow from the meaning
of the basic predicate, using just the quantier rules and propositional logic.
For the next six exercises, we dene relations R and S so that R(a, b) holds if either a or b is a
tetrahedron, and a is in the same row as b, whereas S(a, b) holds if both a and b are tetrahedra, and in
the same row. The exercises ask you to decide whether R or S has various of the properties we have been
studying. If it does, open the appropriate Fitch exercise le and submit a proof. If it does not, submit
a world that provides a counterexample. Thus, for example, when we ask whether R is reexive, you
should create a world in which there is an object that does not bear R to itself, since R is not in fact
reexive. In cases where you give a proof, you may use Ana Con applied to literals.
15.30
Is R reexive? 15.31
Is R symmetric? 15.32
Is R transitive?
15.33
Is S reexive? 15.34
Is S symmetric? 15.35
Is S transitive?
15.36
Fill in the following table, putting yes or no to indicate whether the relation expressed by the
predicate at the top of the column has the property indicated at the left.
Smaller SameCol Adjoins LeftOf
Transitive
Reexive
Irreexive
Symmetric
Asymmetric
Antisymmetric
Section 15.5
426 / First-order Set Theory
15.37
Use Tarskis World to open the le Venns World. Write out the extension of the same column
relation in this world. (It contains eight ordered pairs.) Then write out the extension of the
between relation in this world. (This will be a set of ordered triples.) Finally, what is the
extension of the adjoins relation in this world? Turn in your answers.
15.38
Describe a valid inference scheme (similar to the one displayed on page 423) that goes with
each of the following properties of binary relations: symmetry, antisymmetry, asymmetry, and
irreexivity.
15.39
What are the inverses of the following binary relations: older than, as tall as, sibling of, father
of, and ancestor of ?
15.40
Give informal proofs of the following simple facts about inverse relations.
1. R is symmetric i R = R
1
.
2. For any relation R, (R
1
)
1
= R.
15.41
Use Tarskis World to open the le Venns World. Write out equivalence classes that go with
each of the following equivalence relations: same shape, same size, same row, and identity.
You can write the equivalence classes using list notation. For example, one of the same shape
equivalence classes is a, e.
15.42
(Partitions and equivalence relations) Let D be some set and let T be some set of non-empty
subsets of D with the property that every element of D is in exactly one member of T. Such a
set is said to be a partition of D. Dene a relation E on D by: a, b) E i there is an X T
such that a X and b X. Show that E is an equivalence relation and that T is the set of its
equivalence classes.
15.44
If a and b are subsets of D, then the Cartesian product (dened in Exercise 15.27) a b is a
binary relation on D. Which of the properties of relations discussed in this section does this
relation have? (As an example, you will discover that ab is irreexive if and only if ab = .)
Your answer should show that in the case where a = b = D, a b is an equivalence relation.
How many equivalence classes does it have?
15.45
Use Tarskis World to open the le Venns World. List the ordered pairs in the frontmost (fm)
function described in Section 1.5 (page 33). Is the function total or partial? What is its range?
15.47
Which of the following sets represent functions on the set D = 1, 2, 3, 4? For those which are
functions, pick out their domain and range.
1. 1, 3), 2, 4), 3, 3)
2. 1, 2), 2, 3), 3, 4), 4, 1)
3. 1, 2), 1, 3), 3, 4), 4, 1)
4. 1, 1), 2, 2), 3, 3), 4, 4)
5.
15.48
What is the domain and range of the square root function on the set N = 0, 1, 2, . . . of all
natural numbers?
15.49
Open the Fitch le Exercise 15.49. The premise here denes R to be the frontmost relation.
The goal of the exercise is to prove that this relation is functional. You may use Taut Con as
well as Ana Con applied to literals.
A function f is said to be injective or one-to-one if it always assigns dierent values to dierent objects
in its domain. In symbols, if f(x) = f(y) then x = y for all x, y in the domain of f.
15.50
Which of the following functions are one-to-one: father of, student id number of, frontmost, and
ngerprint of ? (You may need to decide just what the domain of the function should be before
deciding whether the function is injective. For frontmost, take the domain to be Venns World.)
Chapter 15
The powerset of a set / 429
15.51
Let f(x) = 2x for any natural number x. What is the domain of this function? What is its
range? Is the function one-to-one?
15.52
Let f(x) = x
2
for any natural number x. What is the domain of this function? What is its
range? Is the function one-to-one? How does your answer change if we take the domain to
consist of all the integers, both positive and negative?
15.53
Let E be an equivalence relation on a set D. Consider the relation R that holds between any
x in D and its equivalence class [x]
E
. Is this a function? If so, what is its domain? What is its
range? Under what conditions is it an one-to-one function?
Section 15.7
The powerset of a set
Once we get used to the idea that sets can be members of other sets, it is
natural to form the set of all subsets of any given set b. The following theorem,
which is easy to prove, shows that there is one and only one such set. This
set is called the powerset of b and denoted b or (b). powersets ()
Proposition 10. (Powersets) For any set b there is a unique set whose mem-
bers are just the subsets of b. In symbols:
b c x(x c x b)
Proof: By the Axiom of Comprehension, we may form the set c =
x [ x b. This is the desired set. By the Axiom of Extensionality,
there can be only one such set.
By way of example, let us form the powerset of the set b = 2, 3. Thus,
we need a set whose members are all the subsets of b. There are four of these.
The most obvious two are the singletons 2 and 3. The other two are the
empty set, which is a subset of every set, as we saw in Problem 15.11, and the
set b itself, since every set is a subset of itself. Thus:
b = , 2, 3, 2, 3
Here are some facts about the powerset operation. We will ask you to prove
them in the problems.
Proposition 11. Let a and b be any sets.
1. b b
Section 15.7
430 / First-order Set Theory
2. b
3. a b i a b
It is possible for a set to have some of its own subsets as elements. For
example, any set that has the empty set as an element has a subset as an
element, since the empty set is a subset of every set. To take another example,
the set
Washington Monument
is both a subset and an element of the set
Washington Monument, Washington Monument
However, it turns out that no set can have all of its subsets as elements.
Proposition 12. For any set b, it is not the case that b b.
Proof: Let b be any set. We want to prove that b , b. To prove
this, we construct a particular subset of b that is not an element of
b. Let
c = x [ x b x , x
by the Axiom of Comprehension. This set c is clearly a subset of b
since it was dened to consist of those members of b satisfying some
additional condition. It follows from the denition of the powerset
operation that c is an element of b. We will show that c , b.
Toward a proof by contradiction, suppose that c b. Then either
c c or c , c. But which? It is not hard to see that neither can
be the case. First, suppose that c c. Then by our denition of
c, c is one of those members of b that is left out of c. So c , c.
Next consider the possibility that c , c. But then c is one of those
members of b that satises the dening condition for c. Thus c c.
Thus we have proven that c c c , c, which is a contradiction.
So our assumption that c b must be false, so b , b .
This theorem applies to both nite and innite sets. The proof shows how
to take any set b and nd a set c which is a subset of b but not a member of b,
namely the set c = x [ x b and x , x. This is sometimes called the Russell
set for b, after Bertrand Russell. So what we have proved in the preceding can Russell set for b
be restated as:
Chapter 15
The powerset of a set / 431
Proposition 13. For any set b, the Russell set for b, the set
x [ x b x , x,
is a subset of b but not a member of b.
This result is, as we will see, a very important result, one that immediately
implies Proposition 12.
Lets compute the Russell set for a few sets. If b = 0, 1, then the Russell
set for b is just b itself. If b = 0, 0, 0, . . . then the Russell set for b is just
0 since b b. Finally, if b = Washington Monument, then the Russell set
for b is just b itself.
Remember
The powerset of a set b is the set of all its subsets:
b = a [ a b
Exercises
15.54
Compute 2, 3, 4, 5.
15.56
Compute 2. 15.57
Compute .
15.58
Compute 2, 3. 15.59
Here are a number of conjectures you might make. Some are true, but some are false. Prove
the true ones, and nd examples to show that the others are false.
1. For any set b, b.
2. For any set b, b b.
3. For any sets a and b, (a b) = a b.
4. For any sets a and b, (a b) = a b.
15.61
Use the Axioms of Separation and Extensionality to prove that if any set exists, then the empty
set exists.
Section 15.9
440 / First-order Set Theory
15.64
Try to derive the existence of the absolute Russell set from the Axiom of Separation. Where
does the proof break down?
15.65
Verify our claim that all of Propositions 213 are provable using the axioms of zfc. (Some of
the proofs are trivial in that the theorems were thrown in as axioms. Others are not trivial.)
15.66
(Cantors Theorem) Show that for any set b whatsoever, [ b[ , = [ b[ . [Hint: Suppose that f is
a function mapping b one-to-one into b and then modify the proof of Proposition 12.]
15.67
Prove that the Axiom of Separation and Extensionality are consistent. That is, nd a universe
of discourse in which both are clearly true. [Hint: consider the domain whose only element is
the empty set.]
15.69
Show that the theorem about the existence of ab can be proven using the Axiom of Separation,
but that the theorem about the existence of ab cannot be so proven. [Come up with a domain
of sets in which the separation axiom is true but the theorem in question is false.]
15.70
(The Union Axiom and ) Exercise 15.69 shows us that we cannot prove the existence of a b
from the Axiom of Separation. However, the Union Axiom of zfc is stronger than this. It says
not just that a b exists, but that the union of any set of sets exists.
1. Show how to prove the existence of a b from the Union Axiom. What other axioms
of zfc do you need to use?
2. Apply the Union Axiom to show that there is no set of all singletons. [Hint: Use proof
by contradiction and the fact that there is no universal set.]
15.71
Prove in zfc that for any two sets a and b, the Cartesian product a b exists. The proof you
gave in an earlier exercise will probably not work here, but the result is provable.
15.72
Assume the Axiom of Regularity. Show that no set is a member of itself. Conclude that, if we
assume Regularity, then for any set b, the Russell set for b is simply b itself.
Chapter 15
Zermelo Frankel set theory zfc / 441
15.74