SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 1904.04401

The Constituents of Sets, Numbers, and Other Mathematical Objects, Part One

Abstract

The sets used to construct other mathematical objects are pure sets, which means that all of their elements are sets, which are themselves pure. One set may therefore be within another, not as an element, but as an element of an element, or even deeper, inside several layers of sets within sets. The introduction of the term constituent to describe a set which is within a given set, however deep, induces an apparently novel partial order on sets, and assigns to any given set a diagram which specifies a directed graph, or category, herein dubbed its constituent structure, indicating which sets within it are constituents of which others. Sets with different numbers of elements can have exactly the same constituent structure. Consequently, constituent structure isomorphisms between sets need not preserve the number of elements, although they are still injective, surjective, and invertible. We consider in detail an example of an isomorphism between a one-element set and a five-element set, which is a surjective mapping despite the mismatch in cardinalities. The constituent structure of a set determines the mathematical objects for which the set is a suitable representation. Different schemes for constructing the natural numbers, such as those of von Neumann and Zermelo, generate sets with the same constituent structures. Objects share the constituent structures, not the elements, of the sets used to construct or represent them. The requirement that an object's properties be faithfully encoded within a set's constituent structure and not its non-constituent characteristics such as its cardinality, when made explicit, dictates a specific and novel way of representing ordered pairs and tuples of sets as sets, providing simple formulae for addressing and extracting sets located deep within nested tuples.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ruadhan O'Flanagan. 2019-04-09. The Constituents of Sets, Numbers, and Other Mathematical Objects, Part One. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.04401

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

There is no maximal $K$-degree

The Kolmogorov complexity of a string characterize how complex it is to describe the string. If every prefix of a real $x$ is more complex to describe than every prefix (of the same length) of real $y$, then it is seen as $x$ is more complex to describe than $y$. It is wondered if there is a real $x$ so that no other reals are strictly more complex (to describe) than $x$. The behavior of Kolmogorov complexity functions generated by reals (namely $n\mapsto$ the minimal description length of the real) is quite chaos. Therefore, it is widely believed that there are many reals that are maximally complex to describe. For instance, it is conjectured that all random enough reals have maximal $K$-degree. In this paper, it is shown that there is no real with maximal $K$-degree. Actually, for almost all real $x$, we can uniformly computably find another real whose $K$-degree is strictly above $x$.

math.LO

Quadruples and cubes

We prove, in $\mathsf{ZFC}$, that the $\lambda$-terraced cube relation fails whenever $\lambda$ is an uncountable cardinal. The corresponding terraced relation for quadruples fails for every $\lambda$. If $\lambda$ is $\aleph_0$ then the pretinent terraced relation has consistency strength of at least one Woodin cardinal. We prove positive polarized relations at a successor and a double successor from wondrous ideals. We show, however, that there are no such ideals over two consecutive cardinals simultaneously.

math.LO

Possibilistic Logic over a Logic of Formal Inconsistency

In this article, we have introduced a new possibilistic logic on a logic of formal inconsistency with the aim of developing a possibility theoretic framework to deal with uncertainty and inconsistency meaningfully without leading to a system collapse. We have discussed the syntax and semantics for this logic and have proved the soundness and completeness theorems. A set of new measures of consistency, contradictoriness, and triviality of a set of formulas have been defined. These have then been put to use in an example to show that this framework can provide better means of machine reasoning.

math.LO