8
EDAA40 EDAA40 Discrete Structures in Computer Science Discrete Structures in Computer Science 1: Sets 1: Sets Jörn W. Janneck, Dept. of Computer Science, Lund University 2 axiomatic vs naïve set theory s i d e b a r Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory w/Choice (ZFC) extensionality regularity specification union replacement infinity power set choice This course will be about “naïve” set theory. However, at its end, you should be able to read and understand most of the above. 3 sets: collections of stuff, empty set sets are collections of stuff any kind of stuff some sets are pretty large (we'll talk more about just how large later) this is the empty set there is but one of those

axiomatic vs naïve set theorycs.lth.se/.../slides/EDAA40_-_01_-_Sets_--_handout.pdf · axiomatic vs naïve set theory s i d e b a r Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory w/Choice (ZFC) extensionality

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: axiomatic vs naïve set theorycs.lth.se/.../slides/EDAA40_-_01_-_Sets_--_handout.pdf · axiomatic vs naïve set theory s i d e b a r Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory w/Choice (ZFC) extensionality

EDAA40EDAA40

Discrete Structures in Computer ScienceDiscrete Structures in Computer Science

1: Sets1: Sets

Jörn W. Janneck, Dept. of Computer Science, Lund University

2

axiomatic vs naïve set theory

sidebar

Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory w/Choice (ZFC)

extensionality

regularity

specification

union

replacement

infinity

power set

choice

This course will be about “naïve” set theory.However, at its end, you should be able to read and understand most of the above.

3

sets: collections of stuff, empty set

sets are collections of stuff

any kind of stuff

some sets are pretty large(we'll talk more about just how large later)

this is the empty set

there is but one of those

Page 2: axiomatic vs naïve set theorycs.lth.se/.../slides/EDAA40_-_01_-_Sets_--_handout.pdf · axiomatic vs naïve set theory s i d e b a r Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory w/Choice (ZFC) extensionality

4

element of

elementhood depends on a concept of equality

Given a set A, any given thing x either is, or is not, an element of A.

5

extensionality

order, repetition do not matter

equal sets must contain exactly the same elements

1-element sets are singleton sets

A set is defined by the elements it contains (its extension).

6

cardinality

The number of elements in a set A is called its cardinality. alternative syntax

For now, we will only consider the cardinality of finite sets.We will discuss infinite sets, including their cardinality, in more detail later.(Also, we haven't yet precisely defined these terms.)

Page 3: axiomatic vs naïve set theorycs.lth.se/.../slides/EDAA40_-_01_-_Sets_--_handout.pdf · axiomatic vs naïve set theory s i d e b a r Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory w/Choice (ZFC) extensionality

7

inclusion

subset superset

this means that

A and B might be the same, in fact

We use to denote proper (or strict) inclusion :

“iff” is jargon for “if and only if”, meaning both sides are logically equivalent

A and B are proper (or strict) subset and superset, respectively.

Sometimes, is used to mean .Here, we always use it to mean proper inclusion.

For any set A, it's always the case that

8

properties of inclusion

inclusion is transitive:*

* We will discuss transitivity and partiality more generally later

inclusion is partial:*There are sets A and B for which neither or is true.

Example?

therefore

9

specifying sets

enumeration of its elements

set builder notation / set comprehensionsflavor 1 flavor 2 bad flavor

recursive definition (we will discuss this later)

enumeration w/ suspension points/ellipsis

(informal stand-in for a recursive definition)

Page 4: axiomatic vs naïve set theorycs.lth.se/.../slides/EDAA40_-_01_-_Sets_--_handout.pdf · axiomatic vs naïve set theory s i d e b a r Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory w/Choice (ZFC) extensionality

10

building sets, examples

11

not everything that looks like a set...

sidebar

Is R an element of R?

Let's assume it is, i.e.

Okay, obviously that can't be right. Clearly that means R cannotbe an element of R, i.e.

This means that R satisfies the property defining R, in other words:

But, oy veh, that means R would satisfy the property defining it,and that implies, dangnabbit:

This contradiction is known as Russel's paradox.

12

set building done right

So isn't a well-defined set. What went wrong?

The trouble is with the variable, x. It can literally stand for anything.

When using set builder notation, make sure the variables are limited to elements of a set you already know to be well-defined.

NB: This form also automatically implies a superset!

(And “anything” appears to include things that aren't sets.)

Page 5: axiomatic vs naïve set theorycs.lth.se/.../slides/EDAA40_-_01_-_Sets_--_handout.pdf · axiomatic vs naïve set theory s i d e b a r Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory w/Choice (ZFC) extensionality

13

drawing sets: Euler diagrams

A

B A,B

A

B

C

D

can be ambiguous

regions of overlap areassumed to benon-empty

14

drawing sets: Venn diagrams

A B

special case of Euler diagramsshowing all combinations of overlapbetween sets (even if empty)

gets very messy very quickly foranything more than three sets

A B

C

empty / non-empty regionsneed to be explicitly marked:

A B

A B

15

operations on setsA B

A B

A B

unionall elements that are in A or B or both

differenceall elements that are in A and not in B

intersectionall elements that are both in A and B

Page 6: axiomatic vs naïve set theorycs.lth.se/.../slides/EDAA40_-_01_-_Sets_--_handout.pdf · axiomatic vs naïve set theory s i d e b a r Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory w/Choice (ZFC) extensionality

16

difference and complementA B

set difference

There is in general no “inverse” set -A for a given set A.

However, often we work in a local universe, i.e. a set of everything we are potentially interested in. Let's call it U.

Examples of U?

AU Then we can give the complement of a set a meaning:

alternative syntaxes:

Number theory?Programming languages?

17

disjointness

Two sets A and B are disjoint if they do not have any common elements,i.e. their intersection is empty:

A BA B

For multiple sets A1, …, An, we say they are pairwise disjoint iff for anyi, j, such that i j, Ai and Aj are disjoint, i.e.

Note that every set A is disjoint from the empty set .Even the empty set!

18

set algebrasome properties of intersection and union:

(more in the exercises of 1.4.1, 1.4.2, and 1.4.3 in SLAM)

idempotence

commutativity

commutativity

associativity

associativity

distributivity

distributivity

Page 7: axiomatic vs naïve set theorycs.lth.se/.../slides/EDAA40_-_01_-_Sets_--_handout.pdf · axiomatic vs naïve set theory s i d e b a r Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory w/Choice (ZFC) extensionality

19

family matters

A family of sets is a way of referring to a set of sets, usually indexed by an index set.*

index setindex

sets

* We will come back to this notion in the lecture on functions.

Examples:

alternative syntax

What is

(a) What is the extension?(b) What does it mean?

20

large families

Often, the index set is something like the natural numbers:

What are these sets?What is

natural numbers starting at i

multiples of i (excluding i)divisors of i (excl. 1 and i)

the prime numbers

21

generalized union & intersection

Let S be a set of sets.

Often, S is a family of sets. Then we write...

When the index set is infinite, strange things can happen:

(a) What is the biggest number in each Ai?(b) What is the biggest number in their union?

Page 8: axiomatic vs naïve set theorycs.lth.se/.../slides/EDAA40_-_01_-_Sets_--_handout.pdf · axiomatic vs naïve set theory s i d e b a r Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory w/Choice (ZFC) extensionality

22

power sets

The power set of a set A is the set of all its subsets. alternative syntax

Some properties:

Why is that?

23

structure of power sets

Power sets have a peculiar structure with respect to inclusion:

This is a Hasse diagram of the inclusionrelation on a power set. We will come back to this when we talk about relations.

A connection means that the upper set properly includes the lower one.

Implied connections are omitted.

24

how stuff is represented: numbers

sidebar

In axiomatic set theory, everything is a set.(Except, occasionally, collections that aren't, such as “all sets” etc.)What about numbers?

They are encoded as sets. A common encoding is the von Neumannconstruction:

The set representing n containsall the sets representing allsmaller numbers as elements.

Some properties:

n+: hoity-toity way of writing “n + 1”