Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:45:01.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconsidering Ordered Pairs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2014

Dana Scott  and
Dominic McCarty
Dana Scott
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University, USACurrent address: 1149 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94707, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Dominic McCarty
Affiliation:
Mathematics Department, UC Berkeley, USACurrent address: 1401 Red Hawk Circle Apt. K-115, Fremont, CA 94538, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The well known Wiener-Kuratowski explicit definition of the ordered pair, which sets (x,y) = {{x}, {x,y}}, works well in many set theories but fails for those with classes which cannot be members of singletons. With the aid of the Axiom of Foundation, we propose a recursive definition of ordered pair which addresses this shortcoming and also naturally generalizes to ordered tuples of greater length. There are many advantages to the new definition, for it allows for uniform definitions working equally well in a wide range of models for set theories. In ZFC and closely related theories, the rank of an ordered pair of two infinite sets under the new definition turns out to be equal to the maximum of the ranks of the sets.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 379 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Aczel, Peter, Non-well-founded sets, Center for the Study of Language and Information, 1988.Google Scholar
[2] Baltag, Alexandru, Sts: A structural theory of sets, Advances in modal logic, vol. 2, CSLI Publications, 2000.Google Scholar
[3] Barwise, Jon, Admissible sets and structures, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, 1975.Google Scholar
[4] Bell, John L., Set theory: Boolean-valued models and independence proofs, third ed., Oxford Logic Guides, vol. 47, Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
[5] Boolos, George, On the semantics of the constructible levels, Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, (1970), pp. 139–148.Google Scholar
[6] Fraenkel, Abraham A., Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua, and Levy, Azriel, Foundations of set theory, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 67, North-Holland Publishing Company, 1973.Google Scholar
[7] Gödel, Kurt, The consistency of the axiom of choice and of the generalised continuum hypothesis, Annals of Mathematical Studies, 1940.Google Scholar
[8] Goodman, Nelson, Sequences, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 6 (1941), pp. 150–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Hausdorff, Felix, Grundzüge der Mengenlehre, de Gruyter, 1914.Google Scholar
[10] Kanamori, Akihiro, The empty set, the singleton, and the ordered pair, this Bulletin, vol. 9 (2003), no. 3, pp. 273–298.Google Scholar
[11] Kelley, John L., General topology, D. Van Nostrand, 1955.Google Scholar
[12] Kunen, Kenneth, Set theory: An introduction to independence proofs, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 102, Elsevier, 1980.Google Scholar
[13] Kuratowskl, Kazimierz, Sur la notion de l'ordre dans la théorie des ensembles, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 2 (1921), pp. 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Quine, Willard V., On ordered pairs and relations, Selected logic papers, Random House, 1966.Google Scholar
[15] Quine, Willard V., Philosophy of logic, 2nd ed., Harvard University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
[16] Skolem, Thoralf, Two remarks on set theory, Mathematica Scandinavica, vol. 5 (1957), pp. 40–46.Google Scholar
[17] Wiener, Norbert, A simplification of the logic of relations, From Frege to Gödel: A source book in mathematical logic 1879-1931 (Heijenoort, van, editor), Harvard University Press, 1967, pp. 224–227.Google Scholar