Mixing
What is the definition of “equality”
$begingroup$
I thought we could define "the equality on set $A$" by the relation ${(a,a):ain A}subseteq A^2$. However, no book has this definition. Moreover, some books say that this is the "diagonal relation". Is it just another name for the equality?
- Of course I am also interested in the general properties of equality, but now I wonder if the above definition makes sense.
elementary-set-theory logic
asked Jan 19 at 12:30
amoogaeamoogae
487
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I thought we could define "the equality on set $A$" by the relation ${(a,a):ain A}subseteq A^2$. However, no book has this definition. Moreover, some books say that this is the "diagonal relation". Is it just another name for the equality?
- Of course I am also interested in the general properties of equality, but now I wonder if the above definition makes sense.
elementary-set-theory logic
asked Jan 19 at 12:30
amoogaeamoogae
487
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Please see answers to this question
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Jan 19 at 12:34
$begingroup$
See The Logic of Identity.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 19 at 13:35
3
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of what is the definition of $=$?
$endgroup$
– jordan_glen
Jan 19 at 17:25
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I thought we could define "the equality on set $A$" by the relation ${(a,a):ain A}subseteq A^2$. However, no book has this definition. Moreover, some books say that this is the "diagonal relation". Is it just another name for the equality?
- Of course I am also interested in the general properties of equality, but now I wonder if the above definition makes sense.
elementary-set-theory logic
asked Jan 19 at 12:30
amoogaeamoogae
487
$endgroup$
I thought we could define "the equality on set $A$" by the relation ${(a,a):ain A}subseteq A^2$. However, no book has this definition. Moreover, some books say that this is the "diagonal relation". Is it just another name for the equality?
- Of course I am also interested in the general properties of equality, but now I wonder if the above definition makes sense.
elementary-set-theory logic
elementary-set-theory logic
asked Jan 19 at 12:30
amoogaeamoogae
487
asked Jan 19 at 12:30
amoogaeamoogae
487
edited Jan 20 at 8:01
amoogae
asked Jan 19 at 12:30
amoogaeamoogae
487
asked Jan 19 at 12:30
amoogaeamoogae
487
asked Jan 19 at 12:30
amoogaeamoogae
487
487
2
$begingroup$
Please see answers to this question
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Jan 19 at 12:34
$begingroup$
See The Logic of Identity.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 19 at 13:35
3
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of what is the definition of $=$?
$endgroup$
– jordan_glen
Jan 19 at 17:25
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Please see answers to this question
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Jan 19 at 12:34
$begingroup$
See The Logic of Identity.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 19 at 13:35
3
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of what is the definition of $=$?
$endgroup$
– jordan_glen
Jan 19 at 17:25
2
2
$begingroup$
Please see answers to this question
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Jan 19 at 12:34
$begingroup$
Please see answers to this question
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Jan 19 at 12:34
$begingroup$
See The Logic of Identity.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 19 at 13:35
$begingroup$
See The Logic of Identity.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 19 at 13:35
3
3
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of what is the definition of $=$?
$endgroup$
– jordan_glen
Jan 19 at 17:25
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of what is the definition of $=$?
$endgroup$
– jordan_glen
Jan 19 at 17:25
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Equality is typically a predicate and built in to the logic itself. For a first-order theory of set theory, such as ZFC, this means equality is defined for all sets. Alternatively, equality of sets is defined by the formula $x=y:equiv forall z.zin xiff zin y$. If equality is built in to the logic, then we axiomatically identify this formula with equality.
The question then becomes: how do we define equality of the logic? There are two approaches to defining a logic. You can give it a semantics, or you can give it a proof theory. The semantic definition of equality is indeed usually done via the diagonal relation (or more generally a diagonal monomorphism) on the domain. However, this may not be very compelling when set theory is the thing you're trying to understand. A proof theoretic approach is to give the axiom $forall x.x=x$ and the rule if $varphi(x)$ is derivable and $x=y$ is derivable then $varphi(y)$ is derivable for all first-order formulas $varphi$. Conceptually, this states that if two things are equal then every property (that we can write down) that holds of one holds of the other.
Within a set theory, we can define an equality relation on a set just as you state. A predicate is a formula of the logic, while a relation is a set of pairs. (An alternative definition would be as the smallest equivalence relation on the set.) Another way of writing the set would be ${(a,b)mid (a,b)in Atimes A land a=b}$. This set is the restriction of the equality predicate to $A$, but the notion of equality is pre-existing.
