Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 1/3*9

From your definitions, and only your definitions, with no extra hand-waving or undefined filler, how would one determine the cardinality of a set, {a,b,c,d}, to be 4 and not be 21?
By my definitions |{a,b,c,d}| can't be but the member of N called 4, even if they are not directly used in order to define some particular cardinality.

Cardinality is directly defined by my definition, but not some particular one.
 
Last edited:
The best that the ZF axiom of infinity and the axiom schema of restricted comprehension (with more ZF axioms) establish, is the inductive set known by the name "von Neumann ordinals" that does not have the greatest successor...

That's the best? You seem to have overlooked just how foundational set theory is to the entire body of Mathematics.

...so the term all in the following equate is arbitrarily plugged in....

Trying to quibble over the meaning of 'all' is just silly. You, who has repeatedly failed to define any of the terms you use in so many fantastical ways, are not qualified to write on this matter.

Stop with the countless diversions, please. You've made claims. You need to defend your claims, and not jump to any topic you can that isn't among your claims.

Focus: Start with your definition of cardinality as you are using the term.
 

I have no such requirement.

If there is something to be defined that is boolean valued, say, for example, whether a set is non-finite, then an if-and-only-if construct is perfectly reasonable. A set is non-finite if and only if something else (that is already well-defined) is true.

But you aren't expressing things as boolean valued. An if-and-only-if construction makes absolutely no sense for that, except perhaps to someone who really doesn't understand basic mathematical logic.

Moreover, you want the cardinality of some sets to be whole numbers, but the gibberish you presented doesn't even begin to define cardinality in a way that the cardinality of a set can be determined.
 
By my definitions |{a,b,c,d}| can't be but the member of N called 4, even if they are not directly used in order to define some particular cardinality.

Cardinality is directly defined by my definition, but not some particular one.

Nothing in your posted "definitions" lead anyone to conclude the cardinality of {a,b,c,d} is 4.

Prove me wrong. Show your work.
 
Trying to quibble over the meaning of 'all' is just silly.
No, it is at the heart of our discussion.

By trying to force "all" on a set that the existence of its greatest successor is not satisfied, you actually eliminate the very existence of an endless collection (where a set is some particular case of collection).

For example, please define the greatest successor of the set of von Neumann ordinals.
 
Last edited:
Nothing in your posted "definitions" lead anyone to conclude the cardinality of {a,b,c,d} is 4.

Prove me wrong. Show your work.
Very simple:

Definition 1: Cardinality is the 'size' of D (notated as |D|) iff it is related to the members of N, where 0 is a member of N.

"related to the members of N" simply means that |D| is at N domain, whether it is determined by some particular n, or not (in this case the fact that N does not have the greatest successor is taken).

D={a,b,c,d}

|D|=|{a,b,c,d}| (the 'size' of D)

By constricting the natural numbers in terms of sets, as done by von Neumann |{{},{{}},{{},{{}}},{{},{{}},{{},{{}}}}}| = 4

Since {{},{{}},{{},{{}}},{{},{{}},{{},{{}}}}} and {a,b,c,d} are bijective, |D| can't be but 4.
 
Since {{},{{}},{{},{{}}},{{},{{}},{{},{{}}}}} and {a,b,c,d} are bijective, |D| can't be but 4.


Nothing in your so-called definition supports this leap. Perhaps you'd like to include the word 'bijective' in what you've written, at the very least.

ETA:
By constricting the natural numbers in terms of sets, as done by von Neumann |{{},{{}},{{},{{}}},{{},{{}},{{},{{}}}}}| = 4

I think you meant that {{}, {{}}, {{},{{}}}, {{},{{}},{{},{{}}}}} = 4 (without the vertical bars).
 
Last edited:
Nothing in your so-called definition supports this leap. Perhaps you'd like to include the word 'bijective' in what you've written, at the very least.
There is no leap.

Definition 2: The cardinality between the two sets A and B is a relative measure of their "sizes", where ( ((|A| < |B|) iff (|B| > |A|)) OR ((|A| = |B|) iff (|B| = |A|)) ).

The highlighted part is bijection.

As for von Neumann construction, natural numbers and Cardinality:

Code:
{
   -------------->
0   | 	= |∅|
1   | 	= |{∅}|
2   | 	= |{ ∅, {∅} }|
3   | 	= |{ ∅, {∅} , {∅, {∅}} }|
4   | 	= |{ ∅, {∅} , {∅, {∅}}, {∅, {∅}, {∅, {∅}}} }|
... V

}

The horizontal direction is any finite cardinality.

The vertical downward direction is non-finite cardinality (the existence of the greatest successor is not satisfied).

In both cases you do not leave von Neumann domain.
 
Last edited:
There is no leap.

Definition 2: The cardinality between the two sets A and B is a relative measure of their "sizes", where ( ((|A| < |B|) iff (|B| > |A|)) OR ((|A| = |B|) iff (|B| = |A|)) ).

The highlighted part is bijection.

You might want to double check your understanding of what a bijection is. That which you highlighted is a tautology, but it is nothing like a bijection.
 
You might want to double check your understanding of what a bijection is. That which you highlighted is a tautology, but it is nothing like a bijection.
EDIT:
Eeach element of A is mapped to exactly to one element of B and each element of B is mapped to exactly to one element of A , so in terms of cardinality |A|=|B| iff |B|=|A|.
 
Last edited:
EDIT:
Eeach element of A is mapped to exactly to one element of B and each element of B is mapped to exactly to one element of A , so in terms of cardinality |A|=|B| iff |B|=|A|.

Let's try that out:

Let A = {a, b, c}, and let B = {}.

|A| = |B| ? Well, impossible to tell from Doronshadmi's "definitions", but I will assume Doronshadmi would say "false" since he wants |A| to be 3 and |B| to be 0. (We'd reach the same final result were the answer "true".)

|B| = |A| ? "False".

Therefore: |A| = |B| iff |B| = |A| is "true".

Conclusion: Each element of A is mapped to exactly to one element of B and each element of B is mapped to exactly to one element of A.
 
Let's try that out:

Let A = {a, b, c}, and let B = {}.

|A| = |B| ? Well, impossible to tell from Doronshadmi's "definitions", but I will assume Doronshadmi would say "false" since he wants |A| to be 3 and |B| to be 0. (We'd reach the same final result were the answer "true".)

|B| = |A| ? "False".

Therefore: |A| = |B| iff |B| = |A| is "true".

Conclusion: Each element of A is mapped to exactly to one element of B and each element of B is mapped to exactly to one element of A.
Thank you, you are right.

"Each element of A is mapped to exactly to one element of B" is unclear since, for example, it can be also surjection, and so is the case about the other direction.

So, back to work:

D is a placeholder for any given set.

Definition 1: Cardinality is the 'size' of D iff |D| is at von Neumann domain.

Code:
p="Cardinality is the 'size' of D" 

q="|D| is at von Neumann domain"
  
p iff q
-------
F     F  T
F     T  F
T     F  F
T     T  T

---------------------------------------------------------------------
As about von Neumann domain, natural numbers and Cardinality:

Code:
{
   -------------->
0   | 	= |∅|
1   | 	= |{∅}|
2   | 	= |{ ∅, {∅} }|
3   | 	= |{ ∅, {∅} , {∅, {∅}} }|
4   | 	= |{ ∅, {∅} , {∅, {∅}}, {∅, {∅}, {∅, {∅}}} }|
... V

}

(The horizontal direction is any finite cardinality.

The vertical downward direction is non-finite cardinality (the existence of the greatest successor is not satisfied).

In both cases one does not leave von Neumann domain.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition 2: N is the set of finite cardinalities iff any given n ∈ N member is determined by a particular von Neumann member ( as follows: )

Code:
{
   -------------->
0    	= |∅|
1    	= |{∅}|
2    	= |{ ∅, {∅} }|
3    	= |{ ∅, {∅} , {∅, {∅}} }|
4    	= |{ ∅, {∅} , {∅, {∅}}, {∅, {∅}, {∅, {∅}}} }|
... 

}

Definition 3: D is called finite iff it is bijective with some particular von Neumann member, where |D| is the corresponding N member.

Definition 4: D is called non-finite iff |D| is not any particular N member (the fact that von Neumann set does not have the greatest successor, is taken), yet we do not leave N domain.
 
Last edited:
Definition 2 correction:

Definition 2: N is the set of finite cardinalities iff each given n ∈ N is determined by each von Neumann member ( as follows: )

Code:
{
   -------------->
0    	= |∅|
1    	= |{∅}|
2    	= |{ ∅, {∅} }|
3    	= |{ ∅, {∅} , {∅, {∅}} }|
4    	= |{ ∅, {∅} , {∅, {∅}}, {∅, {∅}, {∅, {∅}}} }|
... 

}
 
Last edited:
Definition 2 correction:

Definition 2: N is the set of finite cardinalities iff each given n ∈ N is determined by its corresponding von Neumann member ( as follows: )

Code:
{
   -------------->
0    	= |∅|
1    	= |{∅}|
2    	= |{ ∅, {∅} }|
3    	= |{ ∅, {∅} , {∅, {∅}} }|
4    	= |{ ∅, {∅} , {∅, {∅}}, {∅, {∅}, {∅, {∅}}} }|
... 

}
 
Thank you, you are right.

Yes.

"Each element of A is mapped to exactly to one element of B" is unclear since, for example, it can be also surjection, and so is the case about the other direction.

No.

The whole point of my post was that you are misusing the "if and only if" construct. Whatever it is you think what you write might mean, you are making it gibberish by what you do with "iff".

There is another thing you need to do, too: Your "definitions" must not have forward references. Your definitions may not rely on any terms that aren't yet defined. If Definition 1 depends on Definition 4, for example, then you need to reorder your definitions to move Definition 1 to a new spot after Definition 4.
 
Last edited:
Ok here is my corrected version.

D is a placeholder for any given set.

Definition 1: Cardinality is the 'size' of D iff |D| is at von Neumann domain.

Code:
p="Cardinality is the 'size' of D" 

q="|D| is at von Neumann domain"
  
p iff q
-------
F     F  T
F     T  F
T     F  F
T     T  T

---------------------------------------------------------------------
As about von Neumann domain, natural numbers and Cardinality:

Code:
{
   -------------->
0   | 	= |∅|
1   | 	= |{∅}|
2   | 	= |{ ∅, {∅} }|
3   | 	= |{ ∅, {∅} , {∅, {∅}} }|
4   | 	= |{ ∅, {∅} , {∅, {∅}}, {∅, {∅}, {∅, {∅}}} }|
... V

}

(The horizontal direction is any finite cardinality.

The vertical downward direction is non-finite cardinality (the existence of the greatest successor is not satisfied).

In both cases one does not leave von Neumann domain.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition 2: N is the set of finite cardinalities iff each given n ∈ N is determined by its corresponding von Neumann member ( as follows: )

Code:
{
   -------------->
0    	= |∅|
1    	= |{∅}|
2    	= |{ ∅, {∅} }|
3    	= |{ ∅, {∅} , {∅, {∅}} }|
4    	= |{ ∅, {∅} , {∅, {∅}}, {∅, {∅}, {∅, {∅}}} }|
... 

}

Definition 3: D is called finite iff it is bijective with some particular von Neumann member, where |D| is the corresponding N member.

Definition 4: D is called non-finite iff |D| is not any particular N member (the fact that von Neumann set does not have the greatest successor, is taken), yet we do not leave N domain.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom