If is a set and is an open sentence for the elements of , then the collection of all elements that satisfy is a set, too.
Proposition (Empty Set)
There is a set that contains no elements.
Proof (by construction)
By A1, we know a set exists. We also know that the open sentence is false for all objects.
By A3, the collection of all elements that satisfy is a set also. Since is false , has no elements.
Definition (Empty Set)
We call the set having no elements the empty set. Denoted as .
Definition ()
A set whose elements are sets too is called a family of sets.
Proposition (Intersection)
Let be a non-empty family of sets. Then there is a set so that an object iff we have that .
Proof (by construction)
Let be a family of sets. , is an open sentence for the elements of . Let be an arbitrary set in . By the axiom of specification, is a set and it contains the elements that are in every set .
Definition (Intersection)
Let be a family of sets. The set of elements so that is called the intersection of and is denoted .
If and are sets, their intersection is written .
Proposition
Let be a family of sets and . Then .
Definition (disjoint)
Let be a family of sets. If , then the family of sets is called disjoint.
Example
Let where , ,
Proposition
Let and be sets. Then there is a set that contains all elements of that are not in .
Proof (by construction)
Let and be sets. Let be an open sentence for the elements of . Then the set of elements of that are not in exists and is .
Definition (Relative Compliment)
Let and be sets. Then we call the relative compliment, or compliment of in , the set .
For every set , there exists a set called the "power set" of whose elements are all subsets of .
Example
Let
Let
If , then
Theorem
Let and be sets with one or two elements ( can be equal to ). Then holds iff and .
Proof
() Suppose and . Then .
() Suppose . By the axiom of extension, they have exactly the same elements. Then we have two disjoint cases.
. By the axiom of extension, . This implies Thus, , i.e. .
. Then, . Then, . Since and , we have . , therefore . Thus, .
Definition (Ordered Pair)
Let and be sets with . Then the ordered pair
Definition (Cartesian Product)
Let , be sets. The Cartesian product is defined as
Definition
A subset is also called a relation from to .
Example
notation
If an element, say , we write . If an element, say , we write . We also write the relation as .
Definition (Domain, Range)
Let be a relation.
Domain: Range:
Example
let
Example
Let be . This is a relation.
If , then , i.e.
Definition
Let and be sets and be a relation from to . Then is a function iff the following hold:
is well defined. we have that if , then .
is totally defined.
Functions are also called mappings.
We also write if .
Definition
Let , be sets and be a function.
is injective iff
is surjective iff
If a function is both injective AND surjective, then it is called bijective.
Proposition
Let , be sets. Let be a function. Then is injective iff we have that .
Example
Let (we'll pretend exists)
Prove it is injective:
Let :
Definition
Let , , be sets and be functions. The composition is defined:
Example
Definition (Identity Function)
Let be a set is called the identity function on .
Example
Let and be functions. Find and .
Exercise
Definition (inverse)
let , be sets and let be a function. The function is called the inverse of iff and .
Example
let let
Example
let let
Definition
Two sets , are equivalent iff a bijective function .
Theorem
If is a set, then is not equivalent to
Proof
SFAC, a bijective function .
-- This is the set of elements that are mapped to a subset of for which is not a member.
By the axiom of specification, is a set and . Then, . Since is surjective, . If , then , thus , but then . Contradiction.
Thus, no bijection exists and the sets are not equivalent.
Definition (Indexed Family of Subsets)
let be a set. An indexed family of subsets of is denoted where it is understood that there is a function from to that maps each to . If is an indexed family of sets, the union is and the intersection
There is a set that contains and an element and for each the set also.
=> =>
let and , let
Definition (successor set)
We call a successor set iff , , and
is a successor set
The Peano Axioms
There is a set, denoted called the natural numbers, such that:
a special element,
, called the successor of .
is not the successor of any element .
Principle of Induction: If is such that and , we have , then .
, if , then
Notice: All successor sets are subsets of every successor set . By the axiom of specification, a subset whose elements are all the successor sets. Let
Proof
We need to prove . Every successor set contains as an element, thus .
Now, we need to prove , . Let be ABF. Since, , , thus . By definition of successor sets, , thus .
We need to show that is not the successor of any element of . SFAC that for some . Then, . BUt we defined, . Then . But we defined so that the . Contradiction. Thus, is not a successor.
We must prove that and and , then . Let be ABF subset of so that and . We will prove by mutual containment. Clearly, . We defined , thus . Therefore, .
Se must prove with , we have . First, we prove , every element of is a subset of . Let . This is equivalent to . Trivially, . Let . To prove , recall that . Hence, if , then . Thus, or . If , since , and . If , because , . Thus, and by Principle of Induction, if , . Now, let . Then, . SFAC that . Then . Which implies , but then and . Contradiction. Therefore, if , then .