Amorphous set

Last updated

In set theory, an amorphous set is an infinite set which is not the disjoint union of two infinite subsets. [1]

Contents

Existence

Amorphous sets cannot exist if the axiom of choice is assumed. Fraenkel constructed a permutation model of Zermelo–Fraenkel with Atoms in which the set of atoms is an amorphous set. [2] After Cohen's initial work on forcing in 1963, proofs of the consistency of amorphous sets with Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory were obtained. [3]

Additional properties

Every amorphous set is Dedekind-finite, meaning that it has no bijection to a proper subset of itself. To see this, suppose that is a set that does have a bijection to a proper subset. For each natural number define to be the set of elements that belong to the image of the -fold composition of f with itself but not to the image of the -fold composition. Then each is non-empty, so the union of the sets with even indices would be an infinite set whose complement in is also infinite, showing that cannot be amorphous. However, the converse is not necessarily true: it is consistent for there to exist infinite Dedekind-finite sets that are not amorphous. [4]

No amorphous set can be linearly ordered. [5] [6] Because the image of an amorphous set is itself either amorphous or finite, it follows that every function from an amorphous set to a linearly ordered set has only a finite image.

The cofinite filter on an amorphous set is an ultrafilter. This is because the complement of each infinite subset must not be infinite, so every subset is either finite or cofinite.

Variations

If is a partition of an amorphous set into finite subsets, then there must be exactly one integer such that has infinitely many subsets of size ; for, if every size was used finitely many times, or if more than one size was used infinitely many times, this information could be used to coarsen the partition and split into two infinite subsets. If an amorphous set has the additional property that, for every partition , , then it is called strictly amorphous or strongly amorphous, and if there is a finite upper bound on then the set is called bounded amorphous. It is consistent with ZF that amorphous sets exist and are all bounded, or that they exist and are all unbounded. [1]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Axiom of choice</span> Axiom of set theory

In mathematics, the axiom of choice, abbreviated AC or AoC, is an axiom of set theory equivalent to the statement that a Cartesian product of a collection of non-empty sets is non-empty. Informally put, the axiom of choice says that given any collection of sets, each containing at least one element, it is possible to construct a new set by choosing one element from each set, even if the collection is infinite. Formally, it states that for every indexed family of nonempty sets, there exists an indexed set such that for every . The axiom of choice was formulated in 1904 by Ernst Zermelo in order to formalize his proof of the well-ordering theorem.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cardinal number</span> Size of a possibly infinite set

In mathematics, a cardinal number, or cardinal for short, is what is commonly called the number of elements of a set. In the case of a finite set, its cardinal number, or cardinality is therefore a natural number. For dealing with the case of infinite sets, the infinite cardinal numbers have been introduced, which are often denoted with the Hebrew letter (aleph) marked with subscript indicating their rank among the infinite cardinals.

In mathematics, particularly set theory, a finite set is a set that has a finite number of elements. Informally, a finite set is a set which one could in principle count and finish counting. For example,

In mathematics, Tychonoff's theorem states that the product of any collection of compact topological spaces is compact with respect to the product topology. The theorem is named after Andrey Nikolayevich Tikhonov, who proved it first in 1930 for powers of the closed unit interval and in 1935 stated the full theorem along with the remark that its proof was the same as for the special case. The earliest known published proof is contained in a 1935 article by Tychonoff, "Über einen Funktionenraum".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Infinite set</span> Set that is not a finite set

In set theory, an infinite set is a set that is not a finite set. Infinite sets may be countable or uncountable.

In set theory, Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, named after mathematicians Ernst Zermelo and Abraham Fraenkel, is an axiomatic system that was proposed in the early twentieth century in order to formulate a theory of sets free of paradoxes such as Russell's paradox. Today, Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, with the historically controversial axiom of choice (AC) included, is the standard form of axiomatic set theory and as such is the most common foundation of mathematics. Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice included is abbreviated ZFC, where C stands for "choice", and ZF refers to the axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice excluded.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kőnig's lemma</span> Mathematical result on infinite trees

Kőnig's lemma or Kőnig's infinity lemma is a theorem in graph theory due to the Hungarian mathematician Dénes Kőnig who published it in 1927. It gives a sufficient condition for an infinite graph to have an infinitely long path. The computability aspects of this theorem have been thoroughly investigated by researchers in mathematical logic, especially in computability theory. This theorem also has important roles in constructive mathematics and proof theory.

In set theory, an uncountable cardinal is inaccessible if it cannot be obtained from smaller cardinals by the usual operations of cardinal arithmetic. More precisely, a cardinal κ is strongly inaccessible if it satisfies the following three conditions: it is uncountable, it is not a sum of fewer than κ cardinals smaller than κ, and implies .

In mathematics, two sets or classes A and B are equinumerous if there exists a one-to-one correspondence (or bijection) between them, that is, if there exists a function from A to B such that for every element y of B, there is exactly one element x of A with f(x) = y. Equinumerous sets are said to have the same cardinality (number of elements). The study of cardinality is often called equinumerosity (equalness-of-number). The terms equipollence (equalness-of-strength) and equipotence (equalness-of-power) are sometimes used instead.