In type theories or more structural approaches to set theory, we may not have a global notion of equality for all sets. In these contexts, it may make more sense to consider a family of equality predicates indexed in some manner whose semantics may well look like a diagonal relation for each member of the family of equality predicates. In these contexts, it does not make sense to (directly) talk about the equality of unrelated sets. ("Does not make sense" means there is no well-formed formula corresponding to the notion.) In particular, two elements can be compared for equality only if they are elements of the same containing set. This can lead to terms being equal as elements of some sets but not others, e.g. $2=5inmathbb Z/3$ but not in $mathbb Z$.
answered Jan 19 at 21:44
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17.1k11437
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. It was very helpful.
$endgroup$
– amoogae
Jan 20 at 8:19
$begingroup$
Could you tell me about the difference between "equality" and "equality relation " in your answer?
$endgroup$
– amoogae
Jan 20 at 8:21
$begingroup$
A relation is a set is an individual of a set theory which is just a particular example of a first-order theory. Any first-order theory, e.g. the theory of groups, can have predicates. We can talk about the equality of terms in the theory of groups, but no sets are involved in this. It doesn't make sense to talk about an equality relation (or any other particular set) in the theory of groups. If we interpret the theory of groups with a set-theoretic semantics, then it may be the case that equality will be interpreted as an equality relation, but there are other possible semantics.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 20 at 23:40
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3079312%2fwhat-is-the-definition-of-equality%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Equality is typically a predicate and built in to the logic itself. For a first-order theory of set theory, such as ZFC, this means equality is defined for all sets. Alternatively, equality of sets is defined by the formula $x=y:equiv forall z.zin xiff zin y$. If equality is built in to the logic, then we axiomatically identify this formula with equality.
The question then becomes: how do we define equality of the logic? There are two approaches to defining a logic. You can give it a semantics, or you can give it a proof theory. The semantic definition of equality is indeed usually done via the diagonal relation (or more generally a diagonal monomorphism) on the domain. However, this may not be very compelling when set theory is the thing you're trying to understand. A proof theoretic approach is to give the axiom $forall x.x=x$ and the rule if $varphi(x)$ is derivable and $x=y$ is derivable then $varphi(y)$ is derivable for all first-order formulas $varphi$. Conceptually, this states that if two things are equal then every property (that we can write down) that holds of one holds of the other.
Within a set theory, we can define an equality relation on a set just as you state. A predicate is a formula of the logic, while a relation is a set of pairs. (An alternative definition would be as the smallest equivalence relation on the set.) Another way of writing the set would be ${(a,b)mid (a,b)in Atimes A land a=b}$. This set is the restriction of the equality predicate to $A$, but the notion of equality is pre-existing.
In type theories or more structural approaches to set theory, we may not have a global notion of equality for all sets. In these contexts, it may make more sense to consider a family of equality predicates indexed in some manner whose semantics may well look like a diagonal relation for each member of the family of equality predicates. In these contexts, it does not make sense to (directly) talk about the equality of unrelated sets. ("Does not make sense" means there is no well-formed formula corresponding to the notion.) In particular, two elements can be compared for equality only if they are elements of the same containing set. This can lead to terms being equal as elements of some sets but not others, e.g. $2=5inmathbb Z/3$ but not in $mathbb Z$.
answered Jan 19 at 21:44
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17.1k11437
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. It was very helpful.
$endgroup$
– amoogae
Jan 20 at 8:19
$begingroup$
Could you tell me about the difference between "equality" and "equality relation " in your answer?
$endgroup$
– amoogae
Jan 20 at 8:21
$begingroup$
A relation is a set is an individual of a set theory which is just a particular example of a first-order theory. Any first-order theory, e.g. the theory of groups, can have predicates. We can talk about the equality of terms in the theory of groups, but no sets are involved in this. It doesn't make sense to talk about an equality relation (or any other particular set) in the theory of groups. If we interpret the theory of groups with a set-theoretic semantics, then it may be the case that equality will be interpreted as an equality relation, but there are other possible semantics.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 20 at 23:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Equality is typically a predicate and built in to the logic itself. For a first-order theory of set theory, such as ZFC, this means equality is defined for all sets. Alternatively, equality of sets is defined by the formula $x=y:equiv forall z.zin xiff zin y$. If equality is built in to the logic, then we axiomatically identify this formula with equality.
The question then becomes: how do we define equality of the logic? There are two approaches to defining a logic. You can give it a semantics, or you can give it a proof theory. The semantic definition of equality is indeed usually done via the diagonal relation (or more generally a diagonal monomorphism) on the domain. However, this may not be very compelling when set theory is the thing you're trying to understand. A proof theoretic approach is to give the axiom $forall x.x=x$ and the rule if $varphi(x)$ is derivable and $x=y$ is derivable then $varphi(y)$ is derivable for all first-order formulas $varphi$. Conceptually, this states that if two things are equal then every property (that we can write down) that holds of one holds of the other.
Within a set theory, we can define an equality relation on a set just as you state. A predicate is a formula of the logic, while a relation is a set of pairs. (An alternative definition would be as the smallest equivalence relation on the set.) Another way of writing the set would be ${(a,b)mid (a,b)in Atimes A land a=b}$. This set is the restriction of the equality predicate to $A$, but the notion of equality is pre-existing.
In type theories or more structural approaches to set theory, we may not have a global notion of equality for all sets. In these contexts, it may make more sense to consider a family of equality predicates indexed in some manner whose semantics may well look like a diagonal relation for each member of the family of equality predicates. In these contexts, it does not make sense to (directly) talk about the equality of unrelated sets. ("Does not make sense" means there is no well-formed formula corresponding to the notion.) In particular, two elements can be compared for equality only if they are elements of the same containing set. This can lead to terms being equal as elements of some sets but not others, e.g. $2=5inmathbb Z/3$ but not in $mathbb Z$.
answered Jan 19 at 21:44
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17.1k11437
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. It was very helpful.
$endgroup$
– amoogae
Jan 20 at 8:19
$begingroup$
Could you tell me about the difference between "equality" and "equality relation " in your answer?
$endgroup$
– amoogae
Jan 20 at 8:21
$begingroup$
A relation is a set is an individual of a set theory which is just a particular example of a first-order theory. Any first-order theory, e.g. the theory of groups, can have predicates. We can talk about the equality of terms in the theory of groups, but no sets are involved in this. It doesn't make sense to talk about an equality relation (or any other particular set) in the theory of groups. If we interpret the theory of groups with a set-theoretic semantics, then it may be the case that equality will be interpreted as an equality relation, but there are other possible semantics.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 20 at 23:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Equality is typically a predicate and built in to the logic itself. For a first-order theory of set theory, such as ZFC, this means equality is defined for all sets. Alternatively, equality of sets is defined by the formula $x=y:equiv forall z.zin xiff zin y$. If equality is built in to the logic, then we axiomatically identify this formula with equality.
The question then becomes: how do we define equality of the logic? There are two approaches to defining a logic. You can give it a semantics, or you can give it a proof theory. The semantic definition of equality is indeed usually done via the diagonal relation (or more generally a diagonal monomorphism) on the domain. However, this may not be very compelling when set theory is the thing you're trying to understand. A proof theoretic approach is to give the axiom $forall x.x=x$ and the rule if $varphi(x)$ is derivable and $x=y$ is derivable then $varphi(y)$ is derivable for all first-order formulas $varphi$. Conceptually, this states that if two things are equal then every property (that we can write down) that holds of one holds of the other.
Within a set theory, we can define an equality relation on a set just as you state. A predicate is a formula of the logic, while a relation is a set of pairs. (An alternative definition would be as the smallest equivalence relation on the set.) Another way of writing the set would be ${(a,b)mid (a,b)in Atimes A land a=b}$. This set is the restriction of the equality predicate to $A$, but the notion of equality is pre-existing.
In type theories or more structural approaches to set theory, we may not have a global notion of equality for all sets. In these contexts, it may make more sense to consider a family of equality predicates indexed in some manner whose semantics may well look like a diagonal relation for each member of the family of equality predicates. In these contexts, it does not make sense to (directly) talk about the equality of unrelated sets. ("Does not make sense" means there is no well-formed formula corresponding to the notion.) In particular, two elements can be compared for equality only if they are elements of the same containing set. This can lead to terms being equal as elements of some sets but not others, e.g. $2=5inmathbb Z/3$ but not in $mathbb Z$.
answered Jan 19 at 21:44
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17.1k11437
$endgroup$
Equality is typically a predicate and built in to the logic itself. For a first-order theory of set theory, such as ZFC, this means equality is defined for all sets. Alternatively, equality of sets is defined by the formula $x=y:equiv forall z.zin xiff zin y$. If equality is built in to the logic, then we axiomatically identify this formula with equality.
The question then becomes: how do we define equality of the logic? There are two approaches to defining a logic. You can give it a semantics, or you can give it a proof theory. The semantic definition of equality is indeed usually done via the diagonal relation (or more generally a diagonal monomorphism) on the domain. However, this may not be very compelling when set theory is the thing you're trying to understand. A proof theoretic approach is to give the axiom $forall x.x=x$ and the rule if $varphi(x)$ is derivable and $x=y$ is derivable then $varphi(y)$ is derivable for all first-order formulas $varphi$. Conceptually, this states that if two things are equal then every property (that we can write down) that holds of one holds of the other.
Within a set theory, we can define an equality relation on a set just as you state. A predicate is a formula of the logic, while a relation is a set of pairs. (An alternative definition would be as the smallest equivalence relation on the set.) Another way of writing the set would be ${(a,b)mid (a,b)in Atimes A land a=b}$. This set is the restriction of the equality predicate to $A$, but the notion of equality is pre-existing.
In type theories or more structural approaches to set theory, we may not have a global notion of equality for all sets. In these contexts, it may make more sense to consider a family of equality predicates indexed in some manner whose semantics may well look like a diagonal relation for each member of the family of equality predicates. In these contexts, it does not make sense to (directly) talk about the equality of unrelated sets. ("Does not make sense" means there is no well-formed formula corresponding to the notion.) In particular, two elements can be compared for equality only if they are elements of the same containing set. This can lead to terms being equal as elements of some sets but not others, e.g. $2=5inmathbb Z/3$ but not in $mathbb Z$.
answered Jan 19 at 21:44
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17.1k11437
answered Jan 19 at 21:44
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17.1k11437
answered Jan 19 at 21:44
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17.1k11437
answered Jan 19 at 21:44
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17.1k11437
17.1k11437
$begingroup$
Thank you. It was very helpful.
$endgroup$
– amoogae
Jan 20 at 8:19
$begingroup$
Could you tell me about the difference between "equality" and "equality relation " in your answer?
$endgroup$
– amoogae
Jan 20 at 8:21
$begingroup$
A relation is a set is an individual of a set theory which is just a particular example of a first-order theory. Any first-order theory, e.g. the theory of groups, can have predicates. We can talk about the equality of terms in the theory of groups, but no sets are involved in this. It doesn't make sense to talk about an equality relation (or any other particular set) in the theory of groups. If we interpret the theory of groups with a set-theoretic semantics, then it may be the case that equality will be interpreted as an equality relation, but there are other possible semantics.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 20 at 23:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you. It was very helpful.
$endgroup$
– amoogae
Jan 20 at 8:19
$begingroup$
Could you tell me about the difference between "equality" and "equality relation " in your answer?
$endgroup$
– amoogae
Jan 20 at 8:21
$begingroup$
A relation is a set is an individual of a set theory which is just a particular example of a first-order theory. Any first-order theory, e.g. the theory of groups, can have predicates. We can talk about the equality of terms in the theory of groups, but no sets are involved in this. It doesn't make sense to talk about an equality relation (or any other particular set) in the theory of groups. If we interpret the theory of groups with a set-theoretic semantics, then it may be the case that equality will be interpreted as an equality relation, but there are other possible semantics.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 20 at 23:40
$begingroup$
Thank you. It was very helpful.
$endgroup$
– amoogae
Jan 20 at 8:19
$begingroup$
Thank you. It was very helpful.
$endgroup$
– amoogae
Jan 20 at 8:19
$begingroup$
Could you tell me about the difference between "equality" and "equality relation " in your answer?
$endgroup$
– amoogae
Jan 20 at 8:21
$begingroup$
Could you tell me about the difference between "equality" and "equality relation " in your answer?
$endgroup$
– amoogae
Jan 20 at 8:21
$begingroup$
A relation is a set is an individual of a set theory which is just a particular example of a first-order theory. Any first-order theory, e.g. the theory of groups, can have predicates. We can talk about the equality of terms in the theory of groups, but no sets are involved in this. It doesn't make sense to talk about an equality relation (or any other particular set) in the theory of groups. If we interpret the theory of groups with a set-theoretic semantics, then it may be the case that equality will be interpreted as an equality relation, but there are other possible semantics.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 20 at 23:40
$begingroup$
A relation is a set is an individual of a set theory which is just a particular example of a first-order theory. Any first-order theory, e.g. the theory of groups, can have predicates. We can talk about the equality of terms in the theory of groups, but no sets are involved in this. It doesn't make sense to talk about an equality relation (or any other particular set) in the theory of groups. If we interpret the theory of groups with a set-theoretic semantics, then it may be the case that equality will be interpreted as an equality relation, but there are other possible semantics.
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
Jan 20 at 23:40
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3079312%2fwhat-is-the-definition-of-equality%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
Please see answers to this question
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Jan 19 at 12:34
$begingroup$
See The Logic of Identity.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 19 at 13:35
3
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of what is the definition of $=$?
$endgroup$
– jordan_glen
Jan 19 at 17:25