Element (mathematics): Difference between revisions
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
means that <math>x</math> is an element of <math>A</math>. Equivalently one can say or write "<math>x</math> is a member of <math>A</math>", "<math>x</math> belongs to <math>A</math>", "<math>x</math> is in <math>A</math>", or "<math>A</math> includes <math>x</math>", or "<math>A</math> contains <math>x</math>". The [[negation]] of set membership is denoted by ∉. |
means that <math>x</math> is an element of <math>A</math>. Equivalently one can say or write "<math>x</math> is a member of <math>A</math>", "<math>x</math> belongs to <math>A</math>", "<math>x</math> is in <math>A</math>", or "<math>A</math> includes <math>x</math>", or "<math>A</math> contains <math>x</math>". The [[negation]] of set membership is denoted by ∉. |
||
Unfortunately, the terms "<math>A</math> includes <math>x</math>" and "<math>A</math> contains <math>x</math>" are ambiguous, because some authors also use them to mean "<math>x</math> is a [[subset]] of <math>A</math>"<ref name="schech">{{cite book |last= Schechter |first= Eric|title= [[Handbook of Analysis and Its Foundations]] |publisher= [[Academic Press]] |year= 1997 ||isbn= 0-12-622760-8 }} p. 12</ref>. [[George Boolos]] strongly urged that "contains" be |
Unfortunately, the terms "<math>A</math> includes <math>x</math>" and "<math>A</math> contains <math>x</math>" are ambiguous, because some authors also use them to mean "<math>x</math> is a [[subset]] of <math>A</math>"<ref name="schech">{{cite book |last= Schechter |first= Eric|title= [[Handbook of Analysis and Its Foundations]] |publisher= [[Academic Press]] |year= 1997 ||isbn= 0-12-622760-8 }} p. 12</ref>. [[George Boolos]] strongly urged that "contains" be used for membership only and "includes" for the subset relation only.<ref name=boolos">{{cite speech |
||
| title = 24.243 Classical Set Theory (lecture). |
| title = 24.243 Classical Set Theory (lecture). |
||
| author = Boolos, George |
| author = Boolos, George |
Revision as of 11:18, 31 March 2008
In mathematics, the elements or members of a set (or more generally a class) are all those objects which when collected together make up the set (or class).
Set theory and elements
Writing , means that the elements of the set are the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4. Groups of elements of , for example , are subsets of .
Elements can themselves be sets. For example consider the set . The elements of are not 1, 2, 3, and 4. Rather, there are only three elements of , namely the numbers 1 and 2, and the set .
The elements of a set can be anything. For example, , is the set whose elements are the colors red, green and blue.
Notation
The relation "is an element of", also called set membership, is denoted by ∈, and writing
means that is an element of . Equivalently one can say or write " is a member of ", " belongs to ", " is in ", or " includes ", or " contains ". The negation of set membership is denoted by ∉.
Unfortunately, the terms " includes " and " contains " are ambiguous, because some authors also use them to mean " is a subset of "[1]. George Boolos strongly urged that "contains" be used for membership only and "includes" for the subset relation only.[2]
Cardinality of sets
The number of elements in a particular set is a property known as cardinality, informally this is the size of a set. In the above examples the cardinality of the set is 4, while the cardinality of the sets and is 3. An infinite set is a set with an infinite number of elements, while a finite set is a set with a finite number of elements. The above examples are examples of finite sets. An example of an infinite set is the set of natural numbers, .
Examples
Using the sets defined above as
- 2 ∈ A
- {3,4} ∈ B
- {3,4} is a member of B
- Yellow ∉ C
- The cardinality of is finite and equal to 6.
- The cardinality of (the prime numbers) is infinite.
References
- ^ Schechter, Eric (1997). Handbook of Analysis and Its Foundations. Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-622760-8.
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=
(help) p. 12 - ^ Boolos, George (February 4, 1992). 24.243 Classical Set Theory (lecture) (Speech). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
{{cite speech}}
: More than one of|author=
and|last=
specified (help)
- Paul R. Halmos 1960, Naive Set Theory, Springer-Verlag, NY, ISBN 0-387-90092-6. "Naive" means that it is not fully axiomatized, not that it is silly or easy (Halmos's treatment is neither).
- Patrick Suppes 1960, 1972, Axiomatic Set Theory, Dover Publications, Inc. NY, ISBN 0-486-61630-4. Both the notion of set (a collection of members), membership or element-hood, the axiom of extension, the axiom of separation, and the union axiom (Suppes calls it the sum axiom) are needed for a more thorough understanding of "set element".