0
$\begingroup$

In E. Kamke's Theory of sets he shows that for any set $S$ of cardinal numbers, there exists some cardinal number that is strictly greater than all cardinal numbers in $S$. Thus "the set of all cardinal numbers" doesn't make sense. This I understand. I did some more reading and found out that to list all the cardinal numbers you need a class.

So my questions are

(a) What is a class and how does it differ from a set?

(b) Why does it allow us to list all the cardinal numbers?

Thanks.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What's your intuitive notion of a set? $\endgroup$ – Luiz Cordeiro May 19 '18 at 18:05
  • $\begingroup$ Did you search the site? There are several questions for (a). I am currently debating if to close this as a duplicate or as too broad. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila May 19 '18 at 18:39
2
$\begingroup$

In mainstream set theory (that is, based on the ZFC axioms), a "class" means a group/collection/plurality/whatever of sets that we can identify by a property they all share, but which may not constitute the elements of a set.

Classes differ from sets by:

  1. A class cannot be a member of a set (or of another class).
  2. Classes do not actually exist in the formal development of (ZFC) set theory. Speaking of a class is just a vivid way of speaking of the property (say, as a logical formula) that defines membership in the class.

Thus we can speak of the class of all sets (where the property is just "is a set"), or of a class whose defining property is "is a cardinal number'.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Intuitively, given any formula $\varphi$ with one free variable, we might want to reason about the collection $\{ x \mid \varphi(x) \}$ of objects $x$ that satisfy $\varphi(x)$. We'd like this to be 'the set of all $x$ such that $\varphi(x)$', but unfortunately that leads to Russell's paradox. So, to be safe, we—informally—refer to $X = \{ x \mid \varphi(x) \}$ as a class. Formally the word 'class' is meaningless on its own and $X$ is not an object that we can reason about within the usual set theory; when we write '$x \in X$', what we really mean is '$\varphi(x)$'.

To say that a class $X = \{ x \mid \varphi(x) \}$ is a set is to say that there exists a set whose elements are precisely those objects $x$ such that $\varphi(x)$ is true. In this case, we can then treat $X$ as we treat any other set.

It's possible to define a formula in ZFC that says '$x$ is a cardinal number', and so there is a class $\mathsf{Card} = \{ x \mid x \text{ is a cardinal} \}$. However, this class is too big to be a set—this is proved by showing that, if it were a set, then it would have a cardinality (since all sets have cardinalities), and this cardinality would be greater than all cardinalities (which is a contradiction, since it would then be larger than itself).

$\endgroup$

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.