Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: set builder notation
Replies: 12   Last Post: Aug 24, 2013 1:38 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Posts: 3,473 Registered: 12/4/04
Re: set builder notation
Posted: Aug 18, 2013 9:21 PM

In <g39v09h4tlqmni3hif6fn1n7g8ti39dp1a@4ax.com>, on 08/17/2013
at 11:30 AM, dullrich@sprynet.com said:

>(2) {x | x in A and P(x)}.

>No:

>No, because (2) is actually not a "legal"
>construction of a set!

It may not be legal in ZF, but it's perfectly legal in, e.g., NF. Of
course, in NF P(x) can't be arbitray, e.g., {x \in A| x \in x} is not
legal.

>(3) {x | Q(x)},
>and things of the form (3) are officially not allowed.

Again, that depends on the set theory that you're using. You can avoid
Russel's Paradox by imposing restrictions on Q(x).

> S = {x | x is not an element of x}.

In, e.g., NF, that's not a valid construction, although

S = {x | x = x} is..

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not

Date Subject Author
8/17/13 lite.on.beta@gmail.com
8/17/13 Graham Cooper
8/24/13 lite.on.beta@gmail.com
8/17/13 Peter Percival
8/17/13 LudovicoVan
8/17/13 David C. Ullrich
8/17/13 Peter Percival
8/18/13 David C. Ullrich
8/18/13 fom
8/18/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
8/18/13 fom
8/19/13 Graham Cooper
8/17/13 fom