On 1/23/24 22:03, wij wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-01-23 at 20:34 +0000, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 23/01/2024 18:46, wij wrote:
>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)
>>> A set is the mathematical model for a collection of different[1]
>>> things;...
>>>
>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_extensionality
>>> "two sets A and B are equal if and only if A and B have the same
>>> members."...
>>> Extensionality: ∀A∀B(∀x(x∈A <=> x∈B)) <=> A=B
>>>
>>> Let S={ x| x is a set. ∀x,y∈S, x=y } // '=' defined by Axiom of
>>> extensionality.
>>
>> That's not a proper definition for a set. To start with, The
>> condition ∀x,y∈S, x=y which is
>> defining S contains the symbol S, so there is circularity. Also, if
>> you are using ZFC then ZFC does
>> not allow sets to be constructed using unrestricted comprehension.
>
> Let's modify it to: S={ all the set x,y that x=y }
>
> I don't know how to express the idea 'formally'. I feel it is like
> Russell's paradox. But the expression (x∈x) in Russell's paradox is
> apparently problematic and WILL cause lots of problems. But it was
> accepted. As it is your? logic, I wonder how you understand it?
>
The idea doesn't even seem to make sense informally. What does "all the
set x,y that x=y" even mean?
>> Also this is OT for comp.theory, but wouldn't be out of place in
>> sci.math.
>>
>>>
>>> Let A={1,3,5..}, B={2,4,6,..}. A and B satisfies the property of
>>> the
>>> axiom of
>>> extensionality.
>>
>> What do you mean by that? You understand A and B are not equal,
>> right?
>>
>
> Let A=B (A and B are defined equal under the meaning of extensionality)
But {1,3,5,...} and {2,4,6,...} are unequal under the meaning of
extensionality.
The axiom of extensionality defines sets A and B as equal if every
element in A is also in B, and every element not in A is also not in B.
But 1 is in A and not in B.