Set Theory question.

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Set Theory question.

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:14 pm

If a set contains the sets [1] and [1,2], does it contain the number 1 once or at least twice?
"In man, creature and creator are united: in man there is matter, fragment, excess, clay, mud, nonsense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, sculptor, hammer-hardness, spectator's-divinity and seventh day:—do you understand this antithesis? And that your compassion is for the 'creature in man', for that which must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, purified,—that which must suffer and shall suffer? And our compassion—do you not grasp whom our reverse compassion is for when it defends itself against your compassion as against the worst of all pamperings and weaknesses?" (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 225. Compare The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 367.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6424
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Set Theory question.

Postby Faust » Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:21 pm

Once, but it doesn't really matter. If I understand your question.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16271
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Set Theory question.

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:26 pm

Faust wrote:Once, but it doesn't really matter. If in understand your question.

My question has to do with Russell's paradox, which rests on the assumption that a set is defined by its members.
"In man, creature and creator are united: in man there is matter, fragment, excess, clay, mud, nonsense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, sculptor, hammer-hardness, spectator's-divinity and seventh day:—do you understand this antithesis? And that your compassion is for the 'creature in man', for that which must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, purified,—that which must suffer and shall suffer? And our compassion—do you not grasp whom our reverse compassion is for when it defends itself against your compassion as against the worst of all pamperings and weaknesses?" (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 225. Compare The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 367.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6424
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Set Theory question.

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:51 pm

In fact, the more I think about it, the more Russell's paradox appears to be much ado about nothing. The smallest set that contains the set [1] is either the set [1] (if sets are defined by their members) or the set [[1]] (if they are not). So either sets by definition contain themselves, or they by definition do not. If sets are defined by their members, the notion that the set of all squares does not contain itself because it's not itself a square is bullshit: the only reason it's not a square is that it's multiple squares---supposing that there's more than one square. If the set of all squares cannot contain multiple squares, because multiple squares are not a square (i.e., one square), then the set of all squares can only exist if there's no more than one square!
"In man, creature and creator are united: in man there is matter, fragment, excess, clay, mud, nonsense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, sculptor, hammer-hardness, spectator's-divinity and seventh day:—do you understand this antithesis? And that your compassion is for the 'creature in man', for that which must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, purified,—that which must suffer and shall suffer? And our compassion—do you not grasp whom our reverse compassion is for when it defends itself against your compassion as against the worst of all pamperings and weaknesses?" (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 225. Compare The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 367.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6424
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Set Theory question.

Postby Faust » Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:52 pm

I wouldn't call it much ado about nothing, as it led to Russell's theory of types, which is very useful to the philosopher. I didn't realize that was what you were getting at.

However, it should be noted that Russell's paradox rests upon what i would consider tenuous grounds. The set of all objects that are not part of the set of squares is not a very useful set to begin with. But Russell was on a quest for the basis of mathematics, and so it mattered to him. I think this is an important question for mathematicians, but not for philosophers.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16271
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Set Theory question.

Postby Philosopher8659 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:06 pm

Sauwelios wrote:If a set contains the sets [1] and [1,2], does it contain the number 1 once or at least twice?


A number is a name derived by an ordered naming convention. When you read the Platonic dialogs, you sometimes find the character Socrates making as distinction between a class and a member of a class, for example "cat" and "a cat". Now, the terms "once" or "twice" are still numeric naming conventions, only with adjectives added, which means you are in a self-referential rut.

Now, if you really want to read someone who was a complete idiot with class mechanics, try Russell and Whiteheads theory of types. By burying one in a mountain of words, they did not get out of their ability to not contradict themselves, they only made one forget it.

Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. When one is careless with names, one gets easily confused.
Philosopher8659
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:49 pm

Re: Set Theory question.

