Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

For each formula $\phi$ without $Y$ free, the universal closure of the following is an axiom:

$\forall x\in A \exists !y \phi(x,y) \Longrightarrow \exists Y \forall x\in A \exists y\in Y \phi(x,y)$

My question is about the $!$, does that mean that $y$ is bound in $\phi$? What does the exclamation mark mean? Is it there so that $y\ne \{x: x\not\in x \}$? I am confused.

share|improve this question
4  
"There is a unique" –  Andres Caicedo Aug 31 '13 at 18:02
3  
(But it is not needed, we can relax the requirement to the usual $\exists$, and the new schema is equivalent to this one.) –  Andres Caicedo Aug 31 '13 at 18:03
    
I see. Thank you that makes things more clear for me. –  Rustyn Aug 31 '13 at 18:06

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Rustyn, $\exists !$ is the quantifier "there is a unique". This is just an abbreviation, as it can be defined in terms of the standard quantifiers: $\exists! x\psi(x)$ is just $\exists x(\psi(x)\land\forall y(\psi(y)\to y=x))$.

Anyway, this version of replacement (where the graph of $\phi$ is a "function") is equivalent to the more generous version where the $\exists!$ is replaced by the usual $\exists$ (where the graph of $\phi$ is just a "relation").

share|improve this answer
    
I see, they didn't introduce this abbreviation in the book, so I was confused. –  Rustyn Aug 31 '13 at 18:14
    
Some people prefer the abbreviation $\exists^{=1}$ instead. –  Andres Caicedo Aug 31 '13 at 18:15
    
It's not clear to me how to derive the "more generous" version from the usual one, at least not without some kind of choice principle. (Sure, we could add more than one $y$ per $x$ to $Y$, but if we add too many of them we risk the result being too large to be a set, don't we?) –  Henning Makholm Aug 31 '13 at 18:18
1  
@HenningMakholm You minimize the rank of the witnesses $y$. (One useful way of thinking of replacement is saying that any function with a set domain has bounded -as opposed to cofinal- range.) –  Andres Caicedo Aug 31 '13 at 18:21
    
@AndresCaicedo: Makes sense -- assuming we have Regularity. –  Henning Makholm Aug 31 '13 at 18:23

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.