Why is the definition of cardinal number as the set of all sets equivalent to a given set...












1












$begingroup$


In Fundamentals of Mathematics, Volume 1 Foundations of Mathematics: The Real Number System and Algebra, after defining set equivalence as the ability to put the elements of the related sets in one-to-one correspondence, the following statement appears:




The cardinal number $tilde{x}$ of a set $x$ is then regarded as representing "that which is common" to all sets that are equivalent to $x$. Thus, we might say that the cardinal number of $x$ is simply the set of all sets that are equivalent to $x$, although such a definition is problematical on account of its relationship to the universal set.




The term problematical can have a slightly different connotation than the term problematic. The former implying requires expert handling. In other words, this may not be grounds for completely rejecting the definition. Unfortunately I do not have access to the German Language original to know what "problematical" was translated from.



Regardless of that nuance, the authors are certainly indicating that their proposed definition leads to difficulty in "relationship to the universal set". Is this difficulty simply Russell's antinomy?






elementary-set-theory definition cardinals







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    In Fundamentals of Mathematics, Volume 1 Foundations of Mathematics: The Real Number System and Algebra, after defining set equivalence as the ability to put the elements of the related sets in one-to-one correspondence, the following statement appears:




    The cardinal number $tilde{x}$ of a set $x$ is then regarded as representing "that which is common" to all sets that are equivalent to $x$. Thus, we might say that the cardinal number of $x$ is simply the set of all sets that are equivalent to $x$, although such a definition is problematical on account of its relationship to the universal set.




    The term problematical can have a slightly different connotation than the term problematic. The former implying requires expert handling. In other words, this may not be grounds for completely rejecting the definition. Unfortunately I do not have access to the German Language original to know what "problematical" was translated from.



    Regardless of that nuance, the authors are certainly indicating that their proposed definition leads to difficulty in "relationship to the universal set". Is this difficulty simply Russell's antinomy?






    elementary-set-theory definition cardinals







    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      In Fundamentals of Mathematics, Volume 1 Foundations of Mathematics: The Real Number System and Algebra, after defining set equivalence as the ability to put the elements of the related sets in one-to-one correspondence, the following statement appears:




      The cardinal number $tilde{x}$ of a set $x$ is then regarded as representing "that which is common" to all sets that are equivalent to $x$. Thus, we might say that the cardinal number of $x$ is simply the set of all sets that are equivalent to $x$, although such a definition is problematical on account of its relationship to the universal set.




      The term problematical can have a slightly different connotation than the term problematic. The former implying requires expert handling. In other words, this may not be grounds for completely rejecting the definition. Unfortunately I do not have access to the German Language original to know what "problematical" was translated from.



      Regardless of that nuance, the authors are certainly indicating that their proposed definition leads to difficulty in "relationship to the universal set". Is this difficulty simply Russell's antinomy?






      elementary-set-theory definition cardinals







      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      In Fundamentals of Mathematics, Volume 1 Foundations of Mathematics: The Real Number System and Algebra, after defining set equivalence as the ability to put the elements of the related sets in one-to-one correspondence, the following statement appears:




      The cardinal number $tilde{x}$ of a set $x$ is then regarded as representing "that which is common" to all sets that are equivalent to $x$. Thus, we might say that the cardinal number of $x$ is simply the set of all sets that are equivalent to $x$, although such a definition is problematical on account of its relationship to the universal set.




      The term problematical can have a slightly different connotation than the term problematic. The former implying requires expert handling. In other words, this may not be grounds for completely rejecting the definition. Unfortunately I do not have access to the German Language original to know what "problematical" was translated from.



      Regardless of that nuance, the authors are certainly indicating that their proposed definition leads to difficulty in "relationship to the universal set". Is this difficulty simply Russell's antinomy?






      elementary-set-theory definition cardinals




      elementary-set-theory definition cardinals






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 2 hours ago









      Steven HattonSteven Hatton

      964422




      964422






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          Basically, yes. The problem is that the collection of all equivalent sets is a proper class (except in the case of the empty set). Thus to work with the notion of cardinality in set theory, it is convenient to define some representative of the class that is a set.



          The most common solution is to use the axiom of choice and define the cardinality as the smallest ordinal in the class. In the absence of choice, one can instead appeal to foundation and define it as the subset consisting of the sets of lowest rank.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3115820%2fwhy-is-the-definition-of-cardinal-number-as-the-set-of-all-sets-equivalent-to-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            4












            $begingroup$

            Basically, yes. The problem is that the collection of all equivalent sets is a proper class (except in the case of the empty set). Thus to work with the notion of cardinality in set theory, it is convenient to define some representative of the class that is a set.



            The most common solution is to use the axiom of choice and define the cardinality as the smallest ordinal in the class. In the absence of choice, one can instead appeal to foundation and define it as the subset consisting of the sets of lowest rank.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$


















              4












              $begingroup$

              Basically, yes. The problem is that the collection of all equivalent sets is a proper class (except in the case of the empty set). Thus to work with the notion of cardinality in set theory, it is convenient to define some representative of the class that is a set.



              The most common solution is to use the axiom of choice and define the cardinality as the smallest ordinal in the class. In the absence of choice, one can instead appeal to foundation and define it as the subset consisting of the sets of lowest rank.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$
















                4












                4








                4





                $begingroup$

                Basically, yes. The problem is that the collection of all equivalent sets is a proper class (except in the case of the empty set). Thus to work with the notion of cardinality in set theory, it is convenient to define some representative of the class that is a set.



                The most common solution is to use the axiom of choice and define the cardinality as the smallest ordinal in the class. In the absence of choice, one can instead appeal to foundation and define it as the subset consisting of the sets of lowest rank.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                Basically, yes. The problem is that the collection of all equivalent sets is a proper class (except in the case of the empty set). Thus to work with the notion of cardinality in set theory, it is convenient to define some representative of the class that is a set.



                The most common solution is to use the axiom of choice and define the cardinality as the smallest ordinal in the class. In the absence of choice, one can instead appeal to foundation and define it as the subset consisting of the sets of lowest rank.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 1 hour ago

























                answered 2 hours ago









                spaceisdarkgreenspaceisdarkgreen

                32.9k21753




                32.9k21753






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3115820%2fwhy-is-the-definition-of-cardinal-number-as-the-set-of-all-sets-equivalent-to-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

                    Image
                    .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 4 I'm referring to Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Wesley Crusher, Chief O'Brien and family, Deanna Troi, Guinan. I know Picard and Worf show up on DS9, though I haven't seen it myself. I'm curious what happened to the characters after that last episode of TNG? star-trek star-trek-tng share | improve this question edited 10 hours ago Ham Sandwich 6,051 2 25 75 ...
                    Read more

                    Berlina muro

                    Image
                    La berlina muro ĉe Bethaniendamm, 1986 La berlina muro aŭ simple la muro [1] , nomita ankaŭ "kontraŭfaŝisma remparo" en propaganda lingvo de la iama Germana Demokratia Respubliko, estis parto de la interngermana limo, kiu dividis de la 13-a de aŭgusto 1961 ĝis la 9-a de novembro 1989 okcidentan Berlinon de la orienta parto de la urbo kaj de la ĉirkaŭa tereno de la GDR. Ĝi estis unu el la plej famaj simboloj de la malvarma milito kaj de la disdivido de Germanio. Pli ol simpla muro, la berlina muro estis fakte tuta defendokonstruaĵo kun du muroj, ena malplena strio, rondirvojo, gardturoj kaj alarmsistemoj. Dum la provo transiri la severe garditan limon al okcidenta Berlino multaj homoj estis mortigitaj. La preciza nombro de viktimoj estas pridisputita kaj ne certa; la nombroj anoncataj varias inter 86 kaj 238 mortintoj. La malplifortiĝo de Sovetunio kaj la politiko de liberigo gvidita de Miĥail Gorbaĉov ebligis al la orientgermanoj faligi la 9-an de novembro 1989 l...
                    Read more

                    Berlina aerponto

                    Image
                    Flugkoridoroj dum la blokado de Berlino La Berlina aerponto estas la provizigo de okcidenta Berlino per aviadiloj fare de la aliancanoj inter la 23-a de junio 1948 kaj la 12-a de majo 1949 dum la blokado de Berlino fare de la sovetia armeo. Enhavo 1 Historio 1.1 La aerkoridoroj 1.2 Unuaj flugoj 1.3 Plibonigo de la aerponto 1.4 Fino de la aerponto 1.5 Rozinbombiloj 1.6 Bilanco 2 Flughavenoj 2.1 Berlino 2.2 Okcidenta Germanio 3 Aviadiloj de la berlina aerponto 4 15-a datreveno de la aerponto 5 Bibliografio 6 Referencoj 7 Eksteraj ligiloj Historio | General Lucius D. Clay, militguberniestro de la usona okupadzono Jam antaŭ la berlina aerponto estiĝis la malgranda aerponto . La estro de la sovetia militadministracio en Germanio, Vasili Daniloviĉ Sokolovski, ordonis la 1-an de aprilo 1948, kiel reago al la konferenco de Londono inter britoj, francoj kaj reprezentantoj de Benelukso pri aligo de Germa...
                    Read more