Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree1Thanks
  • 1 Post By SlipEternal

Math Help - x and y cannot occur simultaneously

  1. #1
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    98

    x and y cannot occur simultaneously

    Can you show in general xϵy and x=y cannot occur simultaneously, ‘ϵ’ arbitary except that it is not ‘=’?

    You certainly can for sets (xϵx).
    You certainly can for order (x<x).

    EDIT: I'm tempted to say, given x*y and x=y for some x, x*x is only possible if '*' is the same as '='.

    Any takers?
    Last edited by Hartlw; September 28th 2013 at 09:52 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Super Member
    Joined
    Oct 2012
    From
    Ireland
    Posts
    585
    Thanks
    155

    Re: xϵy

    Does ϵ mean Relation? In the course I did involving relations we used a funny shaped R.
    I don't understand your proof for sets and order. The sets one looks like an example where xϵy and x=y CAN occur simultaneously. And I'm not sure if the ϵ in the sets example is meant to still be the arbitrary symbol or if it is meant to mean subset, if it is the arbitrary symbol then you really didn't show anything.
    Your example for order is only one example of many possibilities for what ϵ could be. What if ϵ is "Less than or equal to" then x<=y and x=y can occur simultaneously.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    98

    Re: xϵy

    If xϵy means set membership, then you get xϵx (x is a member of the set x) which gives x={A,x} -> x={A,{A,x} -> x = {A,{A,{A,{A,x}}} ->.....ie, undefined. xϵx (Set of all Sets, SϵS) leads to Russels (and Cantors) paradox. Since there is no such thing as xϵx there is no such thing as the paradox (ok, my opinion).

    I just chose < as another example to show you can't have < and = at the same time. In other words x<x is impossible.

    Since you bring up relationship, then I have to ask, what if xRy. If xRx for some x, do I have to conclude 'R' is the same as '='? If R is <or= then I certainly can have xRx. But that's not quite the same (?) because it's a combination of relationships. Sureley if 'R' is '<' 1 can't have xRx.

    Off-hand it looks like whether or not I can have xRx depends on R.

    But I seem to recall seeing a discussion somewhere that ϵ, even undefined, was not the same as relationship. Wish I could remember.

    So I guess at this point x*x given * and some x doesn't necessarily imply * is the same as =.

    Thanks
    Last edited by Hartlw; September 28th 2013 at 11:24 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    98

    Relationship versus membership

    Quote Originally Posted by Shakarri View Post
    Does ϵ mean Relation? In the course I did involving relations we used a funny shaped R.
    I don't understand your proof for sets and order. The sets one looks like an example where xϵy and x=y CAN occur simultaneously. And I'm not sure if the ϵ in the sets example is meant to still be the arbitrary symbol or if it is meant to mean subset, if it is the arbitrary symbol then you really didn't show anything.
    Your example for order is only one example of many possibilities for what ϵ could be. What if ϵ is "Less than or equal to" then x<=y and x=y can occur simultaneously.
    R can’t be defined without ϵ. R=ϵ would be a circular definition, so ϵ has to be independent of R, ie, ϵ can’t be a relationship..

    This is how I got there in case anyone is interested (it’s educational):

    If A and B are sets, a Relation from A to B, is a subset of AXB.

    Examples:
    1) A={x,y,z}, B={1,2,3}, AXB={(x,1), (x,2), (x,3), (y,1)……..(z,3)}.
    R ={(x,1), (x,2), (z,2), (z,3)}, and we say xR1,xR2,zR2,and zR3.

    2) A={1,2}, B={1,2}, AXB={(1,1), (1,2), (2,1), (2,2)}
    R ={(1,1), (2,2)}: Equal Relationship: 1=1 and 2=2.
    R = {(1,2)}: Less Than relationship: 1<2.
    R = {(2,1)}: Greater Than relationship: 2>1.

    xϵA means x is a member of A.

    Now suppose x is any member of A and y is any member of B, then a relation could be expressed as xRy which looks like xϵy in its most general form.

    So could xϵy in its most general form be a relationship? No, because you need xϵy to define a relationship.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,817
    Thanks
    700

    Re: Relationship versus membership

    Quote Originally Posted by Hartlw View Post
    R can’t be defined without ϵ. R=ϵ would be a circular definition, so ϵ has to be independent of R, ie, ϵ can’t be a relationship..

    This is how I got there in case anyone is interested (it’s educational):

    If A and B are sets, a Relation from A to B, is a subset of AXB.

    Examples:
    1) A={x,y,z}, B={1,2,3}, AXB={(x,1), (x,2), (x,3), (y,1)……..(z,3)}.
    R ={(x,1), (x,2), (z,2), (z,3)}, and we say xR1,xR2,zR2,and zR3.

    2) A={1,2}, B={1,2}, AXB={(1,1), (1,2), (2,1), (2,2)}
    R ={(1,1), (2,2)}: Equal Relationship: 1=1 and 2=2.
    R = {(1,2)}: Less Than relationship: 1<2.
    R = {(2,1)}: Greater Than relationship: 2>1.

    xϵA means x is a member of A.

    Now suppose x is any member of A and y is any member of B, then a relation could be expressed as xRy which looks like xϵy in its most general form.

    So could xϵy in its most general form be a relationship? No, because you need xϵy to define a relationship.
    You could probably create something similar using Allegories from Category Theory, but having never studied allegories myself, I would be ill-equipped to explain how.
    Thanks from Hartlw
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    98

    Re: xϵy

    slipeternal. Thanks, Thanks for the tip.

    Category theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    definition: morphism: a->b where a and b are objects and -> is a map from a to b.
    definition: identity morphism: x->x.

    “From the axioms, it can be proved that there is exactly one identity morphism for every object.”

    ie, you can’t simultaneously have xϵx and x=x.

    ie, the fundamental primitive concepts of axiomatic set theory xϵy and x=y are incorrect because you can’t have xϵx.

    So the Fundamental Atomic Concepts of Axiomatic Set Theory should be modified to:

    x=y and xϵy unless x=y.

    (just playing it safe with notation because the only thing I have at my disposal when I use “ϵ” is “=.” That’s why I wrote them in that order.)
    Last edited by Hartlw; September 30th 2013 at 11:56 AM. Reason: added "Atomic"
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9

    Re: xϵy

    It is not possible to prove that $$x\not \in x$$ It is true when x is an ordinal but is a bit restriction on the set.

    This is a statement which is independent from standard set theory. However, set theorists have felt it is appropriate to therefore include it into the list of axioms of set theory. Today it is known as the "axiom of well-foundation".
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 7th 2013, 11:35 AM
  2. Probability that 2 errors occur on separate lines
    Posted in the Advanced Statistics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 7th 2011, 03:37 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 5th 2011, 06:52 PM
  4. What is the prob that none of these events occur
    Posted in the Statistics Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 28th 2009, 11:26 PM
  5. Any pair of deficiency indices can occur
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 27th 2009, 01:10 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum