Classification and construction of sets
This is my note of the video https://youtu.be/6EIWRg-6ftQ. It’s not a full guide how to construct “numbers” from the empty set.
Classification of sets
In Mathematics, we usuallly investigate the “structure” of “spaces” in terms of “maps”.
Space and map
The terminology space is usually meant to be some set equipped with some “structure”.
A map is a relation such that for every there exists exactly one such that .
As a notation, we write this fact as follows:
Terminology:
- : domain of
- : target of
- : image of under
A map is called:
- surjective if .
- injective if .
- bijective if is surjective and injective.
Two sets and are called (set-theoretically) isomorphic if there exists a bijection , and we denote it as . As a remark, if there is any bijection , there are many bijection in general.
Infinite sets
A set is called an infinite set if there exists a proper subset such that and
Coutably infinite
- A set is called an countably infinite if .
- A set is called an non-countably infinite if is an infinite set and is not a countable.
- Otherwise, a set is called a finite set. When the finite set is isomorphic like for , we define cardinality of as , denoted by .
Composition of maps
Given two maps and . One can construct a composition of the two maps as follows:
Diagramatically, this composition is denoted as follows:
Note that the composition is associative by definition:
Inverse map
Let be a bijection. Then the inverse of , denoted , is defined uniquely by:
Preimage
Let be any map. Then we define a preimage of under as follows:
In the lecture, Prof. Frederic uses the notation so that “” denotes always an inverse (defined on bijection) map. Insted, I use square brackets “[]” with “”.
A preimage is also called “counter image” or “inverse image”, and denoted like .
Equivalence relation
Equivalence relation provides grouping methods inside a set. The word “grouping” implicitly implies that there is no intersection between the groups.
Let be a set. An equivalence relation on is defined as a relation which satisfies the following three conditions:
- reflexivity:
- symmetry:
- transitivity:
Let be a set and be an equivalence relation on An equivalence class of is defined as follows:
Properties:
- (any element of equivalence class can act as its representative.)
- either or .
We can define quotient set as follows:
Due to the axiom of choice, there exists a “complete system of representatives” for , i.e., .
When you define a map whose domain is a quotion set, we should check that function should be independent of the representative element.
Construction of , , , and
By the axiom of infinity, we can define/construct a set of natural numbers .
Note that set of natural numbers is defined by Zermelo ordinals.
Define addition on
We will construct and from , but we will also inherit the addition on later.
Define a successor map as follows:
Define .
Define a predesessor map as follows (this definition is required to ):
Define -th power of as follows:
Finally, define addition + on as follows:
We can check,
- the addition is associative.
- the “neutral element” is 0.
The set of integer numbers
Let the equivalence relation on as follows:
The idea is, corresponds/states for
Under this equivalence relation, we can define a set of integer numbers as follows:
From the definition it’s obvious Instead, we can embed into by introducing inclusion map:
As a conclusion of embedding, we defined where . And using this new , we can define the inverse of as .
Finally, the addition of integers can be defined as follows:
Roughly speaking, multiplication on can be defined as follows (Peano arithmetic):
The set of rational numbers
The construction is similar to previous one.
Let the equivalence relation on as follows:
The idea is, corresponds/states for .
Under this equivalence relation, we can define the set of rational numbers as follows:
We can embed into by the introducing inclusion map as follows:
The addition of rational numbers can be defined as follows:
The multiplication of rational numbers can be defined as follows:
Note that the following wrong definition of addition is ill-defined because the RHS depends on the representatives of quotion sets:
The set of rational numbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers