From an axiomatic set theoric approach why can we take uncountable unions?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












10












$begingroup$


From an axiomatic set theoric approach why can we take uncountable unions in the first place? Sure if $A$ and $B$ are sets then the thing denoted by $Acup B$ exists and is a set, but if we want to extend this to an uncountable union shouldn't we assume some form of transfinite induction (and hence $sf AC$)?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$
















    10












    $begingroup$


    From an axiomatic set theoric approach why can we take uncountable unions in the first place? Sure if $A$ and $B$ are sets then the thing denoted by $Acup B$ exists and is a set, but if we want to extend this to an uncountable union shouldn't we assume some form of transfinite induction (and hence $sf AC$)?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$














      10












      10








      10





      $begingroup$


      From an axiomatic set theoric approach why can we take uncountable unions in the first place? Sure if $A$ and $B$ are sets then the thing denoted by $Acup B$ exists and is a set, but if we want to extend this to an uncountable union shouldn't we assume some form of transfinite induction (and hence $sf AC$)?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      From an axiomatic set theoric approach why can we take uncountable unions in the first place? Sure if $A$ and $B$ are sets then the thing denoted by $Acup B$ exists and is a set, but if we want to extend this to an uncountable union shouldn't we assume some form of transfinite induction (and hence $sf AC$)?







      elementary-set-theory






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Mar 10 at 8:54









      Stupid Questions IncStupid Questions Inc

      12811




      12811




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          20












          $begingroup$

          The reason is simple. Unions are not defined "in sequence".



          The axiom of union tells us that if we have a set $X$ (whose elements are sets, but that's a given in set theory), then $amidexists xin X: ain x$ is a set, and we denote that set as $bigcup X$, since it is exactly the union of all the members of $X$.



          In the case where $X=A,B$ we normally write $Acup B$ and not $bigcup X$. But that is the abuse of notation, rather than the generalized union.



          Remarks.



          1. You will find absolutely no trace of choice here.


          2. Transfinite recursion/induction does not require choice. It is just that most common uses of choice require transfinite recursion/induction.


          3. Of course one might ask about intersection next. The same answer holds, in principle, although you do not need the axiom of union this time, you need the axiom of separation instead. And we need to require that the family is non-empty, since $bigcapvarnothing$ is the entire set theoretic universe (consider that division by zero kind of error).


          4. You can find additional support of this idea in the fact that many of the properties which hold for finite unions, and are usually proved by induction in introduction to discrete mathematics classes, are actually much simpler to prove directly for $bigcup X$-style definitions. For example, DeMorgan laws (with the caveat that $X$ is non-empty).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            thanks a ton our $sf AC$ master
            $endgroup$
            – Stupid Questions Inc
            Mar 10 at 11:18



















          4












          $begingroup$

          No. All we do is assume the



          Axiom of Union. If $A$ is a set then there exists a set $U$ such that
          $$ forall xcolon (xin Uleftrightarrow exists yin Acolon xin y).$$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 4




            $begingroup$
            You mean "$yin A$".
            $endgroup$
            – freakish
            Mar 10 at 13:01










          • $begingroup$
            I've taken the liberty of changing "$y in U$" to "$y in A$", since it seems clear that that's what you meant.
            $endgroup$
            – Tanner Swett
            Mar 10 at 18:40


















          1












          $begingroup$

          No, one does not need the axiom of choice. The axiom of replacement (the image of any set under any definable mapping is also a set) together with the axiom of union allows one to form countable unions, and, indeed, unions indexed by sets of any already defined cardinality. This is why the scale of alephs can be constructed in ZF without using choice, it is only needed to prove that every set is bijective to an aleph. It is interesting that Fraenkel added replacement to Zermelo's original axioms when it was realized that without it one can not go beyond aleph omega.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            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%2f3142120%2ffrom-an-axiomatic-set-theoric-approach-why-can-we-take-uncountable-unions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            20












            $begingroup$

            The reason is simple. Unions are not defined "in sequence".



            The axiom of union tells us that if we have a set $X$ (whose elements are sets, but that's a given in set theory), then $amidexists xin X: ain x$ is a set, and we denote that set as $bigcup X$, since it is exactly the union of all the members of $X$.



            In the case where $X=A,B$ we normally write $Acup B$ and not $bigcup X$. But that is the abuse of notation, rather than the generalized union.



            Remarks.



            1. You will find absolutely no trace of choice here.


            2. Transfinite recursion/induction does not require choice. It is just that most common uses of choice require transfinite recursion/induction.


            3. Of course one might ask about intersection next. The same answer holds, in principle, although you do not need the axiom of union this time, you need the axiom of separation instead. And we need to require that the family is non-empty, since $bigcapvarnothing$ is the entire set theoretic universe (consider that division by zero kind of error).


            4. You can find additional support of this idea in the fact that many of the properties which hold for finite unions, and are usually proved by induction in introduction to discrete mathematics classes, are actually much simpler to prove directly for $bigcup X$-style definitions. For example, DeMorgan laws (with the caveat that $X$ is non-empty).






