Bijection

54 languages
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from One-to-one correspondence)

A bijective function, f: X → Y, where set X is {1, 2, 3, 4} and set Y is {A, B, C, D}. For example, f(1) =
D.

Function

x ↦ f (x)

History of the function concept

 Examples of domains and codomains

𝑋
→
𝐵
,
𝐵
→
𝑋
,
𝐵𝑛
→
𝑋

𝑋
→
𝑍
,
𝑍
→
𝑋

𝑋
→
𝑅
,
𝑅
→
𝑋
,
𝑅𝑛
→
𝑋

𝑋
→
𝐶
,
𝐶
→
𝑋
,
𝐶𝑛
→
 𝑋

Classes/properties

● Constant
● Identity
● Linear
● Polynomial
● Rational
● Algebraic
● Analytic
● Smooth
● Continuous
● Measurable
● Injective
● Surjective
● Bijective

Constructions

● Restriction
● Composition
● λ
● Inverse

Generalizations

● Binary relation
● Partial
● Multivalued
● Implicit
● Space

● V
● T
● E

A bijection, bijective function, or one-to-one correspondence between two

mathematical sets is a function such that each element of the second set (the
codomain) is mapped to from exactly one element of the first set (the domain).
Equivalently, a bijection is a relation between two sets such that each element of
either set is paired with exactly one element of the other set.

A function is bijective if and only if it is invertible; that is, a function

𝑓:𝑋→𝑌

is bijective if and only if there is a function

𝑔:𝑌→𝑋,

the inverse of f, such that each of the two ways for composing the
two functions produces an identity function:

𝑔(𝑓(𝑥))=𝑥

for each

in

and

𝑓(𝑔(𝑦))=𝑦

for each

in

𝑌.
For example, the multiplication by two defines a bijection from the integers to the
even numbers, which has the division by two as its inverse function.

A function is bijective if and only if it is both injective (or one-to-one)—meaning

that each element in the codomain is mapped to from at most one element of the
domain—and surjective (or onto)—meaning that each element of the codomain is
mapped to from at least one element of the domain. The term one-to-one
correspondence must not be confused with one-to-one function, which means
injective but not necessarily surjective.

The elementary operation of counting establishes a bijection from some finite set
to the first natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...), up to the number of elements in the
counted set. It results that two finite sets have the same number of elements if
and only if there exists a bijection between them. More generally, two sets are
said to have the same cardinal number if there exists a bijection between them.

A bijective function from a set to itself is also called a permutation,[1] and the set
of all permutations of a set forms its symmetric group.

Some bijections with further properties have received specific names, which
include automorphisms, isomorphisms, homeomorphisms, diffeomorphisms,
permutation groups, and most geometric transformations. Galois
correspondences are bijections between sets of mathematical objects of
apparently very different nature.

Definition[edit]

For a binary relation pairing elements of set X with elements of set Y to be a

bijection, four properties must hold:

1. each element of X must be paired with at least one element of Y,

2. no element of X may be paired with more than one element of Y,
3. each element of Y must be paired with at least one element of X, and
4. no element of Y may be paired with more than one element of X.

Satisfying properties (1) and (2) means that a pairing is a function with domain X.
It is more common to see properties (1) and (2) written as a single statement:
Every element of X is paired with exactly one element of Y. Functions which
satisfy property (3) are said to be "onto Y " and are called surjections (or
surjective functions). Functions which satisfy property (4) are said to be "one-to-
one functions" and are called injections (or injective functions).[2] With this
terminology, a bijection is a function which is both a surjection and an injection,
or using other words, a bijection is a function which is both "one-to-one" and
"onto".[3]

Examples[edit]

Batting line-up of a baseball or cricket team[edit]

Consider the batting line-up of a baseball or cricket team (or any list of all the
players of any sports team where every player holds a specific spot in a line-up).
The set X will be the players on the team (of size nine in the case of baseball) and
the set Y will be the positions in the batting order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) The
"pairing" is given by which player is in what position in this order. Property (1) is
satisfied since each player is somewhere in the list. Property (2) is satisfied since
no player bats in two (or more) positions in the order. Property (3) says that for
each position in the order, there is some player batting in that position and
property (4) states that two or more players are never batting in the same position
in the list.

Seats and students of a classroom[edit]

In a classroom there are a certain number of seats. A bunch of students enter the
room and the instructor asks them to be seated. After a quick look around the
room, the instructor declares that there is a bijection between the set of students
and the set of seats, where each student is paired with the seat they are sitting in.
What the instructor observed in order to reach this conclusion was that:

1. Every student was in a seat (there was no one standing),

2. No student was in more than one seat,
3. Every seat had someone sitting there (there were no empty seats),
and
4. No seat had more than one student in it.

The instructor was able to conclude that there were just as many seats as there
were students, without having to count either set.

More mathematical examples[edit]

A bijection from the natural numbers to the integers, which maps 2n to −n and 2n − 1 to n, for n ≥ 0.

● For any set X, the identity function 1X: X → X, 1X(x) = x is bijective.

● The function f: R → R, f(x) = 2x + 1 is bijective, since for each y there is a
unique x = (y − 1)/2 such that f(x) = y. More generally, any linear function
over the reals, f: R → R, f(x) = ax + b (where a is non-zero) is a bijection.
Each real number y is obtained from (or paired with) the real number x =
(y − b)/a.
● The function f: R → (−π/2, π/2), given by f(x) = arctan(x) is bijective, since
each real number x is paired with exactly one angle y in the interval (−π/2,
π/2) so that tan(y) = x (that is, y = arctan(x)). If the codomain (−π/2, π/2) was
made larger to include an integer multiple of π/2, then this function would no
longer be onto (surjective), since there is no real number which could be paired
with the multiple of π/2 by this arctan function.
● The exponential function, g: R → R, g(x) = ex, is not bijective: for
instance, there is no x in R such that g(x) = −1, showing that g is not onto
(surjective). However, if the codomain is restricted to the positive real
numbers
● 𝑅+≡(0,∞)
● , then g would be bijective; its inverse (see below) is the
natural logarithm function ln.
● The function h: R → R+, h(x) = x2 is not bijective: for instance, h(−1) =
h(1) = 1, showing that h is not one-to-one (injective). However, if the
domain is restricted to
● 𝑅0+≡[0,∞)
● , then h would be bijective; its inverse is the positive
square root function.
● By Schröder–Bernstein theorem, given any two sets X and Y, and two
injective functions f: X → Y and g: Y → X, there exists a bijective
function h: X → Y.
Inverses[edit]

A bijection f with domain X (indicated by f: X → Y in functional notation) also

defines a converse relation starting in Y and going to X (by turning the arrows
around). The process of "turning the arrows around" for an arbitrary function
does not, in general, yield a function, but properties (3) and (4) of a bijection say
that this inverse relation is a function with domain Y. Moreover, properties (1) and
(2) then say that this inverse function is a surjection and an injection, that is, the
inverse function exists and is also a bijection. Functions that have inverse
functions are said to be invertible. A function is invertible if and only if it is a
bijection.

Stated in concise mathematical notation, a function f: X → Y is bijective if and

only if it satisfies the condition

for every y in Y there is a unique x in X with y = f(x).

Continuing with the baseball batting line-up example, the function that is being
defined takes as input the name of one of the players and outputs the position of
that player in the batting order. Since this function is a bijection, it has an inverse
function which takes as input a position in the batting order and outputs the
player who will be batting in that position.

Composition[edit]

A bijection composed of an injection (X → Y) and a surjection (Y → Z).