In mathematics, a non-measurable set is a set which cannot be assigned a meaningful "volume". The existence of such sets is construed to provide information about the notions of length, area and volume in formal set theory. In Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, the axiom of choice entails that non-measurable subsets of exist.

In mathematics, a set A is Dedekind-infinite if some proper subset B of A is equinumerous to A. Explicitly, this means that there exists a bijective function from A onto some proper subset B of A. A set is Dedekind-finite if it is not Dedekind-infinite. Proposed by Dedekind in 1888, Dedekind-infiniteness was the first definition of "infinite" that did not rely on the definition of the natural numbers.

In the mathematical discipline of measure theory, a Banach measure is a certain way to assign a size to all subsets of the Euclidean plane, consistent with but extending the commonly used Lebesgue measure. While there are certain subsets of the plane which are not Lebesgue measurable, all subsets of the plane have a Banach measure. On the other hand, the Lebesgue measure is countably additive while a Banach measure is only finitely additive.

In mathematical logic, second-order arithmetic is a collection of axiomatic systems that formalize the natural numbers and their subsets. It is an alternative to axiomatic set theory as a foundation for much, but not all, of mathematics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Axiom of limitation of size</span>

In set theory, the axiom of limitation of size was proposed by John von Neumann in his 1925 axiom system for sets and classes. It formalizes the limitation of size principle, which avoids the paradoxes encountered in earlier formulations of set theory by recognizing that some classes are too big to be sets. Von Neumann realized that the paradoxes are caused by permitting these big classes to be members of a class. A class that is a member of a class is a set; a class that is not a set is a proper class. Every class is a subclass of V, the class of all sets. The axiom of limitation of size says that a class is a set if and only if it is smaller than V—that is, there is no function mapping it onto V. Usually, this axiom is stated in the equivalent form: A class is a proper class if and only if there is a function that maps it onto V.

Tarski–Grothendieck set theory is an axiomatic set theory. It is a non-conservative extension of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZFC) and is distinguished from other axiomatic set theories by the inclusion of Tarski's axiom, which states that for each set there is a Grothendieck universe it belongs to. Tarski's axiom implies the existence of inaccessible cardinals, providing a richer ontology than ZFC. For example, adding this axiom supports category theory.

This article contains a discussion of paradoxes of set theory. As with most mathematical paradoxes, they generally reveal surprising and counter-intuitive mathematical results, rather than actual logical contradictions within modern axiomatic set theory.

The Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set-theoretic geometry, which states the following: Given a solid ball in three-dimensional space, there exists a decomposition of the ball into a finite number of disjoint subsets, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the original ball. Indeed, the reassembly process involves only moving the pieces around and rotating them, without changing their original shape. However, the pieces themselves are not "solids" in the traditional sense, but infinite scatterings of points. The reconstruction can work with as few as five pieces.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Selection principle</span> Rule in mathematics

In mathematics, a selection principle is a rule asserting the possibility of obtaining mathematically significant objects by selecting elements from given sequences of sets. The theory of selection principles studies these principles and their relations to other mathematical properties. Selection principles mainly describe covering properties, measure- and category-theoretic properties, and local properties in topological spaces, especially function spaces. Often, the characterization of a mathematical property using a selection principle is a nontrivial task leading to new insights on the characterized property.

In order theory and model theory, branches of mathematics, Cantor's isomorphism theorem states that every two countable dense unbounded linear orders are order-isomorphic. For instance, Minkowski's question-mark function produces an isomorphism between the numerical ordering of the rational numbers and the numerical ordering of the dyadic rationals.

References

  1. 1 2 Truss, J. K. (1995), "The structure of amorphous sets", Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 73 (2): 191–233, doi:10.1016/0168-0072(94)00024-W, MR   1332569 .
  2. Jech, Thomas J. (2008), The axiom of choice, Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications, ISBN   978-0486318257, OCLC   761390829
  3. Plotkin, Jacob Manuel (November 1969), "Generic Embeddings", The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 34 (3): 388–394, doi:10.2307/2270904, ISSN   0022-4812, JSTOR   2270904, MR   0252211, S2CID   250347797
  4. Lévy, A. (1958), "The independence of various definitions of finiteness" (PDF), Fundamenta Mathematicae, 46: 1–13, doi:10.4064/fm-46-1-1-13, MR   0098671 .
  5. Truss, John (1974), "Classes of Dedekind finite cardinals" (PDF), Fundamenta Mathematicae, 84 (3): 187–208, doi:10.4064/fm-84-3-187-208, MR   0469760 .
  6. de la Cruz, Omar; Dzhafarov, Damir D.; Hall, Eric J. (2006), "Definitions of finiteness based on order properties" (PDF), Fundamenta Mathematicae, 189 (2): 155–172, doi: 10.4064/fm189-2-5 , MR   2214576 . In particular this is the combination of the implications which de la Cruz et al. credit respectively to Lévy (1958) and Truss (1974).