Skip to main content

ZFC Set Theory

Image result for axiom of choice controversy

I happened onto a logic blog recently and, before my eyes burnt out with the beauty of the abstractions involved, I learned a new term. ZFC Set Theory.

The first two letters, "ZF," abbreviate names, Zemelo and Frankel. Both big names in the history of logic -- I need say no more of them now. The C stands for "choice" as in the "axiom of choice."

Now, that sounds important. What choice can there be in logic?

Well, the axiom of choice involves mutually disjoint nonempty sets. Take for example two such sets: the set of all teacups and the set of all named bodies of water on the planet. The axiom of choice means that for any set of such sets, it is possible to create a transversal set, containing exactly one element from each. Simple enough in this case: I can simple designate one set as consistent of teacup A plus Lake Erie. Another set consists of teacup B plus the Atlantic Ocean. And so forth.

Why is this important? Well, Bertrand Russell in 1904 (when this axiom, and in fact set theory, were new) said that this axiom yields the multiplicative theorem: that is, the conclusion that any multiplication of two non-zero numbers yields a non-zero number. And THAT marked a milestone in the project of creating a set theoretic foundation for arithmetic.

The significance of ZFC Set Theory, then, is or includes this -- there is a claim circulating among logicians and philosophers of mathematics that if ANY form of set theory can serve as a foundation for arithmetic, or more ambitiously still for mathematics as such, then ZFC Set Theory is the best candidate for the job.

Now YOUR eyes may be burning, dear reader, so I desist.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…