The composition
𝑔∘𝑓

of two bijections f: X → Y and g: Y → Z is a bijection, whose inverse is given

by

𝑔∘𝑓

is

(𝑔∘𝑓)−1=(𝑓−1)∘(𝑔−1)

Conversely, if the composition

𝑔∘𝑓

of two functions is bijective, it only follows that f is injective and g is

surjective.

Cardinality[edit]

If X and Y are finite sets, then there exists a bijection between the two sets X and
Y if and only if X and Y have the same number of elements. Indeed, in axiomatic
set theory, this is taken as the definition of "same number of elements"
(equinumerosity), and generalising this definition to infinite sets leads to the
concept of cardinal number, a way to distinguish the various sizes of infinite sets.

Properties[edit]

● A function f: R → R is bijective if and only if its graph meets every

horizontal and vertical line exactly once.
● If X is a set, then the bijective functions from X to itself, together with the
operation of functional composition (∘), form a group, the symmetric group
of X, which is denoted variously by S(X), SX, or X! (X factorial).
● Bijections preserve cardinalities of sets: for a subset A of the domain
with cardinality |A| and subset B of the codomain with cardinality |B|,
 one has the following equalities:
|f(A)| = |A| and |f−1(B)| = |B|.
● If X and Y are finite sets with the same cardinality, and f: X → Y, then the
following are equivalent:
1. f is a bijection.
2. f is a surjection.
3. f is an injection.
● For a finite set S, there is a bijection between the set of possible total
orderings of the elements and the set of bijections from S to S. That is
to say, the number of permutations of elements of S is the same as the
number of total orderings of that set—namely, n!.

Category theory[edit]

Bijections are precisely the isomorphisms in the category Set of sets and set
functions. However, the bijections are not always the isomorphisms for more
complex categories. For example, in the category Grp of groups, the morphisms
must be homomorphisms since they must preserve the group structure, so the
isomorphisms are group isomorphisms which are bijective homomorphisms.

Generalization to partial functions[edit]

The notion of one-to-one correspondence generalizes to partial functions, where

they are called partial bijections, although partial bijections are only required to
be injective. The reason for this relaxation is that a (proper) partial function is
already undefined for a portion of its domain; thus there is no compelling reason
to constrain its inverse to be a total function, i.e. defined everywhere on its
domain. The set of all partial bijections on a given base set is called the
symmetric inverse semigroup.[4]

Another way of defining the same notion is to say that a partial bijection from A to
B is any relation R (which turns out to be a partial function) with the property that
R is the graph of a bijection f:A′→B′, where A′ is a subset of A and B′ is a subset
of B.[5]

When the partial bijection is on the same set, it is sometimes called a one-to-one
partial transformation.[6] An example is the Möbius transformation simply defined
on the complex plane, rather than its completion to the extended complex plane.
[7]
Gallery[edit]

●
An injective non-surjective function (injection, not a bijection)
●

An injective surjective function (bijection)

●

A non-injective surjective function (surjection, not a bijection)

 ●

A non-injective non-surjective function (also not a bijection)

See also[edit]

Mathematics portal
● Ax–Grothendieck theorem
● Bijection, injection and surjection
● Bijective numeration
● Bijective proof
● Category theory
● Multivalued function

Notes[edit]

● ^ Hall 1959, p. 3
● ^ There are names associated to properties (1) and (2) as well. A relation which satisfies
property (1) is called a total relation and a relation satisfying (2) is a single valued
relation.
● ^ "Bijection, Injection, And Surjection | Brilliant Math & Science Wiki". brilliant.org.
Retrieved 7 December 2019.
● ^ Christopher Hollings (16 July 2014). Mathematics across the Iron Curtain: A History of
the Algebraic Theory of Semigroups. American Mathematical Society. p. 251. ISBN 978-1-
4704-1493-1.
● ^ Francis Borceux (1994). Handbook of Categorical Algebra: Volume 2, Categories and
Structures. Cambridge University Press. p. 289. ISBN 978-0-521-44179-7.
● ^ Pierre A. Grillet (1995). Semigroups: An Introduction to the Structure Theory. CRC
Press. p. 228. ISBN 978-0-8247-9662-4.
● ^ John Meakin (2007). "Groups and semigroups: connections and contrasts". In C.M.
Campbell; M.R. Quick; E.F. Robertson; G.C. Smith (eds.). Groups St Andrews 2005
Volume 2. Cambridge University Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-521-69470-4. preprint citing
Lawson, M. V. (1998). "The Möbius Inverse Monoid". Journal of Algebra. 200 (2): 428–
438. doi:10.1006/jabr.1997.7242.
References[edit]

This topic is a basic concept in set theory and can be found in any text which
includes an introduction to set theory. Almost all texts that deal with an
introduction to writing proofs will include a section on set theory, so the topic
may be found in any of these:

● Hall, Marshall Jr. (1959). The Theory of Groups. MacMillan.

● Wolf (1998). Proof, Logic and Conjecture: A Mathematician's Toolbox.
Freeman.
● Sundstrom (2003). Mathematical Reasoning: Writing and Proof.
Prentice-Hall.
● Smith; Eggen; St.Andre (2006). A Transition to Advanced Mathematics
(6th Ed.). Thomson (Brooks/Cole).
● Schumacher (1996). Chapter Zero: Fundamental Notions of Abstract
Mathematics. Addison-Wesley.
● O'Leary (2003). The Structure of Proof: With Logic and Set Theory.
Prentice-Hall.
● Morash. Bridge to Abstract Mathematics. Random House.
● Maddox (2002). Mathematical Thinking and Writing. Harcourt/ Academic
Press.
● Lay (2001). Analysis with an introduction to proof. Prentice Hall.
● Gilbert; Vanstone (2005). An Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.
Pearson Prentice-Hall.
● Fletcher; Patty. Foundations of Higher Mathematics. PWS-Kent.
● Iglewicz; Stoyle. An Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning. MacMillan.
● Devlin, Keith (2004). Sets, Functions, and Logic: An Introduction to
Abstract Mathematics. Chapman & Hall/ CRC Press.
● D'Angelo; West (2000). Mathematical Thinking: Problem Solving and
Proofs. Prentice Hall.
● Cupillari (1989). The Nuts and Bolts of Proofs. Wadsworth. ISBN
9780534103200.
● Bond. Introduction to Abstract Mathematics. Brooks/Cole.
● Barnier; Feldman (2000). Introduction to Advanced Mathematics.
Prentice Hall.
● Ash. A Primer of Abstract Mathematics. MAA.

External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Bijectivity.

● "Bijection", Encyclopedia of Mathematics, EMS Press, 2001 [1994]

● Weisstein, Eric W. "Bijection". MathWorld.
● Earliest Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics: entry on Injection,
Surjection and Bijection has the history of Injection and related terms.

show

● V
● T
● E

Set theory

show

● V
● T
● E

Mathematical logic

Categories:

Functions and mappings

Basic concepts in set theory
Mathematical relations
Types of functions
This page was last edited on 24 May 2024, at 09:35 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may
apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a
registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia
 Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view

Bijection
54 languages
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from One-to-one correspondence)
A bijective function, f: X → Y, where set X is {1, 2, 3, 4} and set Y is {A, B, C, D}. For example, f(1) =
D.

Function

x ↦ f (x)

History of the function concept

Examples of domains and codomains

𝑋
→
𝐵
,
𝐵
→
𝑋
,
𝐵𝑛
→
𝑋

𝑋
 →
𝑍
,
𝑍
→
𝑋

𝑋
→
𝑅
,
𝑅
→
𝑋
,
𝑅𝑛
→
𝑋

𝑋
→
𝐶
,
𝐶
→
𝑋
,
𝐶𝑛
→
𝑋

Classes/properties

● Constant
● Identity
● Linear
● Polynomial
● Rational
● Algebraic
● Analytic
● Smooth
● Continuous
● Measurable
● Injective
● Surjective
● Bijective
 Constructions

● Restriction
● Composition
● λ
● Inverse

Generalizations

● Binary relation
● Partial
● Multivalued
● Implicit
● Space

● V
● T
● E

A bijection, bijective function, or one-to-one correspondence between two

mathematical sets is a function such that each element of the second set (the
codomain) is mapped to from exactly one element of the first set (the domain).
Equivalently, a bijection is a relation between two sets such that each element of
either set is paired with exactly one element of the other set.

A function is bijective if and only if it is invertible; that is, a function

𝑓:𝑋→𝑌

is bijective if and only if there is a function

𝑔:𝑌→𝑋,

the inverse of f, such that each of the two ways for composing the
two functions produces an identity function:

𝑔(𝑓(𝑥))=𝑥
 for each

in

and

𝑓(𝑔(𝑦))=𝑦

for each

in

𝑌.

For example, the multiplication by two defines a bijection from the integers to the
even numbers, which has the division by two as its inverse function.

A function is bijective if and only if it is both injective (or one-to-one)—meaning

that each element in the codomain is mapped to from at most one element of the
domain—and surjective (or onto)—meaning that each element of the codomain is
mapped to from at least one element of the domain. The term one-to-one
correspondence must not be confused with one-to-one function, which means
injective but not necessarily surjective.

The elementary operation of counting establishes a bijection from some finite set
to the first natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...), up to the number of elements in the
counted set. It results that two finite sets have the same number of elements if
and only if there exists a bijection between them. More generally, two sets are
said to have the same cardinal number if there exists a bijection between them.

A bijective function from a set to itself is also called a permutation,[1] and the set
of all permutations of a set forms its symmetric group.
Some bijections with further properties have received specific names, which
include automorphisms, isomorphisms, homeomorphisms, diffeomorphisms,
permutation groups, and most geometric transformations. Galois
correspondences are bijections between sets of mathematical objects of
apparently very different nature.

Definition[edit]

For a binary relation pairing elements of set X with elements of set Y to be a

bijection, four properties must hold:

1. each element of X must be paired with at least one element of Y,

2. no element of X may be paired with more than one element of Y,
3. each element of Y must be paired with at least one element of X, and
4. no element of Y may be paired with more than one element of X.

Satisfying properties (1) and (2) means that a pairing is a function with domain X.
It is more common to see properties (1) and (2) written as a single statement:
Every element of X is paired with exactly one element of Y. Functions which
satisfy property (3) are said to be "onto Y " and are called surjections (or
surjective functions). Functions which satisfy property (4) are said to be "one-to-
one functions" and are called injections (or injective functions).[2] With this
terminology, a bijection is a function which is both a surjection and an injection,
or using other words, a bijection is a function which is both "one-to-one" and
"onto".[3]

Examples[edit]

Batting line-up of a baseball or cricket team[edit]

Consider the batting line-up of a baseball or cricket team (or any list of all the
players of any sports team where every player holds a specific spot in a line-up).
The set X will be the players on the team (of size nine in the case of baseball) and
the set Y will be the positions in the batting order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) The
"pairing" is given by which player is in what position in this order. Property (1) is
satisfied since each player is somewhere in the list. Property (2) is satisfied since
no player bats in two (or more) positions in the order. Property (3) says that for
each position in the order, there is some player batting in that position and
property (4) states that two or more players are never batting in the same position
in the list.

Seats and students of a classroom[edit]

In a classroom there are a certain number of seats. A bunch of students enter the
room and the instructor asks them to be seated. After a quick look around the
room, the instructor declares that there is a bijection between the set of students
and the set of seats, where each student is paired with the seat they are sitting in.
What the instructor observed in order to reach this conclusion was that:

1. Every student was in a seat (there was no one standing),

2. No student was in more than one seat,
3. Every seat had someone sitting there (there were no empty seats),
and
4. No seat had more than one student in it.

The instructor was able to conclude that there were just as many seats as there
were students, without having to count either set.

More mathematical examples[edit]

A bijection from the natural numbers to the integers, which maps 2n to −n and 2n − 1 to n, for n ≥ 0.

● For any set X, the identity function 1X: X → X, 1X(x) = x is bijective.

● The function f: R → R, f(x) = 2x + 1 is bijective, since for each y there is a
unique x = (y − 1)/2 such that f(x) = y. More generally, any linear function
 over the reals, f: R → R, f(x) = ax + b (where a is non-zero) is a bijection.
Each real number y is obtained from (or paired with) the real number x =
(y − b)/a.
● The function f: R → (−π/2, π/2), given by f(x) = arctan(x) is bijective, since
each real number x is paired with exactly one angle y in the interval (−π/2,
π/2) so that tan(y) = x (that is, y = arctan(x)). If the codomain (−π/2, π/2) was
made larger to include an integer multiple of π/2, then this function would no
longer be onto (surjective), since there is no real number which could be paired
with the multiple of π/2 by this arctan function.
● The exponential function, g: R → R, g(x) = ex, is not bijective: for
instance, there is no x in R such that g(x) = −1, showing that g is not onto
(surjective). However, if the codomain is restricted to the positive real
numbers
● 𝑅+≡(0,∞)
● , then g would be bijective; its inverse (see below) is the
natural logarithm function ln.
● The function h: R → R+, h(x) = x2 is not bijective: for instance, h(−1) =
h(1) = 1, showing that h is not one-to-one (injective). However, if the
domain is restricted to
● 𝑅0+≡[0,∞)
● , then h would be bijective; its inverse is the positive
square root function.
● By Schröder–Bernstein theorem, given any two sets X and Y, and two
injective functions f: X → Y and g: Y → X, there exists a bijective
function h: X → Y.

Inverses[edit]

A bijection f with domain X (indicated by f: X → Y in functional notation) also

defines a converse relation starting in Y and going to X (by turning the arrows
around). The process of "turning the arrows around" for an arbitrary function
does not, in general, yield a function, but properties (3) and (4) of a bijection say
that this inverse relation is a function with domain Y. Moreover, properties (1) and
(2) then say that this inverse function is a surjection and an injection, that is, the
inverse function exists and is also a bijection. Functions that have inverse
functions are said to be invertible. A function is invertible if and only if it is a
bijection.

Stated in concise mathematical notation, a function f: X → Y is bijective if and

only if it satisfies the condition

for every y in Y there is a unique x in X with y = f(x).

Continuing with the baseball batting line-up example, the function that is being
defined takes as input the name of one of the players and outputs the position of
that player in the batting order. Since this function is a bijection, it has an inverse
function which takes as input a position in the batting order and outputs the
player who will be batting in that position.

Composition[edit]

A bijection composed of an injection (X → Y) and a surjection (Y → Z).

The composition

𝑔∘𝑓

of two bijections f: X → Y and g: Y → Z is a bijection, whose inverse is given

by

𝑔∘𝑓

is

(𝑔∘𝑓)−1=(𝑓−1)∘(𝑔−1)

Conversely, if the composition

𝑔∘𝑓

of two functions is bijective, it only follows that f is injective and g is

surjective.

Cardinality[edit]

If X and Y are finite sets, then there exists a bijection between the two sets X and
Y if and only if X and Y have the same number of elements. Indeed, in axiomatic
set theory, this is taken as the definition of "same number of elements"
(equinumerosity), and generalising this definition to infinite sets leads to the
concept of cardinal number, a way to distinguish the various sizes of infinite sets.

