As I understand, to apply the Axiom of Specification in ZF set theory, we have to specify a set $A$ to apply it to. However, I don't quite understand why Halmos says that

In case $S(x)$ is $(x\notin x)$ or $(x=x)$, the specified $x$'s do not constitute a set.

by the end of Section 3 in his book Naive Set Theory. I want to verify what kind of set he is using to apply the Axiom of Specification. Besides, in the previous section he already showed that we can produce a set from an arbitrary set with the sentence $x \notin x$. So how come that ”the specified x’s do not constitute a set”? I would appreciate if someone could help explain this to me.


See page 7 :

To specify a set, it is not enough to pronounce some magic words (which may form a sentence such as "$x \notin x$"); it is necessary also to have at hand a set to whose elements the magic words apply.

We have to review the text of the Axiom of Specification :

To every set $A$ and to every condition $S(x)$ there corresponds a set $B$ whose elements are exactly those elements $x$ of $A$ for which $S(x)$ holds.

This means that we can use the formula $x \notin x$ as "condition $S(x)$" only in conjunction with and already existent $A$ to "carve out" the subset $B$ of $A$ of all and only those elements $x \in A$ that satisfy the condition.

In symbols :

$B = \{x : x \in A \text { and } S(x) \}$.

Having said that :

what kind of set he is using to apply the Axiom of Specification ?

A set $A$ whatever, provided that we already know that it exists. This is the gist of the axiom : it does not produce new sets out of nothing, but allows use to manufacture them only as subsets of alredy existsing sets.

Regarding Halmos' explanation :

in this notation, the role of $S(x)$ is now played by $x \notin x$.

It follows that, whatever the set $A$ may be, if $B = \{x : x \in A \text { and } x \notin' x \}$, then, for all $y$,

$y \in B \text { if and only if } (y \in A \text { and } y \notin y)$.

we have only to note that the "condition" $S(x)$ is expressed by a formula whatever of the language of set theory, with a free variable $x$ (a "parameter").

how come that ”the specified x’s do not constitute a set”?

Because in ordet to specify a set we have to consider an already existsing set $A$ and a "specifying condition" $S(x)$.

  • $\begingroup$ This I understand. However, when Halmos uses notations like ${x:S(x)}$, he's not explicitly stating the set $A$. Does he only tacitly do this when there's no confusion that possibly arise (such as when $S(x)$ stands for $x\neq x$)? $\endgroup$ – Macrophage Jan 18 at 10:48
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for adding extra explanations about formulas. However, I'm not sure if that address my problem. With $A(x)=x \notin x$ we can still find a set B for any set A...so how does Halmos say what I quoted. still didn't get it. $\endgroup$ – Macrophage Jan 18 at 14:33
  • $\begingroup$ But what I read is that in the section for the Axiom of Specification he used that sentence on any arbitrary set A to prove there's a set B that does not belong to A? So from any arbitrary set A, this B should be an existent set that can be induced with $S(x)=x \notin x$? $\endgroup$ – Macrophage Jan 18 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure what is the set he specifies for the Axiom in the section for unordered pairs where I quoted the sentence in my question, though. $\endgroup$ – Macrophage Jan 18 at 14:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Macrophage - now the issue is about Axiom of Pairing ? This is a new one: it asserts that, given two sets $a$ and $b$, it exists a third set - call it $A$ - that contain them. Again, the following comment is a little bit subtle... Given Pairing and using Spec, Halmos proves that exists a set with only $a$ and $b$. Pairing asserts that $A$ contains $a$ and $b$ but not asserts that it contains only them... $\endgroup$ – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jan 18 at 14:59

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.