Postby Rain » Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:28 am

If your dealing with a combat designed trench from WW1, and it's a straight line with a curve in it..... let's use ~ to represent it, then the left side is set 1 and the right side is set 2, then the method you use to exploiting the trench will determine if 1 or 2 can simultaneously exist under two systems of evaluation and usage at the same time. It's because the two sets can overlap for some functions and yet dramatically differ in other respects. Side 1 and 2 can use the same forward observer and radioman and medics for example. However, the placement of machine guns and lines of fire can differ qualitatively on either side, and the way you use reinforcements or sending men over the top WHILE maintaining a static defense, or repelling a enemy oblique attack can differ significantly in set one or two. Set 1 can be independent with independent values from set 2 while still being inseparable from other aspects and considerations from set two, which can have a unifed personality of a whole of 1 and 2 that some usages of 1 alone doesn't recognize or concern itself with.

Rommel's infantry book 'Attack' is a good place to consider this from. It's where I am getting my visualizations. Companies in sections of a battalion's line, each a unit, while being part of their neighbors and a whole, while each having unique characteristics and mutually overlapping responsibilities. The hierarchical scheme to categorize everything would be daunting but achievable, but hardly enjoyable for a philosopher to do. There is a reason why society left it to Lt. to figure out, and not the regular joe who none the less after a while learns it as well as anyone else can learn it from experience.
Rain
Onasander
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Not fucking Hawaii

Re: Set Theory question.

Postby incorrect » Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:33 am

for what its worth

from a programming perspective, you can pick either

sometimes it makes sense to treat '1' as instantiable, where there is some property of one instance distinguishable from the property of another instance.. (location in computer memory, for example) sometimes it might make sense to think of the 1 in [1] as different from the 1 in [1,2], as evident by.. lets say the presence of neighboring numbers

or it can make sense to think of 1 as universal.. great from a memory management perspective, it doesn't make any sense in this regard to have multiple copies of 1, because anything that you 'should' be doing with '1' is consistent across instances...as many times as you print '1', or add '1', or subtract '1' etc.. the properties of the instance of '1' do not need to be changed

the choice that 'should' be made depends on the context in which '1' is defined...

...but that doesn't mean it's the choice that was made, as redundant instances of '1' in some system can be operationally equivalent and effectively universal
money is not a requirement for life
incorrect
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:27 am

Re: Set Theory question.

Postby quantum » Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:44 am

Don't you think , Set in Question is not perfect example for Russel's paradox.
OR is that what Russel's Paradox is all about :-k .

Imperfect example for Bad example is always a Bad example for Bad example.

OR

Perfect example for Bad example is always Good example for Bad example !!


very confusing thought. :-k .

Now, can there exist a person who can be self respectful without holding respect to others who don't deserve it.Yes, can be the answer.
In today's philosophical world , Self respect means holding respect for his own dignity , and Equality means holding respect for all despite of all odds.This kind of definition is what has created paradox in our today's democracy.

How can your class stay educated, when you give consideration for Uneducated class identity.The educated class will loose its identity called : Educated class.
Moderation is really necessary in definition.

Number theory as an example on set theory,bit confusing always.most of them avoid that habit.(just a suggestion)
quantum
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:16 am

Re: Set Theory question.

Postby Calrid » Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:43 pm

The set 0 contains [0] The set 1 contains [1 and 0] The set 2 contains [1,2 and 0] hence the entire number system can be derived from its relation to nothing.

Each number has its own unique set even 0. And that's how you prove that the number line is correctly axiomatic. Alternatively you could get out more, meet girls and stand an outside chance of getting laid.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Set Theory question.

Postby Only_Humean » Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:33 am

Calrid wrote:Each number has its own unique set even 0.


Some would say that each number is its own unique set.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5711
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Set Theory question.

Postby Calrid » Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:57 am

Only_Humean wrote:
Calrid wrote:Each number has its own unique set even 0.


Some would say that each number is its own unique set.


Well yes that's why set theory underpins the whole of number theory and that underpins the whole of Euclidean and non-Euclidean maths.

If each number weren't its own set then it would not exist as a viable axiom. Which is why 0 is so useful, because it gives us a reference with which to define the whole number line, even though in reality of course nothing does not exist.

In the same way abs |-4| = 4 is a way of describing magnitude. Ie how far am I from 0? Although ironically this defines it using the opposite, the idea that whichever side of the number line they are they have the same magnitude, if you see what I mean.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am


Return to The Sandbox



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users