Properties[edit]

● A function f: R → R is bijective if and only if its graph meets every

horizontal and vertical line exactly once.
● If X is a set, then the bijective functions from X to itself, together with the
operation of functional composition (∘), form a group, the symmetric group
of X, which is denoted variously by S(X), SX, or X! (X factorial).
● Bijections preserve cardinalities of sets: for a subset A of the domain
with cardinality |A| and subset B of the codomain with cardinality |B|,
one has the following equalities:
|f(A)| = |A| and |f−1(B)| = |B|.
● If X and Y are finite sets with the same cardinality, and f: X → Y, then the
following are equivalent:
1. f is a bijection.
2. f is a surjection.
3. f is an injection.
● For a finite set S, there is a bijection between the set of possible total
orderings of the elements and the set of bijections from S to S. That is
to say, the number of permutations of elements of S is the same as the
number of total orderings of that set—namely, n!.

Category theory[edit]
Bijections are precisely the isomorphisms in the category Set of sets and set
functions. However, the bijections are not always the isomorphisms for more
complex categories. For example, in the category Grp of groups, the morphisms
must be homomorphisms since they must preserve the group structure, so the
isomorphisms are group isomorphisms which are bijective homomorphisms.

Generalization to partial functions[edit]

The notion of one-to-one correspondence generalizes to partial functions, where

they are called partial bijections, although partial bijections are only required to
be injective. The reason for this relaxation is that a (proper) partial function is
already undefined for a portion of its domain; thus there is no compelling reason
to constrain its inverse to be a total function, i.e. defined everywhere on its
domain. The set of all partial bijections on a given base set is called the
symmetric inverse semigroup.[4]

Another way of defining the same notion is to say that a partial bijection from A to
B is any relation R (which turns out to be a partial function) with the property that
R is the graph of a bijection f:A′→B′, where A′ is a subset of A and B′ is a subset
of B.[5]

When the partial bijection is on the same set, it is sometimes called a one-to-one
partial transformation.[6] An example is the Möbius transformation simply defined
on the complex plane, rather than its completion to the extended complex plane.
[7]

Gallery[edit]

●
An injective non-surjective function (injection, not a bijection)
 ●

An injective surjective function (bijection)

●

A non-injective surjective function (surjection, not a bijection)

●

A non-injective non-surjective function (also not a bijection)

See also[edit]

Mathematics portal
● Ax–Grothendieck theorem
 ● Bijection, injection and surjection
● Bijective numeration
● Bijective proof
● Category theory
● Multivalued function

Notes[edit]

● ^ Hall 1959, p. 3
● ^ There are names associated to properties (1) and (2) as well. A relation which satisfies
property (1) is called a total relation and a relation satisfying (2) is a single valued
relation.
● ^ "Bijection, Injection, And Surjection | Brilliant Math & Science Wiki". brilliant.org.
Retrieved 7 December 2019.
● ^ Christopher Hollings (16 July 2014). Mathematics across the Iron Curtain: A History of
the Algebraic Theory of Semigroups. American Mathematical Society. p. 251. ISBN 978-1-
4704-1493-1.
● ^ Francis Borceux (1994). Handbook of Categorical Algebra: Volume 2, Categories and
Structures. Cambridge University Press. p. 289. ISBN 978-0-521-44179-7.
● ^ Pierre A. Grillet (1995). Semigroups: An Introduction to the Structure Theory. CRC
Press. p. 228. ISBN 978-0-8247-9662-4.
● ^ John Meakin (2007). "Groups and semigroups: connections and contrasts". In C.M.
Campbell; M.R. Quick; E.F. Robertson; G.C. Smith (eds.). Groups St Andrews 2005
Volume 2. Cambridge University Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-521-69470-4. preprint citing
Lawson, M. V. (1998). "The Möbius Inverse Monoid". Journal of Algebra. 200 (2): 428–
438. doi:10.1006/jabr.1997.7242.

References[edit]

This topic is a basic concept in set theory and can be found in any text which
includes an introduction to set theory. Almost all texts that deal with an
introduction to writing proofs will include a section on set theory, so the topic
may be found in any of these:

● Hall, Marshall Jr. (1959). The Theory of Groups. MacMillan.

● Wolf (1998). Proof, Logic and Conjecture: A Mathematician's Toolbox.
Freeman.
● Sundstrom (2003). Mathematical Reasoning: Writing and Proof.
Prentice-Hall.
● Smith; Eggen; St.Andre (2006). A Transition to Advanced Mathematics
(6th Ed.). Thomson (Brooks/Cole).
● Schumacher (1996). Chapter Zero: Fundamental Notions of Abstract
Mathematics. Addison-Wesley.
● O'Leary (2003). The Structure of Proof: With Logic and Set Theory.
Prentice-Hall.
 ● Morash. Bridge to Abstract Mathematics. Random House.
● Maddox (2002). Mathematical Thinking and Writing. Harcourt/ Academic
Press.
● Lay (2001). Analysis with an introduction to proof. Prentice Hall.
● Gilbert; Vanstone (2005). An Introduction to Mathematical Thinking.
Pearson Prentice-Hall.
● Fletcher; Patty. Foundations of Higher Mathematics. PWS-Kent.
● Iglewicz; Stoyle. An Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning. MacMillan.
● Devlin, Keith (2004). Sets, Functions, and Logic: An Introduction to
Abstract Mathematics. Chapman & Hall/ CRC Press.
● D'Angelo; West (2000). Mathematical Thinking: Problem Solving and
Proofs. Prentice Hall.
● Cupillari (1989). The Nuts and Bolts of Proofs. Wadsworth. ISBN
9780534103200.
● Bond. Introduction to Abstract Mathematics. Brooks/Cole.
● Barnier; Feldman (2000). Introduction to Advanced Mathematics.
Prentice Hall.
● Ash. A Primer of Abstract Mathematics. MAA.

External links[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Bijectivity.

● "Bijection", Encyclopedia of Mathematics, EMS Press, 2001 [1994]

● Weisstein, Eric W. "Bijection". MathWorld.
● Earliest Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics: entry on Injection,
Surjection and Bijection has the history of Injection and related terms.

show

● V
● T
● E

Set theory

show

● V
 ● T
● E

Mathematical logic

Categories:

Functions and mappings

Basic concepts in set theory
Mathematical relations
Types of functions
This page was last edited on 24 May 2024, at 09:35 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may
apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a
registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia Set theory

115 languages

Article

Talk

Read

Edit
 View history

Tools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Axiomatic set theory)

This article is about the branch of mathematics. For other uses, see Set

theory (disambiguation).

Not to be confused with Set theory (music).

Part of a series on

Mathematics

● History

● Index

hide
 Areas

● Number theory

● Geometry

● Algebra

● Calculus and Analysis

● Discrete mathematics

● Logic and Set theory

● Probability

● Statistics and Decision theory

hide

Relationship with sciences

● Physics

● Chemistry

● Geosciences

● Computation

● Biology
 ● Linguistics

● Economics

● Philosophy

● Education

Mathematics Portal

● V

● T

● E

A Venn diagram illustrating the intersection of two sets

Set theory is the branch of mathematical logic that studies sets, which can be

informally described as collections of objects. Although objects of any kind can

be collected into a set, set theory — as a branch of mathematics — is mostly

concerned with those that are relevant to mathematics as a whole.

The modern study of set theory was initiated by the German mathematicians

Richard Dedekind and Georg Cantor in the 1870s. In particular, Georg Cantor is

commonly considered the founder of set theory. The non-formalized systems

investigated during this early stage go under the name of naive set theory. After

the discovery of paradoxes within naive set theory (such as Russell's paradox,

Cantor's paradox and the Burali-Forti paradox), various axiomatic systems were

proposed in the early twentieth century, of which Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory

(with or without the axiom of choice) is still the best-known and most studied.

Set theory is commonly employed as a foundational system for the whole of

mathematics, particularly in the form of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the

axiom of choice. Besides its foundational role, set theory also provides the

framework to develop a mathematical theory of infinity, and has various

applications in computer science (such as in the theory of relational algebra),

philosophy, formal semantics, and evolutionary dynamics. Its foundational

appeal, together with its paradoxes, its implications for the concept of infinity and

its multiple applications, have made set theory an area of major interest for

logicians and philosophers of mathematics. Contemporary research into set

theory covers a vast array of topics, ranging from the structure of the real number

line to the study of the consistency of large cardinals.

History[edit]

Georg Cantor

Mathematical topics typically emerge and evolve through interactions among

many researchers. Set theory, however, was founded by a single paper in 1874 by

Georg Cantor: "On a Property of the Collection of All Real Algebraic Numbers".[1]

[2]

Since the 5th century BC, beginning with Greek mathematician Zeno of Elea in

the West and early Indian mathematicians in the East, mathematicians had

struggled with the concept of infinity. Especially notable is the work of Bernard

Bolzano in the first half of the 19th century.[3] Modern understanding of infinity

began in 1870–1874, and was motivated by Cantor's work in real analysis.[4]

Basic concepts and notation[edit]

Main articles: Set (mathematics) and Algebra of sets

Set theory begins with a fundamental binary relation between an object o and a

set A. If o is a member (or element) of A, the notation o ∈ A is used. A set is

described by listing elements separated by commas, or by a characterizing

property of its elements, within braces { }.[5] Since sets are objects, the

membership relation can relate sets as well.

A derived binary relation between two sets is the subset relation, also called set

inclusion. If all the members of set A are also members of set B, then A is a

subset of B, denoted A ⊆ B. For example, {1, 2} is a subset of {1, 2, 3}, and so is

{2} but {1, 4} is not. As implied by this definition, a set is a subset of itself. For

cases where this possibility is unsuitable or would make sense to be rejected, the

term proper subset is defined. A is called a proper subset of B if and only if A is a

subset of B, but A is not equal to B. Also, 1, 2, and 3 are members (elements) of

the set {1, 2, 3}, but are not subsets of it; and in turn, the subsets, such as {1}, are

not members of the set {1, 2, 3}.

Just as arithmetic features binary operations on numbers, set theory features

binary operations on sets.[6] The following is a partial list of them:

● Union of the sets A and B, denoted A ∪ B, is the set of all objects that

are a member of A, or B, or both.[7] For example, the union of {1, 2, 3}

and {2, 3, 4} is the set {1, 2, 3, 4}.

● Intersection of the sets A and B, denoted A ∩ B, is the set of all objects

that are members of both A and B. For example, the intersection of {1, 2,

3} and {2, 3, 4} is the set {2, 3}.

● Set difference of U and A, denoted U \ A, is the set of all members of U

that are not members of A. The set difference {1, 2, 3} \ {2, 3, 4} is {1},

while conversely, the set difference {2, 3, 4} \ {1, 2, 3} is {4}. When A is a

subset of U, the set difference U \ A is also called the complement of A

in U. In this case, if the choice of U is clear from the context, the

c
notation A is sometimes used instead of U \ A, particularly if U is a

universal set as in the study of Venn diagrams.

● Symmetric difference of sets A and B, denoted A △ B or A ⊖ B, is the

set of all objects that are a member of exactly one of A and B (elements

which are in one of the sets, but not in both). For instance, for the sets

{1, 2, 3} and {2, 3, 4}, the symmetric difference set is {1, 4}. It is the set

difference of the union and the intersection, (A ∪ B) \ (A ∩ B) or (A \ B)

∪ (B \ A).
 ● Cartesian product of A and B, denoted A × B, is the set whose members

are all possible ordered pairs (a, b), where a is a member of A and b is a

member of B. For example, the Cartesian product of {1, 2} and {red,

white} is {(1, red), (1, white), (2, red), (2, white)}.

● Power set of a set A, denoted

● 𝑃(𝐴)

● , is the set whose members are all of the possible subsets of A.

For example, the power set of {1, 2} is { {}, {1}, {2}, {1, 2} }.

Some basic sets of central importance are the set of natural numbers, the set of

real numbers and the empty set—the unique set containing no elements. The

empty set is also occasionally called the null set,[8] though this name is

ambiguous and can lead to several interpretations.

Ontology[edit]

Main article: von Neumann universe

 An initial segment of the von Neumann hierarchy

A set is pure if all of its members are sets, all members of its members are sets,

and so on. For example, the set containing only the empty set is a nonempty pure

set. In modern set theory, it is common to restrict attention to the von Neumann

universe of pure sets, and many systems of axiomatic set theory are designed to

axiomatize the pure sets only. There are many technical advantages to this

restriction, and little generality is lost, because essentially all mathematical

concepts can be modeled by pure sets. Sets in the von Neumann universe are

organized into a cumulative hierarchy, based on how deeply their members,

members of members, etc. are nested. Each set in this hierarchy is assigned (by

transfinite recursion) an ordinal number

𝛼

, known as its rank. The rank of a pure set

is defined to be the least ordinal that is strictly greater than the rank of any of

its elements. For example, the empty set is assigned rank 0, while the set {{}}

containing only the empty set is assigned rank 1. For each ordinal

, the set

𝑉𝛼

is defined to consist of all pure sets with rank less than

. The entire von Neumann universe is denoted

𝑉

Formalized set theory[edit]

Elementary set theory can be studied informally and intuitively, and so can be

taught in primary schools using Venn diagrams. The intuitive approach tacitly

assumes that a set may be formed from the class of all objects satisfying any

particular defining condition. This assumption gives rise to paradoxes, the

simplest and best known of which are Russell's paradox and the Burali-Forti

paradox. Axiomatic set theory was originally devised to rid set theory of such

paradoxes.[note 1]

The most widely studied systems of axiomatic set theory imply that all sets form

a cumulative hierarchy. Such systems come in two flavors, those whose ontology

consists of:

● Sets alone. This includes the most common axiomatic set theory,

Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (ZFC). Fragments

of ZFC include:
 ● Zermelo set theory, which replaces the axiom schema of

replacement with that of separation;

● General set theory, a small fragment of Zermelo set theory

sufficient for the Peano axioms and finite sets;

● Kripke–Platek set theory, which omits the axioms of infinity,

powerset, and choice, and weakens the axiom schemata of

separation and replacement.

● Sets and proper classes. These include Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel

set theory, which has the same strength as ZFC for theorems about sets

alone, and Morse–Kelley set theory and Tarski–Grothendieck set theory,

both of which are stronger than ZFC.

The above systems can be modified to allow urelements, objects that can be

members of sets but that are not themselves sets and do not have any members.

The New Foundations systems of NFU (allowing urelements) and NF (lacking

them), associate with Willard Van Orman Quine, are not based on a cumulative

hierarchy. NF and NFU include a "set of everything", relative to which every set

has a complement. In these systems urelements matter, because NF, but not

NFU, produces sets for which the axiom of choice does not hold. Despite NF's

ontology not reflecting the traditional cumulative hierarchy and violating well-
foundedness, Thomas Forster has argued that it does reflect an iterative

conception of set.[9]

Systems of constructive set theory, such as CST, CZF, and IZF, embed their set

axioms in intuitionistic instead of classical logic. Yet other systems accept

classical logic but feature a nonstandard membership relation. These include

rough set theory and fuzzy set theory, in which the value of an atomic formula

embodying the membership relation is not simply True or False. The Boolean-

valued models of ZFC are a related subject.