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              thanks a ton our $sf AC$ master
              $endgroup$
              – Stupid Questions Inc
              Mar 10 at 11:18
















            20












            $begingroup$

            The reason is simple. Unions are not defined "in sequence".



            The axiom of union tells us that if we have a set $X$ (whose elements are sets, but that's a given in set theory), then $amidexists xin X: ain x$ is a set, and we denote that set as $bigcup X$, since it is exactly the union of all the members of $X$.



            In the case where $X=A,B$ we normally write $Acup B$ and not $bigcup X$. But that is the abuse of notation, rather than the generalized union.



            Remarks.



            1. You will find absolutely no trace of choice here.


            2. Transfinite recursion/induction does not require choice. It is just that most common uses of choice require transfinite recursion/induction.


            3. Of course one might ask about intersection next. The same answer holds, in principle, although you do not need the axiom of union this time, you need the axiom of separation instead. And we need to require that the family is non-empty, since $bigcapvarnothing$ is the entire set theoretic universe (consider that division by zero kind of error).


            4. You can find additional support of this idea in the fact that many of the properties which hold for finite unions, and are usually proved by induction in introduction to discrete mathematics classes, are actually much simpler to prove directly for $bigcup X$-style definitions. For example, DeMorgan laws (with the caveat that $X$ is non-empty).






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              thanks a ton our $sf AC$ master
              $endgroup$
              – Stupid Questions Inc
              Mar 10 at 11:18














            20












            20








            20





            $begingroup$

            The reason is simple. Unions are not defined "in sequence".



            The axiom of union tells us that if we have a set $X$ (whose elements are sets, but that's a given in set theory), then $amidexists xin X: ain x$ is a set, and we denote that set as $bigcup X$, since it is exactly the union of all the members of $X$.



            In the case where $X=A,B$ we normally write $Acup B$ and not $bigcup X$. But that is the abuse of notation, rather than the generalized union.



            Remarks.



            1. You will find absolutely no trace of choice here.


            2. Transfinite recursion/induction does not require choice. It is just that most common uses of choice require transfinite recursion/induction.


            3. Of course one might ask about intersection next. The same answer holds, in principle, although you do not need the axiom of union this time, you need the axiom of separation instead. And we need to require that the family is non-empty, since $bigcapvarnothing$ is the entire set theoretic universe (consider that division by zero kind of error).


            4. You can find additional support of this idea in the fact that many of the properties which hold for finite unions, and are usually proved by induction in introduction to discrete mathematics classes, are actually much simpler to prove directly for $bigcup X$-style definitions. For example, DeMorgan laws (with the caveat that $X$ is non-empty).






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            The reason is simple. Unions are not defined "in sequence".



            The axiom of union tells us that if we have a set $X$ (whose elements are sets, but that's a given in set theory), then $amidexists xin X: ain x$ is a set, and we denote that set as $bigcup X$, since it is exactly the union of all the members of $X$.



            In the case where $X=A,B$ we normally write $Acup B$ and not $bigcup X$. But that is the abuse of notation, rather than the generalized union.



            Remarks.



            1. You will find absolutely no trace of choice here.


            2. Transfinite recursion/induction does not require choice. It is just that most common uses of choice require transfinite recursion/induction.


            3. Of course one might ask about intersection next. The same answer holds, in principle, although you do not need the axiom of union this time, you need the axiom of separation instead. And we need to require that the family is non-empty, since $bigcapvarnothing$ is the entire set theoretic universe (consider that division by zero kind of error).


            4. You can find additional support of this idea in the fact that many of the properties which hold for finite unions, and are usually proved by induction in introduction to discrete mathematics classes, are actually much simpler to prove directly for $bigcup X$-style definitions. For example, DeMorgan laws (with the caveat that $X$ is non-empty).







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Mar 10 at 9:05









            Asaf KaragilaAsaf Karagila

            308k33441774




            308k33441774







            • 1




              $begingroup$
              thanks a ton our $sf AC$ master
              $endgroup$
              – Stupid Questions Inc
              Mar 10 at 11:18













            • 1




              $begingroup$
              thanks a ton our $sf AC$ master
              $endgroup$
              – Stupid Questions Inc
              Mar 10 at 11:18








            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            thanks a ton our $sf AC$ master
            $endgroup$
            – Stupid Questions Inc
            Mar 10 at 11:18





            $begingroup$
            thanks a ton our $sf AC$ master
            $endgroup$
            – Stupid Questions Inc
            Mar 10 at 11:18












            4












            $begingroup$

            No. All we do is assume the



            Axiom of Union. If $A$ is a set then there exists a set $U$ such that
            $$ forall xcolon (xin Uleftrightarrow exists yin Acolon xin y).$$






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$








            • 4




              $begingroup$
              You mean "$yin A$".
              $endgroup$
              – freakish
              Mar 10 at 13:01










            • $begingroup$
              I've taken the liberty of changing "$y in U$" to "$y in A$", since it seems clear that that's what you meant.
              $endgroup$
              – Tanner Swett
              Mar 10 at 18:40















            4












            $begingroup$

            No. All we do is assume the



            Axiom of Union. If $A$ is a set then there exists a set $U$ such that
            $$ forall xcolon (xin Uleftrightarrow exists yin Acolon xin y).$$






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$








            • 4




              $begingroup$
              You mean "$yin A$".
              $endgroup$
              – freakish
              Mar 10 at 13:01










            • $begingroup$
              I've taken the liberty of changing "$y in U$" to "$y in A$", since it seems clear that that's what you meant.
              $endgroup$
              – Tanner Swett
              Mar 10 at 18:40













            4












            4








            4





            $begingroup$

            No. All we do is assume the



            Axiom of Union. If $A$ is a set then there exists a set $U$ such that
            $$ forall xcolon (xin Uleftrightarrow exists yin Acolon xin y).$$






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            No. All we do is assume the



            Axiom of Union. If $A$ is a set then there exists a set $U$ such that
            $$ forall xcolon (xin Uleftrightarrow exists yin Acolon xin y).$$







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Mar 10 at 18:38









            Tanner Swett

            4,3041739




            4,3041739










            answered Mar 10 at 9:07









            Hagen von EitzenHagen von Eitzen

            283k23273508




            283k23273508







            • 4




              $begingroup$
              You mean "$yin A$".
              $endgroup$
              – freakish
              Mar 10 at 13:01










            • $begingroup$
              I've taken the liberty of changing "$y in U$" to "$y in A$", since it seems clear that that's what you meant.
              $endgroup$
              – Tanner Swett
              Mar 10 at 18:40












            • 4




              $begingroup$
              You mean "$yin A$".
              $endgroup$
              – freakish
              Mar 10 at 13:01










            • $begingroup$
              I've taken the liberty of changing "$y in U$" to "$y in A$", since it seems clear that that's what you meant.
              $endgroup$
              – Tanner Swett
              Mar 10 at 18:40







            4




            4




            $begingroup$
            You mean "$yin A$".
            $endgroup$
            – freakish
            Mar 10 at 13:01




            $begingroup$
            You mean "$yin A$".
            $endgroup$
            – freakish
            Mar 10 at 13:01












            $begingroup$
            I've taken the liberty of changing "$y in U$" to "$y in A$", since it seems clear that that's what you meant.
            $endgroup$
            – Tanner Swett
            Mar 10 at 18:40




            $begingroup$
            I've taken the liberty of changing "$y in U$" to "$y in A$", since it seems clear that that's what you meant.
            $endgroup$
            – Tanner Swett
            Mar 10 at 18:40











            1












            $begingroup$

            No, one does not need the axiom of choice. The axiom of replacement (the image of any set under any definable mapping is also a set) together with the axiom of union allows one to form countable unions, and, indeed, unions indexed by sets of any already defined cardinality. This is why the scale of alephs can be constructed in ZF without using choice, it is only needed to prove that every set is bijective to an aleph. It is interesting that Fraenkel added replacement to Zermelo's original axioms when it was realized that without it one can not go beyond aleph omega.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$

















              1












              $begingroup$

              No, one does not need the axiom of choice. The axiom of replacement (the image of any set under any definable mapping is also a set) together with the axiom of union allows one to form countable unions, and, indeed, unions indexed by sets of any already defined cardinality. This is why the scale of alephs can be constructed in ZF without using choice, it is only needed to prove that every set is bijective to an aleph. It is interesting that Fraenkel added replacement to Zermelo's original axioms when it was realized that without it one can not go beyond aleph omega.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$















                1












                1








                1





                $begingroup$

                No, one does not need the axiom of choice. The axiom of replacement (the image of any set under any definable mapping is also a set) together with the axiom of union allows one to form countable unions, and, indeed, unions indexed by sets of any already defined cardinality. This is why the scale of alephs can be constructed in ZF without using choice, it is only needed to prove that every set is bijective to an aleph. It is interesting that Fraenkel added replacement to Zermelo's original axioms when it was realized that without it one can not go beyond aleph omega.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                No, one does not need the axiom of choice. The axiom of replacement (the image of any set under any definable mapping is also a set) together with the axiom of union allows one to form countable unions, and, indeed, unions indexed by sets of any already defined cardinality. This is why the scale of alephs can be constructed in ZF without using choice, it is only needed to prove that every set is bijective to an aleph. It is interesting that Fraenkel added replacement to Zermelo's original axioms when it was realized that without it one can not go beyond aleph omega.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Mar 10 at 9:11









                ConifoldConifold

                7,04521744




                7,04521744



























                    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%2f3142120%2ffrom-an-axiomatic-set-theoric-approach-why-can-we-take-uncountable-unions%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

                    How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                    Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                    How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?