1
$\begingroup$

I was reading a pdf on set theory that explains that because of the axiom of regularity, there is no set that contains all sets, $\{x: x =x\}$, because it would have to contain itself.

I was wondering if instead a set containing all sets containing one set, $\{x:\exists y\ x=\{y\}\}$, could exist. How could you prove/disprove it's existence?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hint: Regularity tells us there can't be a set $x$ such that $x\in x$. But it also tells us that there can't be sets $x, y$ such that $x\in y\in x$. $\endgroup$ – GME Sep 19 '15 at 19:05
  • $\begingroup$ Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3815/… $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Sep 19 '15 at 19:10
  • $\begingroup$ You can also consider the set $B=\{x\in A:\forall y\in x,x\notin y\}$ (where $A$ is the set of singletons). Prove that this is equal to $\{\{X\}:\{X\}\notin X\}$. Then ask if $\{B\}\in B$. (This does not appeal to regularity.) $\endgroup$ – Akiva Weinberger Sep 20 '15 at 5:42
4
$\begingroup$

No. For any set of sets $\mathcal A, \bigcup \mathcal A = \{x : \exists A \in \mathcal A \text{ with } x \in A\}$ exists (assuming the normal axioms of set theory). But for your supposed set, its union would be the universal set, so your condition does not define a set.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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