An enrichment of ZFC called internal set theory was proposed by Edward Nelson

in 1977.[10]

Applications[edit]

Many mathematical concepts can be defined precisely using only set theoretic

concepts. For example, mathematical structures as diverse as graphs, manifolds,

rings, vector spaces, and relational algebras can all be defined as sets satisfying

various (axiomatic) properties. Equivalence and order relations are ubiquitous in

mathematics, and the theory of mathematical relations can be described in set

theory.[11][12]
Set theory is also a promising foundational system for much of mathematics.

Since the publication of the first volume of Principia Mathematica, it has been

claimed that most (or even all) mathematical theorems can be derived using an

aptly designed set of axioms for set theory, augmented with many definitions,

using first or second-order logic. For example, properties of the natural and real

numbers can be derived within set theory, as each number system can be

identified with a set of equivalence classes under a suitable equivalence relation

whose field is some infinite set.[citation needed]

Set theory as a foundation for mathematical analysis, topology, abstract algebra,

and discrete mathematics is likewise uncontroversial; mathematicians accept (in

principle) that theorems in these areas can be derived from the relevant

definitions and the axioms of set theory. However, it remains that few full

derivations of complex mathematical theorems from set theory have been

formally verified, since such formal derivations are often much longer than the

natural language proofs mathematicians commonly present. One verification

project, Metamath, includes human-written, computer-verified derivations of more

than 12,000 theorems starting from ZFC set theory, first-order logic and

propositional logic.[13] ZFC and the Axiom of Choice have recently seen

applications in evolutionary dynamics,[14] enhancing the understanding of well-

established models of evolution and interaction.

Areas of study[edit]

Set theory is a major area of research in mathematics, with many interrelated

subfields.

Combinatorial set theory[edit]

Main article: Infinitary combinatorics

Combinatorial set theory concerns extensions of finite combinatorics to infinite

sets. This includes the study of cardinal arithmetic and the study of extensions of

Ramsey's theorem such as the Erdős–Rado theorem.

Descriptive set theory[edit]

Main article: Descriptive set theory

Descriptive set theory is the study of subsets of the real line and, more generally,

subsets of Polish spaces. It begins with the study of pointclasses in the Borel

hierarchy and extends to the study of more complex hierarchies such as the

projective hierarchy and the Wadge hierarchy. Many properties of Borel sets can

be established in ZFC, but proving these properties hold for more complicated

sets requires additional axioms related to determinacy and large cardinals.

The field of effective descriptive set theory is between set theory and recursion

theory. It includes the study of lightface pointclasses, and is closely related to

hyperarithmetical theory. In many cases, results of classical descriptive set

theory have effective versions; in some cases, new results are obtained by

proving the effective version first and then extending ("relativizing") it to make it

more broadly applicable.

A recent area of research concerns Borel equivalence relations and more

complicated definable equivalence relations. This has important applications to

the study of invariants in many fields of mathematics.

Fuzzy set theory[edit]

Main article: Fuzzy set theory

In set theory as Cantor defined and Zermelo and Fraenkel axiomatized, an object

is either a member of a set or not. In fuzzy set theory this condition was relaxed

by Lotfi A. Zadeh so an object has a degree of membership in a set, a number

between 0 and 1. For example, the degree of membership of a person in the set of

"tall people" is more flexible than a simple yes or no answer and can be a real

number such as 0.75.

Inner model theory[edit]

 Main article: Inner model theory

An inner model of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZF) is a transitive class that

includes all the ordinals and satisfies all the axioms of ZF. The canonical example

is the constructible universe L developed by Gödel. One reason that the study of

inner models is of interest is that it can be used to prove consistency results. For

example, it can be shown that regardless of whether a model V of ZF satisfies the

continuum hypothesis or the axiom of choice, the inner model L constructed

inside the original model will satisfy both the generalized continuum hypothesis

and the axiom of choice. Thus the assumption that ZF is consistent (has at least

one model) implies that ZF together with these two principles is consistent.

The study of inner models is common in the study of determinacy and large

cardinals, especially when considering axioms such as the axiom of determinacy

that contradict the axiom of choice. Even if a fixed model of set theory satisfies

the axiom of choice, it is possible for an inner model to fail to satisfy the axiom of

choice. For example, the existence of sufficiently large cardinals implies that

there is an inner model satisfying the axiom of determinacy (and thus not

satisfying the axiom of choice).[15]

Large cardinals[edit]

Main article: Large cardinal property

A large cardinal is a cardinal number with an extra property. Many such

properties are studied, including inaccessible cardinals, measurable cardinals,

and many more. These properties typically imply the cardinal number must be

very large, with the existence of a cardinal with the specified property unprovable

in Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory.

Determinacy[edit]

Main article: Determinacy

Determinacy refers to the fact that, under appropriate assumptions, certain two-

player games of perfect information are determined from the start in the sense

that one player must have a winning strategy. The existence of these strategies

has important consequences in descriptive set theory, as the assumption that a

broader class of games is determined often implies that a broader class of sets

will have a topological property. The axiom of determinacy (AD) is an important

object of study; although incompatible with the axiom of choice, AD implies that

all subsets of the real line are well behaved (in particular, measurable and with

the perfect set property). AD can be used to prove that the Wadge degrees have

an elegant structure.

Forcing[edit]
 Main article: Forcing (mathematics)

Paul Cohen invented the method of forcing while searching for a model of ZFC in

which the continuum hypothesis fails, or a model of ZF in which the axiom of

choice fails. Forcing adjoins to some given model of set theory additional sets in

order to create a larger model with properties determined (i.e. "forced") by the

construction and the original model. For example, Cohen's construction adjoins

additional subsets of the natural numbers without changing any of the cardinal

numbers of the original model. Forcing is also one of two methods for proving

relative consistency by finitistic methods, the other method being Boolean-valued

models.

Cardinal invariants[edit]

Main article: Cardinal characteristics of the continuum

A cardinal invariant is a property of the real line measured by a cardinal number.

For example, a well-studied invariant is the smallest cardinality of a collection of

meagre sets of reals whose union is the entire real line. These are invariants in

the sense that any two isomorphic models of set theory must give the same

cardinal for each invariant. Many cardinal invariants have been studied, and the

relationships between them are often complex and related to axioms of set

theory.
Set-theoretic topology[edit]

Main article: Set-theoretic topology

Set-theoretic topology studies questions of general topology that are set-

theoretic in nature or that require advanced methods of set theory for their

solution. Many of these theorems are independent of ZFC, requiring stronger

axioms for their proof. A famous problem is the normal Moore space question, a

question in general topology that was the subject of intense research. The

answer to the normal Moore space question was eventually proved to be

independent of ZFC.

