$a in A$ is equivalent to $ { a } subset A $












0












$begingroup$


In Naive Set theory by Halmos, he states $a in A$ is equivalent to $ { a } subset A $. I am guessing that here he means logically equivalent. Intuitively, I see how they can be interchanged, but I am not sure how to prove it.



I attempted to set up a truth table. I tried breaking down $B subset A$ into the sentence $ forall x(x in B implies x in A) $.



I know that truth tables in predicate logic would be infinitely long, but I thought that in this special case, since we only have ${ a }$ I could employ a truth table with $B = { a }$ and $x = a$.



$$begin{array}{c|c|c|}
a in A & a in B & implies & a in A\ hline
bf{T} & T & bf{T} & T \ hline
bf{T} & F & bf{T} & T\ hline
bf{F} & T & bf{F} & F\ hline
F & F & T & F\ hline
end{array}$$



This truth table shows that these are not logically equivalent. What am I doing wrong?






elementary-set-theory predicate-logic







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Are you getting at something along the lines of $ { a, a, a,... } $
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:24










  • $begingroup$
    No. Since $a$ is the only element, $b=a$ necessarily. At least intuitively.
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:37












  • $begingroup$
    So where in my attempt did I go wrong?
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:39
















0












$begingroup$


In Naive Set theory by Halmos, he states $a in A$ is equivalent to $ { a } subset A $. I am guessing that here he means logically equivalent. Intuitively, I see how they can be interchanged, but I am not sure how to prove it.



I attempted to set up a truth table. I tried breaking down $B subset A$ into the sentence $ forall x(x in B implies x in A) $.



I know that truth tables in predicate logic would be infinitely long, but I thought that in this special case, since we only have ${ a }$ I could employ a truth table with $B = { a }$ and $x = a$.



$$begin{array}{c|c|c|}
a in A & a in B & implies & a in A\ hline
bf{T} & T & bf{T} & T \ hline
bf{T} & F & bf{T} & T\ hline
bf{F} & T & bf{F} & F\ hline
F & F & T & F\ hline
end{array}$$



This truth table shows that these are not logically equivalent. What am I doing wrong?






elementary-set-theory predicate-logic







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Are you getting at something along the lines of $ { a, a, a,... } $
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:24










  • $begingroup$
    No. Since $a$ is the only element, $b=a$ necessarily. At least intuitively.
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:37












  • $begingroup$
    So where in my attempt did I go wrong?
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:39














0












0








0





$begingroup$


In Naive Set theory by Halmos, he states $a in A$ is equivalent to $ { a } subset A $. I am guessing that here he means logically equivalent. Intuitively, I see how they can be interchanged, but I am not sure how to prove it.



I attempted to set up a truth table. I tried breaking down $B subset A$ into the sentence $ forall x(x in B implies x in A) $.



I know that truth tables in predicate logic would be infinitely long, but I thought that in this special case, since we only have ${ a }$ I could employ a truth table with $B = { a }$ and $x = a$.



$$begin{array}{c|c|c|}
a in A & a in B & implies & a in A\ hline
bf{T} & T & bf{T} & T \ hline
bf{T} & F & bf{T} & T\ hline
bf{F} & T & bf{F} & F\ hline
F & F & T & F\ hline
end{array}$$



This truth table shows that these are not logically equivalent. What am I doing wrong?






elementary-set-theory predicate-logic







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




In Naive Set theory by Halmos, he states $a in A$ is equivalent to $ { a } subset A $. I am guessing that here he means logically equivalent. Intuitively, I see how they can be interchanged, but I am not sure how to prove it.



I attempted to set up a truth table. I tried breaking down $B subset A$ into the sentence $ forall x(x in B implies x in A) $.



I know that truth tables in predicate logic would be infinitely long, but I thought that in this special case, since we only have ${ a }$ I could employ a truth table with $B = { a }$ and $x = a$.



$$begin{array}{c|c|c|}
a in A & a in B & implies & a in A\ hline
bf{T} & T & bf{T} & T \ hline
bf{T} & F & bf{T} & T\ hline
bf{F} & T & bf{F} & F\ hline
F & F & T & F\ hline
end{array}$$



This truth table shows that these are not logically equivalent. What am I doing wrong?






elementary-set-theory predicate-logic




elementary-set-theory predicate-logic






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 14 '18 at 2:11









pmacpmac

10116




10116












  • $begingroup$
    Are you getting at something along the lines of $ { a, a, a,... } $
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:24










  • $begingroup$
    No. Since $a$ is the only element, $b=a$ necessarily. At least intuitively.
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:37












  • $begingroup$
    So where in my attempt did I go wrong?
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:39


















  • $begingroup$
    Are you getting at something along the lines of $ { a, a, a,... } $
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:24










  • $begingroup$
    No. Since $a$ is the only element, $b=a$ necessarily. At least intuitively.
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:37












  • $begingroup$
    So where in my attempt did I go wrong?
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:39
















$begingroup$
Are you getting at something along the lines of $ { a, a, a,... } $
$endgroup$
– pmac
Dec 14 '18 at 2:24




$begingroup$
Are you getting at something along the lines of $ { a, a, a,... } $
$endgroup$
– pmac
Dec 14 '18 at 2:24












$begingroup$
No. Since $a$ is the only element, $b=a$ necessarily. At least intuitively.
$endgroup$
– pmac
Dec 14 '18 at 2:37






$begingroup$
No. Since $a$ is the only element, $b=a$ necessarily. At least intuitively.
$endgroup$
– pmac
Dec 14 '18 at 2:37














$begingroup$
So where in my attempt did I go wrong?
$endgroup$
– pmac
Dec 14 '18 at 2:39




$begingroup$
So where in my attempt did I go wrong?
$endgroup$
– pmac
Dec 14 '18 at 2:39










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

You went wrong in assuming that this is a logical equivalence. It is not; set-theoretically they are equivalent, but logically they are not, as you yourself demonstrated.



Specifically, $a in { a }$ has to be true set-theoretically (and hence the last two rows of the truth-table do not apply), but it is not a logical truth.



Put a different way: once you assume some basic axioms regarding set-theory (in particular ones that define the notion of subset ... or what something like a singleton set means) you can derive ${ a } subset A$ from $a in A$, and vice versa. But without those axioms, you cannot. So that shows that these are not logically equivalent, but 'merely' equivalent in the context of set-theory.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    But $ a in A $ is not a set and neither is $ { a } subset A $. These are sentences, right? So how can we talk about set-equivalent?
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:53










  • $begingroup$
    Oh just saw your edit, but my questions still stands.
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:53








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @pmac Yes, they are statements. What I mean is that the statement $a in { a }$ has to be true in the context of set-theory, whereas from the perspective of pure logic one can set it to false.
    $endgroup$
    – Bram28
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:56











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3038835%2fa-in-a-is-equivalent-to-a-subset-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2












$begingroup$

You went wrong in assuming that this is a logical equivalence. It is not; set-theoretically they are equivalent, but logically they are not, as you yourself demonstrated.



Specifically, $a in { a }$ has to be true set-theoretically (and hence the last two rows of the truth-table do not apply), but it is not a logical truth.



Put a different way: once you assume some basic axioms regarding set-theory (in particular ones that define the notion of subset ... or what something like a singleton set means) you can derive ${ a } subset A$ from $a in A$, and vice versa. But without those axioms, you cannot. So that shows that these are not logically equivalent, but 'merely' equivalent in the context of set-theory.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    But $ a in A $ is not a set and neither is $ { a } subset A $. These are sentences, right? So how can we talk about set-equivalent?
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:53










  • $begingroup$
    Oh just saw your edit, but my questions still stands.
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:53








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @pmac Yes, they are statements. What I mean is that the statement $a in { a }$ has to be true in the context of set-theory, whereas from the perspective of pure logic one can set it to false.
    $endgroup$
    – Bram28
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:56
















2












$begingroup$

You went wrong in assuming that this is a logical equivalence. It is not; set-theoretically they are equivalent, but logically they are not, as you yourself demonstrated.



Specifically, $a in { a }$ has to be true set-theoretically (and hence the last two rows of the truth-table do not apply), but it is not a logical truth.



Put a different way: once you assume some basic axioms regarding set-theory (in particular ones that define the notion of subset ... or what something like a singleton set means) you can derive ${ a } subset A$ from $a in A$, and vice versa. But without those axioms, you cannot. So that shows that these are not logically equivalent, but 'merely' equivalent in the context of set-theory.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    But $ a in A $ is not a set and neither is $ { a } subset A $. These are sentences, right? So how can we talk about set-equivalent?
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:53










  • $begingroup$
    Oh just saw your edit, but my questions still stands.
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:53








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @pmac Yes, they are statements. What I mean is that the statement $a in { a }$ has to be true in the context of set-theory, whereas from the perspective of pure logic one can set it to false.
    $endgroup$
    – Bram28
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:56














2












2








2





$begingroup$

You went wrong in assuming that this is a logical equivalence. It is not; set-theoretically they are equivalent, but logically they are not, as you yourself demonstrated.



Specifically, $a in { a }$ has to be true set-theoretically (and hence the last two rows of the truth-table do not apply), but it is not a logical truth.



Put a different way: once you assume some basic axioms regarding set-theory (in particular ones that define the notion of subset ... or what something like a singleton set means) you can derive ${ a } subset A$ from $a in A$, and vice versa. But without those axioms, you cannot. So that shows that these are not logically equivalent, but 'merely' equivalent in the context of set-theory.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



You went wrong in assuming that this is a logical equivalence. It is not; set-theoretically they are equivalent, but logically they are not, as you yourself demonstrated.



Specifically, $a in { a }$ has to be true set-theoretically (and hence the last two rows of the truth-table do not apply), but it is not a logical truth.



Put a different way: once you assume some basic axioms regarding set-theory (in particular ones that define the notion of subset ... or what something like a singleton set means) you can derive ${ a } subset A$ from $a in A$, and vice versa. But without those axioms, you cannot. So that shows that these are not logically equivalent, but 'merely' equivalent in the context of set-theory.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 14 '18 at 3:04

























answered Dec 14 '18 at 2:47









Bram28Bram28

63.2k44793




63.2k44793












  • $begingroup$
    But $ a in A $ is not a set and neither is $ { a } subset A $. These are sentences, right? So how can we talk about set-equivalent?
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:53










  • $begingroup$
    Oh just saw your edit, but my questions still stands.
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:53








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @pmac Yes, they are statements. What I mean is that the statement $a in { a }$ has to be true in the context of set-theory, whereas from the perspective of pure logic one can set it to false.
    $endgroup$
    – Bram28
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:56


















  • $begingroup$
    But $ a in A $ is not a set and neither is $ { a } subset A $. These are sentences, right? So how can we talk about set-equivalent?
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:53










  • $begingroup$
    Oh just saw your edit, but my questions still stands.
    $endgroup$
    – pmac
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:53








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @pmac Yes, they are statements. What I mean is that the statement $a in { a }$ has to be true in the context of set-theory, whereas from the perspective of pure logic one can set it to false.
    $endgroup$
    – Bram28
    Dec 14 '18 at 2:56
















$begingroup$
But $ a in A $ is not a set and neither is $ { a } subset A $. These are sentences, right? So how can we talk about set-equivalent?
$endgroup$
– pmac
Dec 14 '18 at 2:53




$begingroup$
But $ a in A $ is not a set and neither is $ { a } subset A $. These are sentences, right? So how can we talk about set-equivalent?
$endgroup$
– pmac
Dec 14 '18 at 2:53












$begingroup$
Oh just saw your edit, but my questions still stands.
$endgroup$
– pmac
Dec 14 '18 at 2:53






$begingroup$
Oh just saw your edit, but my questions still stands.
$endgroup$
– pmac
Dec 14 '18 at 2:53






