1
$\begingroup$

Joaquin Olivert's book Estructuras de álgebra multilineal (multilinear algebra sructures) states the following (p.38 thm. 5.9):

Let $f$ be a function (an special type of binary relation) and let $\mbox{def }f$ be the class the definition domain of $f$. Then:

$$ x\notin \mbox{def }f \Longrightarrow f(x) = \mathcal U $$

and

$$ x\in\mbox{def } f \Longrightarrow f(x)\in \mathcal U . $$

(here $\mathcal U$ denotes the class of all sets).

I have tried to prove it, but I have obtained something different (very different in fact). My attempt:

Let

$$ W=\{y : (x,y)\in f\}. $$

By hypothesis $W=\emptyset$. Now, by definition, $f(x)$ is the second component of the class $W$, so:

$$ f(x)= \left(\bigcap\bigcap W\right) \cup \left(\left( \bigcup\bigcup W\right)\dashv \bigcup\bigcap W\right) , $$

where $A\dashv B$ denotes the complement of $B$ respect to $X$:

$$ A\dashv B= A\cap\{s:s\notin B\}. $$

Computing:

$$ \bigcap\bigcap\emptyset = \bigcap \mathcal U = \emptyset. $$

and

$$ \bigcup\bigcup \emptyset = \emptyset $$

Since the complement involves the intersection with the emptyset, it turns out to be the emptyset again, so that

$$ f(x)=\emptyset. $$

Any help?

Thanks a lot.

EDIT:

In the author's proof, he considers that

$$ f(x)=\bigcap W=\bigcap \emptyset = \mathcal U , $$

but I don't understand why $f(x)=\bigcap W $.

Addendum. The theorem actually states

$$ x\notin \mbox{def } f \Longleftrightarrow f(x)=\mathcal U, $$

but it seems to be a mistake. Only $\Rightarrow$ is true.

Addendum 2. There was a mistake in my statement. First result said

$$ x\notin \mbox{def } f \Longrightarrow f(x) \in \mathcal U $$

but the truth is $f(x)$ EQUAL TO $\mathcal U$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I would certainly expect $x\in\operatorname{def}f\implies f(x)\in\mathcal U$ to hold, which seems hardly compatible with the iven claim. $\endgroup$ – Hagen von Eitzen Jan 21 '18 at 16:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The original claim does not look right at all. The $\Rightarrow$ direction might be true depending on how exactly you have defined the notation $f(x)$ -- but the $\Leftarrow$ direction is nonsense: Just because $f(x)$ is a set does not imply that $f$ is not defined at $x$, with any sensible definitions. $\endgroup$ – hmakholm left over Monica Jan 21 '18 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ This is the second part of the theorem. And his proof is the same. Now $W\neq\emptyset$ and by a previous theorem, $\bigcap W$ is a set (the theoreom is a corollary of subset axiom and the fact that if $y\in x$, then $\bigcap x\subset y$. $\endgroup$ – Dog_69 Jan 21 '18 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ Also, I would expect $f(x)=\bigcap W$ to hold under normal circumstances (but also $f(x)=\bigcup W$) $\endgroup$ – Hagen von Eitzen Jan 21 '18 at 16:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MauroALLEGRANZA: That is a great answer. You can consider write it as an answer and I'll mark it. Thanks a lot. Moreover, that comments also helps me with my another question math.stackexchange.com/questions/2618981/…. $\endgroup$ – Dog_69 Jan 24 '18 at 15:42
2
$\begingroup$

Comments

We can see see H.Enderton, Elements of Set Theory, page 43: if $F$ is a function and $\langle x,y \rangle \in F$, there is a unique $y$ such that $\langle x,y \rangle \in F$.

We call it "the value of $F$ at $x$" and we can denote it with $F(x)$.

Because of this: $\{ y \mid \langle x,y \rangle \in F \} = \{ y \}$, and we know that $\bigcup \{ y \} = y$.

Conclusion: $F(x)=\bigcup \{ y \mid \langle x,y \rangle \in F \}$.

For the easy part, see Enderton page 41: if $\langle x,y \rangle \in F$, then $x,y \in \bigcup \bigcup F$. Thus: $x$ and $y$ are sets, and thus $x \text { (and } y ) \in \mathcal U$.

Regarding the second part, the author uses: $W = \{ y \mid \langle x,y \rangle \in F \}$.

But then, $W=\emptyset$ and $\bigcap W = \bigcap \emptyset$ (see Enderton, page 25) is the class $\text V$ of all sets (i.e. $\mathcal U$).

But the issue is: writing $F(x) = \mathcal U$ makes little sense, because again the "meaning" of $F(x)$ is "the unique $y$ such that $\langle x,y \rangle \in F$" and obviously $\langle x, \mathcal U \rangle \notin F$, otherwise (see above): $x, \mathcal U \in \bigcup \bigcup F$, that implies that $\mathcal U$ is 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.