Objections to set theory[edit]

From set theory's inception, some mathematicians have objected to it as a

foundation for mathematics: see Controversy over Cantor's theory. The most

common objection to set theory, one Kronecker voiced in set theory's earliest

years, starts from the constructivist view that mathematics is loosely related to

computation. If this view is granted, then the treatment of infinite sets, both in

naive and in axiomatic set theory, introduces into mathematics methods and

objects that are not computable even in principle. The feasibility of

constructivism as a substitute foundation for mathematics was greatly increased

by Errett Bishop's influential book Foundations of Constructive Analysis.[16]

A different objection put forth by Henri Poincaré is that defining sets using the

axiom schemas of specification and replacement, as well as the axiom of power

set, introduces impredicativity, a type of circularity, into the definitions of

mathematical objects. The scope of predicatively founded mathematics, while

less than that of the commonly accepted Zermelo–Fraenkel theory, is much

greater than that of constructive mathematics, to the point that Solomon

Feferman has said that "all of scientifically applicable analysis can be developed

[using predicative methods]".[17]

Ludwig Wittgenstein condemned set theory philosophically for its connotations

of mathematical platonism.[18] He wrote that "set theory is wrong", since it builds

on the "nonsense" of fictitious symbolism, has "pernicious idioms", and that it is

nonsensical to talk about "all numbers".[19] Wittgenstein identified mathematics

with algorithmic human deduction;[20] the need for a secure foundation for

mathematics seemed, to him, nonsensical.[21] Moreover, since human effort is

necessarily finite, Wittgenstein's philosophy required an ontological commitment

to radical constructivism and finitism. Meta-mathematical statements — which,

for Wittgenstein, included any statement quantifying over infinite domains, and

thus almost all modern set theory — are not mathematics.[22] Few modern

philosophers have adopted Wittgenstein's views after a spectacular blunder in

Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics: Wittgenstein attempted to refute

Gödel's incompleteness theorems after having only read the abstract. As

reviewers Kreisel, Bernays, Dummett, and Goodstein all pointed out, many of his

critiques did not apply to the paper in full. Only recently have philosophers such

as Crispin Wright begun to rehabilitate Wittgenstein's arguments. [23]

Category theorists have proposed topos theory as an alternative to traditional

axiomatic set theory. Topos theory can interpret various alternatives to that

theory, such as constructivism, finite set theory, and computable set theory.[24][25]

Topoi also give a natural setting for forcing and discussions of the independence

of choice from ZF, as well as providing the framework for pointless topology and

Stone spaces.[26]

An active area of research is the univalent foundations and related to it homotopy

type theory. Within homotopy type theory, a set may be regarded as a homotopy

0-type, with universal properties of sets arising from the inductive and recursive

properties of higher inductive types. Principles such as the axiom of choice and

the law of the excluded middle can be formulated in a manner corresponding to

the classical formulation in set theory or perhaps in a spectrum of distinct ways

unique to type theory. Some of these principles may be proven to be a

consequence of other principles. The variety of formulations of these axiomatic

principles allows for a detailed analysis of the formulations required in order to

derive various mathematical results.[27][28]

Set theory in mathematical education[edit]

As set theory gained popularity as a foundation for modern mathematics, there

has been support for the idea of introducing the basics of naive set theory early

in mathematics education.

In the US in the 1960s, the New Math experiment aimed to teach basic set theory,

among other abstract concepts, to primary school students, but was met with

much criticism. The math syllabus in European schools followed this trend, and

currently includes the subject at different levels in all grades. Venn diagrams are

widely employed to explain basic set-theoretic relationships to primary school

students (even though John Venn originally devised them as part of a procedure

to assess the validity of inferences in term logic).

Set theory is used to introduce students to logical operators (NOT, AND, OR), and

semantic or rule description (technically intensional definition[29]) of sets (e.g.

"months starting with the letter A"), which may be useful when learning computer

programming, since Boolean logic is used in various programming languages.

Likewise, sets and other collection-like objects, such as multisets and lists, are

common datatypes in computer science and programming.

In addition to that, sets are commonly referred to in mathematical teaching when

talking about different types of numbers (the sets

𝑁

of natural numbers,

of integers,

of real numbers, etc.), and when defining a mathematical function as a relation

from one set (the domain) to another set (the range).

See also[edit]

Mathematics portal

● Glossary of set theory

● Class (set theory)

● List of set theory topics

● Relational model – borrows from set theory

 ● Venn diagram

Notes[edit]

● ^ In his 1925 paper ""An Axiomatization of Set Theory", John von Neumann observed

that "set theory in its first, "naive" version, due to Cantor, led to contradictions. These

are the well-known antinomies of the set of all sets that do not contain themselves

(Russell), of the set of all transfinite ordinal numbers (Burali-Forti), and the set of all

finitely definable real numbers (Richard)." He goes on to observe that two "tendencies"

were attempting to "rehabilitate" set theory. Of the first effort, exemplified by Bertrand

Russell, Julius König, Hermann Weyl and L. E. J. Brouwer, von Neumann called the

"overall effect of their activity . . . devastating". With regards to the axiomatic method

employed by second group composed of Zermelo, Fraenkel and Schoenflies, von

Neumann worried that "We see only that the known modes of inference leading to the

antinomies fail, but who knows where there are not others?" and he set to the task, "in

the spirit of the second group", to "produce, by means of a finite number of purely

formal operations . . . all the sets that we want to see formed" but not allow for the

antinomies. (All quotes from von Neumann 1925 reprinted in van Heijenoort, Jean (1967,

third printing 1976), From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–

1931, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, ISBN 0-674-32449-8 (pbk). A synopsis of

the history, written by van Heijenoort, can be found in the comments that precede von

Neumann's 1925 paper.

References[edit]

● ^ Cantor, Georg (1874), "Ueber eine Eigenschaft des Inbegriffes aller reellen

algebraischen Zahlen", Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (in German),

1874 (77): 258–262, doi:10.1515/crll.1874.77.258, S2CID 199545885

● ^ Johnson, Philip (1972), A History of Set Theory, Prindle, Weber & Schmidt, ISBN 0-

87150-154-6

● ^ Bolzano, Bernard (1975), Berg, Jan (ed.), Einleitung zur Größenlehre und erste Begriffe

der allgemeinen Größenlehre, Bernard-Bolzano-Gesamtausgabe, edited by Eduard

Winter et al., vol. II, A, 7, Stuttgart, Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag, p. 152,

ISBN 3-7728-0466-7

● ^ Dauben, Joseph (1979), Georg Cantor: His Mathematics and Philosophy of the Infinite,

Harvard University Press, pp. 30–54, ISBN 0-674-34871-0.

● ^ "Introduction to Sets". www.mathsisfun.com. Retrieved 2020-08-20.

● ^ Kolmogorov, A.N.; Fomin, S.V. (1970), Introductory Real Analysis (Rev. English ed.),

New York: Dover Publications, pp. 2–3, ISBN 0486612260, OCLC 1527264

● ^ "set theory | Basics, Examples, & Formulas". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2020-

08-20.

● ^ Bagaria, Joan (2020), "Set Theory", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford

University, retrieved 2020-08-20

● ^ Forster, T. E. (2008). "The iterative conception of set" (PDF). The Review of Symbolic

Logic. 1: 97–110. doi:10.1017/S1755020308080064. S2CID 15231169.

● ^ Nelson, Edward (November 1977). "Internal Set Theory: a New Approach to

Nonstandard Analysis". Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society. 83 (6): 1165.

doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1977-14398-X.

● ^ "6.3: Equivalence Relations and Partitions". Mathematics LibreTexts. 2019-11-25.

Retrieved 2022-07-27.

● ^ "Order Relations and Functions" (PDF). Web.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2022-07-29.

● ^ "A PARTITION CALCULUS IN SET THEORY" (PDF). Ams.org. Retrieved 2022-07-29.

● ^ Berkemeier, Francisco; Page, Karen M. (2023-09-29). "Unifying evolutionary dynamics:

a set theory exploration of symmetry and interaction". dx.doi.org.

doi:10.1101/2023.09.27.559729. Retrieved 2023-12-07.

