Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: BACKGROUND THEORY
Replies: 1   Last Post: Dec 10, 2012 4:58 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Zaljohar@gmail.com

Posts: 2,665
Registered: 6/29/07
Re: BACKGROUND THEORY
Posted: Dec 10, 2012 4:58 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Dec 9, 11:18 am, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This topic comes as a continuation to thought presented in this Usenet
> in posts:
>
> what are sets? againhttps://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/a78c4e2...
>
> Attn: See the corrected form of this theory at the discussing thread
> of it.
>
> Background Theory.https://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/a79f12...
>
> Here I'll present a simple modification of background theory that
> widens its conceptual coverage.
>
> EXPOSTION OF BACKGROUND THEORY:
>
> Language: FOL (=,P,Rp,0)
> P is the binary relation "is part of"
> Rp is the binary relation "represents"
> 0 is a constant symbol.
>
> Background Theory is the collection of all sentences entailed (via
> rules of FOL(=,P,Rp.0)) by the following non logical axioms:
>
> Define: x PP y <-> x P y & ~ y P x
>
> ID axioms +
> I.  Part-hood: [forall z. z PP x -> z P y] <-> x P y
> ll. Anti-symmetry: x P y & y P x -> x=y
>
> Def.) atom(x) <-> ~ Exist y. y PP x
> Def.) x atom of y <-> atom(x) & x P y.
> Def.) c is a collection of atoms iff forall y P c (Exist z. z atom of
> y).
> Def.) g is atomless <-> ~ Exist x. x atom of g
>
> lll. Atomistic parts:
> [x is a collection of atoms & forall z. z atom of x -> z P y] -> x P
> y
>
> lV. Representation: x Rp c & y Rp d -> (x=y<->c=d)
>
> V. Composition: if phi is a formula in which y is free but x not,
> then:
>
> (Exist y. atom(y) & phi ->
> (Exist x. x is a collection of atoms &
>  forall y. y atom of x <-> atom(y) & phi))
>
> is an axiom.
>
> Define: x=[y|phi] <->
> [x is a collection of atoms & (forall y. y atom of x <-> atom(y) &
> phi)]
>
> For convenience writable finite collections of atoms shall be simply
> denoted by a string of those atoms embraced within solid brackets [],
> so [a] is the collection of atoms, that has one atom which is a, of
> course [a]=a; similarily [a,b] is the collection of atoms a and b.
>
> Vl. Null. atom(0) & ~Exist x. 0 Rp x.
>
> Define: x is descriptive <-> x=0 OR Exist y. x Rp y
> Define: x is a descriptive atom <-> atom(x) & x is descriptive.
> Define: x is a collection of descriptive atoms <->
> [forall y. y P c -> Exist z. z atom of y & z is descriptive].
>
> A set is defined as an atom that uniquely represents a collection of
> descriptive atoms or otherwise signify non representation.
>
> "signify" in the above definition refers to "witnessing" of absence of
> representation and that witness is some fixed non representing atom
> denoted by the primitive constant symbol 0.
>
> Define: Set(x) <->
> x=0 or [atom(x) & Exist y. y is a collection of descriptive atoms & x
> Rp y]
>
> Set membership is defined as being an atom of a collection of
> descriptive atoms that is represented by an atom.
>
> Define: x member of y <->
> Exist z. z is a collection of descriptive atoms & y Rp z & atom(y) & x
> atom of z
>
> The curly brackets shall be used to denote SETs, so {a,b,c,...} stands
> for the Set representing [a,b,c,...], also {x|phi} will stand for the
> Set representing [x|phi], { } stands for 0.
> /
>
> So for example the set {miami} is an atom that represent the atom
> "miami" which represent the real city MIAMI.
>
> The real city MIAMI can be viewed as some concrete collection of real
> atoms [m_1, m_2,...,m_n]; now miami is the atom representing MIAMI, so
> miami is a descriptive atom but it is not a set since what it is
> describing is not a collection of descriptive atoms, since the atoms
> that MIAMI is composed from are non descriptive objects. So miami is
> an Ur-element. However {miami} is a set since it is a descriptive atom
> representing the descriptive atom miami.
>
> So here with this approach Ur-elements can represent collections of
> physical atoms.
>
> Zuhair


A nice issue is the representation of parts.

Lets take an orange call it G. of course G is a collection of some
concrete physical atoms.

Now lets say that g is an atom that represents G.

So g is a descriptive atom. And since G is not a collection of
descriptive atoms, then g is an Ur-element.

Now take the orange G and cut it into two pieces G1,G2

Now take the collection of atoms of G1 and G2, this would be exactly G

But G1 and G2 is a different status from G, how can we describe this
difference.

This can be done if G1 and G2 have representative atoms g1, g2.

In this way the atom representing the collection [g1,g2] is a set of
course that reflects this splitting.

This gives some natural basis for the POWER set axiom.

Zuhair





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.