3
$\begingroup$

How do you define a set without using set builder notation? For example, let's say that I want to define set S as:

$$ S = \{ x \in \mathbb{N}\ \mid 0 < x < 5\} $$

Then $$ S = \{1, 2, 3, 4\} $$

However, suppose that I wanted to define S without set-builder notation, as below?

$$ \forall x \in \mathbb{N} (\ 0 < x < 5 \iff x \in S \ ) $$

Are these two statements equivalent?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Make that a $\iff$ instead of a $\implies$. $\endgroup$ – Jack M Nov 20 '13 at 23:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Come to think of it, even that doesn't really work, since it doesn't rule out the possibility that, for instance, $\pi\in S$. $\endgroup$ – Jack M Nov 20 '13 at 23:04
5
$\begingroup$

They are not equivalent. If $S'=\{1,2,3,4,5,6,7\}$ then we have : $$\forall x \in \Bbb N \quad 0<x<5 \Rightarrow x \in S'$$ but $S \neq S'$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question has been edited to eliminate this counter-example. $\endgroup$ – AlexR Nov 20 '13 at 23:10
2
$\begingroup$

A fool-proof alternative would say $$\forall x: (x\in \mathbb N \wedge 0<x<5) \Leftrightarrow x\in S$$ This rules out all $x \notin \mathbb N$, which your initial proposal did not and it also formulates it as equivalencies.


Note that always the following representations of an arbitrary set $A$ are equivalent: $$A = \{x\in X: \phi(x)\}$$ and $$\forall x': (x'\in X \wedge \phi(x')) \Leftrightarrow x'\in A$$

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Set-builder notation can be taken as a contextually defined abbreviation. At least this is how I learned it.

We can take $y\in\{x:\phi\}$ as short for $\exists z(y\in z \wedge \forall x(x\in z\leftrightarrow \phi))$. An obvious variation works for $\{x:\phi\}\in y$ and for contexts involving "$=$". In principle, we don't usually need anything in the language of set theory but the machinery of FOL and $\in$, so pretty much anything else is a handy abbreviation.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Apart from errors in logic, what you have is a proposition which happens to be true for your set $S$. This is not the same thing as an expression for $S$. You can't, for instance, write:

$$3\in \left(\forall x \in \mathbb{N} (\ 0 < x < 5 \Rightarrow x \in S \ )\right)$$

Whereas you can write $3\in \{1,2,3,4\}$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, I understand that it should be "if and only if". Then, how do I define S without using this set builder notation? $\endgroup$ – Thomas Nov 20 '13 at 23:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ He is trying to define a set. The definition is not the same thing with what is defined. So you never write $x\in Definition$. I don't think what you say is really a problem. $\endgroup$ – hhsaffar Nov 20 '13 at 23:06
  • $\begingroup$ @hhsaffar Nice explanation ;-) $\endgroup$ – AlexR Nov 20 '13 at 23:09

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.