● ^ Jech, Thomas (2003), Set Theory, Springer Monographs in Mathematics (Third

Millennium ed.), Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag, p. 642, ISBN 978-3-540-44085-7, Zbl

1007.03002

● ^ Bishop, Errett (1967), Foundations of Constructive Analysis, New York: Academic

Press, ISBN 4-87187-714-0

● ^ Feferman, Solomon (1998), In the Light of Logic, New York: Oxford University Press,

pp. 280–283, 293–294, ISBN 0-195-08030-0

● ^ Rodych, Victor (Jan 31, 2018). "Wittgenstein's Philosophy of Mathematics". In Zalta,

Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 ed.).

● ^ Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1975), Philosophical Remarks, §129, §174, Oxford: Basil

Blackwell, ISBN 0-631-19130-5

● ^ Rodych 2018, §2.1: "When we prove a theorem or decide a proposition, we operate in a

purely formal, syntactical manner. In doing mathematics, we do not discover pre-

existing truths that were 'already there without one knowing' (PG 481)—we invent

mathematics, bit-by-little-bit." Note, however, that Wittgenstein does not identify such

deduction with philosophical logic; c.f. Rodych §1, paras. 7-12.

● ^ Rodych 2018, §3.4: "Given that mathematics is a 'MOTLEY of techniques of proof' (RFM

III, §46), it does not require a foundation (RFM VII, §16) and it cannot be given a self-

evident foundation (PR §160; WVC 34 & 62; RFM IV, §3). Since set theory was invented to

provide mathematics with a foundation, it is, minimally, unnecessary."

 ● ^ Rodych 2018, §2.2: "An expression quantifying over an infinite domain is never a

meaningful proposition, not even when we have proved, for instance, that a particular

number n has a particular property."

● ^ Rodych 2018, §3.6.

● ^ Ferro, Alfredo; Omodeo, Eugenio G.; Schwartz, Jacob T. (September 1980), "Decision

Procedures for Elementary Sublanguages of Set Theory. I. Multi-Level Syllogistic and

Some Extensions", Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 33 (5): 599–608,

doi:10.1002/cpa.3160330503

● ^ Cantone, Domenico; Ferro, Alfredo; Omodeo, Eugenio G. (1989), Computable Set

Theory, International Series of Monographs on Computer Science, Oxford Science

Publications, Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, pp. xii, 347, ISBN 0-198-53807-3

● ^ Mac Lane, Saunders; Moerdijk, leke (1992), Sheaves in Geometry and Logic: A First

Introduction to Topos Theory, Springer-Verlag, ISBN 978-0-387-97710-2

● ^ homotopy type theory at the nLab

● ^ Homotopy Type Theory: Univalent Foundations of Mathematics. The Univalent

Foundations Program. Institute for Advanced Study.

● ^ Frank Ruda (6 October 2011). Hegel's Rabble: An Investigation into Hegel's Philosophy

of Right. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 151. ISBN 978-1-4411-7413-0.

● Kunen, Kenneth (1980), Set Theory: An Introduction to Independence Proofs, North-Holland,

ISBN 0-444-85401-0

● Johnson, Philip (1972), A History of Set Theory, Prindle, Weber & Schmidt, ISBN 0-87150-

154-6
Further reading[edit]

● Devlin, Keith (1993), The Joy of Sets: Fundamentals of Contemporary

Set Theory, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics (2nd ed.), Springer

Verlag, doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0903-4, ISBN 0-387-94094-4[permanent dead

link]

● Ferreirós, Jose (2001), Labyrinth of Thought: A History of Set Theory

and Its Role in Modern Mathematics, Berlin: Springer, ISBN 978-3-7643-

5749-8

● Monk, J. Donald (1969), Introduction to Set Theory, McGraw-Hill Book

Company, ISBN 978-0-898-74006-6

● Potter, Michael (2004), Set Theory and Its Philosophy: A Critical

Introduction, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-191-55643-2

● Smullyan, Raymond M.; Fitting, Melvin (2010), Set Theory and the

Continuum Problem, Dover Publications, ISBN 978-0-486-47484-7

● Tiles, Mary (2004), The Philosophy of Set Theory: An Historical

Introduction to Cantor's Paradise, Dover Publications, ISBN 978-0-486-

43520-6

External links[edit]
hide

Set theory

at Wikipedia's sister projects

Definitions from Wiktionary

Media from Commons

Quotations from Wikiquote

Textbooks from Wikibooks

Resources from Wikiversity

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: Discrete mathematics/Set theory

● Daniel Cunningham, Set Theory article in the Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy.

● Jose Ferreiros, "The Early Development of Set Theory" article in the

[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy].

● Foreman, Matthew, Akihiro Kanamori, eds. Handbook of Set Theory. 3

vols., 2010. Each chapter surveys some aspect of contemporary

 research in set theory. Does not cover established elementary set

theory, on which see Devlin (1993).

● "Axiomatic set theory", Encyclopedia of Mathematics, EMS Press, 2001

[1994]

● "Set theory", Encyclopedia of Mathematics, EMS Press, 2001 [1994]

● Schoenflies, Arthur (1898). Mengenlehre in Klein's encyclopedia.

● Online books, and library resources in your library and in other libraries

about set theory

● Rudin, Walter B. (April 6, 1990). "Set Theory: An Offspring of Analysis".

Marden Lecture in Mathematics. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Archived from the original on 2021-10-31 – via YouTube.

hide

● V

● T

● E

Set theory
O

● Set (mathematics)

● Adjunction

● Choice

● countable

● dependent

● global

● Constructibility (V=L)

● Determinacy

● Extensionality

● Infinity

● Limitation of size

● Pairing

● Power set

● Regularity

● Union

● Martin's axiom

● Axiom schema
 ● replacement

● specification

● Cartesian product

● Complement (i.e. set difference)

● De Morgan's laws

● Disjoint union

● Identities

● Intersection

● Power set

● Symmetric difference

● Union

● ● Almost

C
● Cardinality

● Cardinal number (large)

●

M ● Class

● Constructible universe

● Continuum hypothesis
 ● Diagonal argument

● Element

● ordered pair

● tuple

● Family

● Forcing

● One-to-one correspondence

● Ordinal number

● Set-builder notation

● Transfinite induction

● Venn diagram

● Amorphous

● Countable

● Empty

● Finite (hereditarily)

● Filter

● base

● subbase
 ● Ultrafilter

● Fuzzy

● Infinite (Dedekind-infinite)

● Recursive

● Singleton

● Subset · Superset

● Transitive

● Uncountable

● Universal

● Alternative

● Axiomatic

● Naive

● Cantor's theorem

● Zermelo

● General

● Principia Mathematica

● New Foundations

● Zermelo–Fraenkel
 ● von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel

● Morse–Kelley

● Kripke–Platek

● Tarski–Grothendieck

● ● Russell's paradox

P
● Suslin's problem

● Burali-Forti paradox
●

● Paul Bernays

● Georg Cantor

● Paul Cohen

● Richard Dedekind

● Abraham Fraenkel

● Kurt Gödel

● Thomas Jech

● John von Neumann

 ● Willard Quine

● Bertrand Russell

● Thoralf Skolem

● Ernst Zermelo

show

● V

● T

● E

Major mathematics areas

show

● V

● T

● E

Mathematical logic
 show

● V

● T

● E

Computer science

Authority control
● Spain
databases:
National
● France

● BnF data

● Germany

● Israel

● United States

● Latvia

● Japan

● Czech Republic

Categories:

Set theory
Mathematical logic
Formal methods
Georg Cantor
This page was last edited on 22 April 2024, at 18:36 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may
apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a
registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view