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.independent

Topic: Using classes instead of sets
Replies: 26   Last Post: Apr 1, 2013 8:04 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Herman Rubin

Posts: 344
Registered: 2/4/10
Re: Using classes instead of sets
Posted: Mar 28, 2013 2:54 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 2013-03-28, Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> wrote:
> pepstein5@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:45:34 PM UTC, Frederick Williams wrote:
>> ...


>> > Often one studies all groups, or all groups of a certain kind. Are

>> > those collections classes?
>> ...

>> They are always classes and sometimes sets. A class is more general than a set so any collection which is a set is also a class. If we define isomorphic groups as being equal (as everyone does), then the collection of finite groups is a countably infinite set and we can talk about "the set of finite groups".

>> However, the collection of groups is "too big" to be a set. Hence that collection is a class which is not a set. "Too big" because it contains a subcollection which corresponds to the class of all ordinals.

> If groups could have classes for the collection of their elements, and
> if we call such groups "Groups", then we couldn't call the collection of
> Groups a set or a class, could we? I do not know if set theorists study
> (what I shall call) superclasses, supersuperclasses, and so on; where a
> superclass is a collection of classes in some theory, and a
> supersuperclass is a collection of superclasses in that theory or some
> other.



The best my late wife and I were able to do in our book,
_Equivalents of the Axiom of Choice II_, was to use relations.
A rerlation is a class of ordered pairs, so if R is a relation,
{y: <x,y> \in R} can be considered the R-class whose indes is x.
This does give a way if looking at a class of classes, but it is
restrictive; one cannot get a larger index class than the universe,
which is the class of all sets in NBG, or the class of all elements
in NBGU. One cannot have the class of all classes as indices.


--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558



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.