9
$\begingroup$

I'm reading Comprehensive Mathematics for Computer Scientists 1. On the second chapter: Axiomatic Set Theory.

He first states the axiom of the empty set, the axiom of equality and then he proceeds to the axiom of union:

Axiom 3 (Axiom of Union) If $a$ is a set, then there is a set:

$\{$x$ | there exists an element $b\in a$ such that $x\in b$\}$.

This set is denoted by $\bigcup a$ and is called the union of $a$.

Notation 2 If a = {b,c}. or a = {b,c,d}, respectively, one also writes b $\cup$ c, or b $\cup$ c $\cup$ d, respectively, instead of $\cup$a

I've learned the definition of Union while I was in school, but it wasn't with axioms, they just gave an intuitive example:

$a=\{1,2,3\}$

$b=\{4,5\}$

$a\bigcup b=\{1,2,3,4,5\}$

I can't see how the notion of this intuitive example happens on the axiom of union. In my example, it's easy to understand because there's a mention to another set, where's the mention in this axiom?

  • 2
    Also if you do have urelements (aka atoms) other than the empty set, then the axiom of union loses the "top level" ones. E.g. $\bigcup \{a,\{b\}\}$ is just $\{b\}$. This is one of the troubles with urelements and why the axiom looks strange with urelements. Hat tip to [Tourlakis' book](https://books.google.com/books?id=nparMXao59QC&pg=PA150) for mentioning this.2015-04-12

5 Answers 5

15

The connection between your example and the more general definition is that $\bigcup\{a,b\}=a\cup b$. Written out in all its gory details, this is

$\bigcup\Big\{\{1,2,3\},\{4,5\}\Big\}=\{1,2,3\}\cup\{4,5\}=\{1,2,3,4,5\}\;.$

Let’s check that against the definition:

$\begin{align*} &\bigcup\Big\{\{1,2,3\},\{4,5\}\Big\}\\ &\qquad=\left\{x:\text{there exists an element }y\in\Big\{\{1,2,3\},\{4,5\}\Big\}\text{ such that }x\in y\right\}\\ &\qquad=\Big\{x:x\in\{1,2,3\}\text{ or }x\in\{4,5\}\Big\}\\ &\qquad=\{1,2,3\}\cup\{4,5\}\\ &\qquad=\{1,2,3,4,5\}\;. \end{align*}$

Take a slightly bigger example. Let $a,b$, and $c$ be any sets; then

$\begin{align*} \bigcup\{a,b,c\}&=\Big\{x:\text{there exists an element }y\in\{a,b,c\}\text{ such that }x\in y\Big\}\\ &=\{x:x\in a\text{ or }x\in b\text{ or }x\in c\}\\ &=a\cup b\cup c\;. \end{align*}$

One more, even bigger: for $n\in\Bbb N$ let $A_n$ be a set, and let $\mathscr{A}=\{A_n:n\in\Bbb N\}$. Then

$\begin{align*} \bigcup\mathscr{A}&=\Big\{x:\text{there exists an }n\in\Bbb N\text{ such that }x\in A_n\Big\}\\ &=\{x:x\in A_0\text{ or }x\in A_1\text{ or }x\in A_2\text{ or }\dots\}\\ &=A_0\cup A_1\cup A_2\cup\dots\\ &=\bigcup_{n\in\Bbb N}A_n\;. \end{align*}$

  • 0
    As you're$a$set theoretic, can you help me with [this question?](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/190894/what-should-i-be-able-to-do-with-this-chapter-on-axiomatic-set-theory-in-order-t)2012-09-04
6

Let $A=\{a,b\}$ (the set whose only elements are $a$ and $b$). Then the union of $a$ and $b$ that you described is what the Axiom of Union produces from $A$.

Remark: Informally, let $A$ be a set whose elements are a bunch of plastic bags with stuff in them (so $A$ is a set of sets). Then the set produced by the Axiom of Union from $A$ dumps the stuff contained in the bags into a single bag. (Duplicates are thrown away.)

  • 0
    @GustavoBandeira: It is a common notation. In principle, all we use is $\in$ and logical symbols, but in doing doing set theory it is then useful (indeed almost necessary!) to introduce abbreviations for important constructions.2012-08-24
3

When we write $a\cup b$ we actually mean $\bigcup\{a,b\}$. This is a shorthand instead of writing long formulas every time we want to talk about the union of two sets.

  • 0
    @Gustavo: Think of $\bigcup$ as a LISP function "union": $(\textrm{union }a\ b\ \ldots)$ It takes a list of sets and returns their union. The $a\cup b$ notation is a bit like C syntax.2012-08-24
2

Think of $a$ as a set (or collection, if you like) of other sets. Then $\bigcup a$ is the union of all these sets. So, for instance, in your example:

$\bigcup \lbrace\lbrace 1,2,3\rbrace,\lbrace 4,5\rbrace\rbrace = \lbrace 1,2,3,4,5\rbrace$

You may think of $A\cup B$ as shorthand for $\bigcup \lbrace A,B\rbrace$.

  • 0
    Yep, it's the same as I pointed [here](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/186379/axiom-of-union/#comment430230_186380).2012-08-24
2

This axiom talks about a set of sets.

This is because the axiom states $b\in a$ and $x\in b$: $x$ in $b$ tells you that $b$ is a set (and is an element of $a$).

For example: $a=\{\{1\},\{2,3\}\}$ then the axiom states that $\{1\}\cup\{2,3\}=\{1,2,3\}$ exists.

  • 0
    In ZFC, __everything__ is a __set of sets__ (except the empty set, which is a set of nothing)2017-06-19