0
$\begingroup$

I was reading about the axiom of regularity on Wikipedia.

It is stated that:

In mathematics, the axiom of regularity (also known as the axiom of foundation) is an axiom of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory that states that every non-empty set $A$ contains an element that is disjoint from $A$.

$$\forall x\left(x\neq \emptyset\implies\exists y\in x\left(y\cap x=\emptyset\right)\right)$$

How can this be correct?

If $A$ contains an element $x$, then $x$ can not be disjoint from $A$, because $x$ belongs both to $A$ and to the set containing only $x$.

What am I misunderstanding?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Your question makes no sense. Syntactically. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 1 '17 at 10:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What does it mean that $x$ is "from" $A$, and what do you mean by "belongs"? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 1 '17 at 10:48
  • $\begingroup$ Are you concerned about an element being part of two or more sets at the same time? Look at this: $A=\{\{1,2\},\{2,3\},2\}$. The $2$ is element of both sets inside $A$ and of $A$ itself. Are you feeling uncomfortable with this? $\endgroup$ – M. Winter Jun 1 '17 at 10:50
  • $\begingroup$ I updated my question because I phrased it poorly. $\endgroup$ – octavian Jun 1 '17 at 10:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ An element $x$ is not the same as the set $\{x\}$ containing only this element. Is this the confusing point? If $x\in A$, then $\{x\}$ must not be in $A$, so $x$ can be disjoint from $A$. $\endgroup$ – M. Winter Jun 1 '17 at 10:54
4
$\begingroup$

One consequence of this is that $x \cap \{x\} = \emptyset$. This often confuses people, because it seems counter-intuitive.

But if the sets $x$ and $\{x\}$ have a common element, it must be $x$ itself, since $x$ is the only element of $\{x\}$. And this would lead us to conclude (reluctantly) that $x \in x$. Such a set would have "no foundation", since we'd have to "keep opening up" the set $x$ only to find still another one inside it: $x\in x \in x \in x\dots$

To avoid this, we devised a formula that says (in effect) "the buck stops somewhere". At first, it was believed we might need the set-equivalent of "atomic elements", or ur-elements, primitive objects that belonged to sets, but were not sets themselves. But mathematicians being what they are, found that set theory "made sense" without using ur-elements, and so they by and large abandoned them (why pack more luggage than you need?).

$\endgroup$

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.