1




1




$begingroup$
@pmac Yes, they are statements. What I mean is that the statement $a in { a }$ has to be true in the context of set-theory, whereas from the perspective of pure logic one can set it to false.
$endgroup$
– Bram28
Dec 14 '18 at 2:56




$begingroup$
@pmac Yes, they are statements. What I mean is that the statement $a in { a }$ has to be true in the context of set-theory, whereas from the perspective of pure logic one can set it to false.
$endgroup$
– Bram28
Dec 14 '18 at 2:56


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3038835%2fa-in-a-is-equivalent-to-a-subset-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Bundesstraße 106

Image
Dieser Artikel beschreibt die Bundesstraße 106 in Deutschland. Zur gleichnamigen Straße in Österreich siehe Mölltal Straße. Vorlage:Infobox hochrangige Straße/Wartung/DE-B Bundesstraße 106 in Deutschland Karte Basisdaten Betreiber: Deutschland  Bundesrepublik Deutschland Straßenbeginn: Wismar ( 53° 54′  N , 11° 24′  O 53.900536 11.396875 ) Straßenende: Schwerin ( 53° 36′  N , 11° 24′  O 53.592785 11.404892 ) Gesamtlänge: 40,7 km Bundesland: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Ausbauzustand: zweistreifig [1] Bundesstraße 106 in Schwerin (Umgehungsstraße) Straßenverlauf Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Landkreis Nordwestmecklenburg Ortsumgehung Wismar Wallensteingraben über   Dorf Mecklenburg Wallensteingraben Groß Stieten Bad Kleinen OT Niendorf Bahnstrecke Lübeck–Bad Kleinen Zickhusen Lübstorf Klein Trebbow OT Kirch Stück
Read more

Verónica Boquete

Image
Verónica Boquete im Trikot der Nationalmannschaft (2013) Personalia Name Verónica Boquete Giadans Geburtstag 9. April 1987 Geburtsort Santiago de Compostela, Spanien Größe 159 cm Position Mittelfeld / Sturm Juniorinnen Jahre Station 2001–2005 Xuventú Aguiño Frauen Jahre Station Spiele (Tore) 1 2005–2008 Prainsa Zaragoza 83 (40) 2008–2010 Espanyol Barcelona 53 (30) 2010 Buffalo Flash 9 0 (9) 2010 Chicago Red Stars 3 0 (1) 2010–2011 Espanyol Barcelona 26 (41) 2011 Philadelphia Independence 13 0 (5) 2011 Energija Woronesch 5 0 (1) 2012–2014 Tyresö FF 39 (14) 2014 Portland Thorns FC 15 0 (4) 2014–2015 1. FFC Frankfurt 23 0 (7) 2015–2016 FC Bayern München 9 0 (0) 2016–2018 Paris Saint-Germain 31 0 (8) 2018 Peking BG Phoenix 2019– Utah Royals FC 0 0 (0) Nationalmannschaft Jahre Auswahl
Read more

Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten

Image
Die Lage des Ida-Boy-Ed-Gartens, rot markiert Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten, Blick von der Wakenitzmauer durch das Tor in der Stadtmauer Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten ist eine Straße der Lübecker Altstadt. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Lage 2 Geschichte 3 Literatur 4 Weblinks Lage | Der etwa 90 Meter lange Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten befindet sich an der nördlichen Spitze der Altstadtinsel, vor dem Burgtor. Die in einem Bogen durch eine Grünanlage hangaufwärts führende Straße verbindet die Wakenitzmauer mit der Burgtorbrücke. Geschichte | Der heutige Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten wurde ursprünglich als Verlängerung der Wakenitzmauer angelegt. 1903 wurde in den erhaltenen Teil der mittelalterlichen Stadtmauer, an dem die Wakenitzmauer bei der Einmündung der Kaiserstraße begann, ein Tor mit einem großen Bogen für die Durchführung der Straße und zwei kleineren seitlichen Öffnungen für Fußgänger gebrochen, um für die neu errichteten Wohnhäuser in diesem Bereich
Read more