School Work

Ordered Pairs Proof

Description
Nice proof of ordered pairs with some background and description
Categories
Published
of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  5307: on ordered pairs Phil  5307  |  Fall 2008  |  notes [3Sep-08] The aim of this handout is to go through a proof of Kuratowski’s approach to ordered pairs. The hope is thatthe exercise may serve to ‘firm up’ some basic set-theoretic ideas and some basic proof methods. (Note that theimportance is not so much the result as the practice at doing some set-theoretic proofs.) 1 The desire for order  Our account of sets treats membership as the sole criterion of identity: if   X   and  Y   are sets, then they’re the  same set   iff they have the same members. Hence, the set containing Jc’s cats is the same entity as the set containingMax and Agnes, which is the same entity as the set containing Agnes and Max.Sometimes, we want to talk of   ordered sets  , entities whose identity relies not just on membership but also order  . In particular, we sometimes want to talk about the set containing Max and Agnes  in that order  , whichis different from the set containing Max and Agnes. (If you remember your high school geometry, think aboutCartesian coordinates, where (1 , 2) is supposed to be different from (2 , 1). Clearly, (1 , 2) cannot be  { 1 , 2 }  if, as issupposed in Cartesian geometry, the order doesn’t matter.) 2 What we want: ordered pairs  What we want are entities wherein, like sets, membership is essential to identity but, unlike sets, it isn’t enough;we also demand that  order of entities   matter. What we want are ‘pair-ish’ entities, say   x,y   that are identifiednot only by their members (viz.,  x  and  y ) but also the order of these elements. More specifically, we want thefollowing condition met by our identities.O.   b,c   =   d,e   iff   b  =  d  and  c  =  e .Clearly,   b,c   =  { b,c } . (Why?) The question is what to do. 3 One option  One option is to posit a new kind of entity called  ordered sets   (or whatever). The idea, in short, is to say thatin addition to our  sets   – which are one kind of entity – we expand our ontology to recognize a different sort of entity called  ordered sets  . This expands our ontology since the latter sort of entity has different – non-equivalent– identity conditions. 4 Kuratowski option  Kuratowski showed that we could leave our ontology as it was, just recognizing our sets. More clearly, he showedthat if Def 1 is what we require of ‘ordered sets’, then there are already sets that do the trick. In particular, hesuggested the following definition of ordered pairs. Definition 1   x,y   = df   {{ x } , { x,y }} 1  5307 [MMVL]: intro sets   2 5 D1 does the trick: proof of O  We can prove that D1 does what we want by proving that   x,y  , so defined, satisfies O. Here is a proof (brokenup into parts as an aid). 5.1 Proof: D1 entities satisfy O  What we want to prove is {{ b } , { b,d }}  =  {{ c } , { c,e }}  iff   b  =  c  and  d  =  e Since this is a biconditional, we break it into two directions (the two component conditionals). 5.1.1 RLD  Assume, for conditional proof, that  b  =  c  and  d  =  e . We need to show that  {{ b } , { b,d }}  =  {{ c } , { c,e }} . But thisfollows immediately from our assumption and laws (substitution) of identity. 5.1.2 LRD  For conditional proof, we assume that  {{ b } , { b,d }}  =  {{ c } , { c,e }} , and need to show that  b  =  c  and  d  =  e . By thecriterion of identity for sets (viz., Extensionality),  {{ b } , { b,d }}  =  {{ c } , { c,e }}  iff the sets have the same members.Now,  {{ b } , { b,d }}  =  {{ c } , { c,e }}  have the same members iff either C1 holds or C2 holds.C1.  { b }  =  { c }  and  { b,d }  =  { c,e } .C2.  { b }  =  { c,e }  and  { b,d }  =  { c } .What we need to show is that the consequent of the LRD (viz., that  b  =  c  and  d  =  e ) holds in each case. Theseare taken in turn. In what follows, ‘Ext’ abbreviates ‘Extensionality’. ã  Case C1.  By Ext,  { b }  =  { c }  iff   b  =  c . Hence, by Ext,  { b,d }  =  { c,e }  only if   d  =  e . Hence, if C1 holds then b  =  c  and  d  =  e . ã  By Ext, if   { b }  =  { c,e }  then  b  =  c  =  e , and if   { b,d }  =  { c }  then  b  =  d  =  c . But, then, by transitivity of identity, 1 d  =  e . Hence, if C2 holds, then  b  =  c  and  d  =  e . 6 Generalizing... The generalization, roughly put, takes ordered  n -tuples (for  n  ≥  2) to be ordered pairs along the following pattern. ã  triples:   x,y,z   =   x,  y,z ã  quadruples:   w,x,y,z   =   w,  x,y,z ã  etcIt may be useful, as an exercise, to ‘cash out’ triples into primitive notation – and then show that they satisfy theD1 principle. (Consider this to be extra homework, though this needn’t be done before class on 3 September.) 1 Transitivity of Identity has it that if   x  =  y  and  y  =  z  then  x  =  z  for all  x,y,z .
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks