Implementation of mathematics in set theory: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
BG19bot (talk | contribs)
m Remove blank line(s) between list items per WP:LISTGAP to fix an accessibility issue for users of screen readers. Do WP:GENFIXES and cleanup if needed. Discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#LISTGAP
Ordered pair: The Weiner pair has the same problem, more or less.
Line 38:
The first definition of the ordered pair was the definition <math>(x,y) \overset{\mathrm{def}}{=} \{\{\{x\},\emptyset\},\{\{y\}\}\}</math> proposed by [[Norbert Wiener]] in 1914 in the context of the type theory of [[Principia Mathematica]]. Wiener observed that this allowed the elimination of types of n-ary relations for <math>n>1</math> from the system of that work.
It is more usual now to use the definition <math>(x,y) \overset{\mathrm{def.}}{=} \{\{x\},\{x,y\}\}</math>, due to [[Kazimierz Kuratowski|Kuratowski]].
Either of these definitions works in either [[ZFC]] or [[New Foundations|NFU]]. In NFU, thethese Kuratowskitwo pairdefinitions hashave a technical disadvantage: itthe Kuratowski ordered pair is two types higher than its projections, while the Wiener ordered pair is three types higher. It is common to postulate the existence of a type-level ordered pair (a pair <math>(x,y)</math> which is the same type as its [[Projection (mathematics)|projections]]) in NFU. It is convenient to use the Kuratowski pair in both systems until the use of type-level pairs can be formally justified.
The internal details of these definitions have nothing to do with their actual mathematical function. For any notion <math>(x,y)</math> of ordered pair, the things that matter are that it satisfy the defining condition:
* <math>(x,y)=(z,w) \equiv x=z \wedge y=w</math>