Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Last revision Both sides next revision
empty_set [2015/10/08 20:33]
nikolaj
empty_set [2015/10/09 15:39]
nikolaj
Line 15: Line 15:
 $\exists! y.\,​y=\{x\mid \bot\}$ $\exists! y.\,​y=\{x\mid \bot\}$
  
-holds, really is an abbreviation for+holds, ​which really is an abbreviation for
  
 $\exists! y.\,\forall x.\,​\left(x\in y\Leftrightarrow \bot\right)$ $\exists! y.\,\forall x.\,​\left(x\in y\Leftrightarrow \bot\right)$
Line 26: Line 26:
 So is it true? Does our set theory permit the existence of such a set $y$?  So is it true? Does our set theory permit the existence of such a set $y$? 
  
-Existence ​is granted by the [[http://​en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​Axiom_of_empty_set|axiom of empty set (Wikipedia)]]:​+As $\bot\implies P$ is $\top$ for any $P$ and as $Q\land\top$ is logically equivalent to $Q$, the above is logically equivalent to 
  
-$\exists y.\,\nexists ​x.\,x\in y$+$\existsy.\,\forall ​x.\,\left(x\in y\implies \bot\right)$
  
-which is equivalent to+which is
  
-$\exists y.\,\forall x.\,​\neg(x\in y)$+$\existsy.\,\forall x.\,​\neg(x\in y)$
  
-which is short for+or
  
-$\exists y.\,\forall ​x.\,\left(x\in y\implies\bot\right)$+$\existsy.\,\nexists ​x.\,x\in y$
  
-As $\bot\implies P$ is $\top$ for any $P$ and as $Q\land\top$ is logically equivalent to $Q$we know +Apart from the exclamation markthis is exactly the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​Axiom_of_empty_set|axiom of empty set (Wikipedia)]].
- +
-$\exists y.\,\forall x.\,​\left((x\in y\implies \bot)\land(\bot\implies x\in y)\right)$ +
- +
-which is also written +
- +
-$\exists y.\,\forall x.\,\left(x\in y\Leftrightarrow \bot\right)+
- +
-which is what we wanted.+
  
 Uniqueness is discussed, for example, in  Uniqueness is discussed, for example, in 
Link to graph
Log In
Improvements of the human condition