The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   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
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In <>, on 08/17/2013
at 11:30 AM, said:

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


>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

>(3) {x | Q(x)},
>and things of the form (3) are officially not allowed.
>Not allowed because they lead to contradictions:

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 <>

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
reply to

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.