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?

  • 0
    In ZFC, any element of a set is itself a set, so the interpretation of $\cup a$ is the union of all the sets in $a$.2012-08-24
  • 0
    The exposition in that book is rather terse, especially for a book addressed to non-mathematicians (something noted in its Amazon reviews.) There are better examples of the axiom of union at work in [Hrbacek and Jech, p. 10](https://books.google.com/books?id=Er1r0n7VoSEC&pg=PA10), although unlike everything in the answers shown below, the examples of Hrbacek and Jech use "pure" set theory i.e. without urelements like $a$ or $b$. (In layman's terms, this means only the empty set and braces are used to build sets.) It's somewhat insightful to see how the axiom works out in that context as well.2015-04-12
  • 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
    If there exists an element $y\in\Big\{\{1,2,3\},\{4,5\}\Big\}$, then shouldn't we have a $\Big\{\{1,2,3\},\{4,5\},y\Big\}$?2012-08-24
  • 2
    @Gustavo: No: $y$ is a dummy name used here to stand for **any** member of the set $\Big\{\{1,2,3\},\{4,5\}\Big\}$. Here the possible values of $y$ are $\{1,2,3\}$ and $\{4,5\}$.2012-08-24
  • 0
    @Gustavo: Yes, $x$ in expressions like $\{x:\text{something}\}$ is also a dummy variable; it can stand for anything that satisfies the condition $\text{something}$.2012-08-24
  • 0
    Then I have to choose one of the sets on: $\{\{1,2,3 \},\{4,5 \}\}$ and then choose an element inside the chosen one?2012-08-24
  • 0
    Yep. Your last comment seems to tell me that I should consider all possible options, isn't it?2012-08-24
  • 0
    @Gustavo: Yes. To find the members of $$\Big\{x:\text{there exists an element }y\in\{a,b,c\}\text{ such that }x\in y\Big\}\;,$$ you set $y=a$ and find all the members of $a$, then set $y=b$ and find all the members of $b$, and then set $y=c$ and find all the members of $c$.2012-08-24
  • 0
    Do you think that the explanation in this book was satisfactory? I could learn much more from your explanation than from Guerino's book. Is it a problema with the book or with me?2012-08-24
  • 0
    @Gustavo: If that’s the *only* explanation, the book is probably a bit too concise to be a good textbook. One of the reviewers at Amazon also complained that many definitions lacked adequate explanations. I can’t really judge without having seen the book, but it does sound as if the problem lies more with the book than with you.2012-08-25
  • 0
    I've edited the question and added everything thats on the book. (Everything for the axiom of union).2012-08-25
  • 0
    @Gustavo: Technically, everything that you need is there, but it’s the bare minimum. That would be reasonable for lecture notes, since there would presumably be more discussion in class, or for a brief review of notation at the beginning of an advanced text, but it’s pretty skimpy for someone learning the notation for the first time without a lot of background.2012-08-25
  • 0
    Yes, I was using it for self learning. =/2012-08-25
  • 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
    Oh, then $\bigcup a$ acts like a variable. When he says: "There is a set..." he refers to a set that have no name, it's only $\{$x | such that... $\}$ and not $z=\{$x | such that... $\}$, Then I thought that this nameless set were implicit here $\bigcup a$, if it had a name $z$, it would be written like: $z\bigcup a$. Is this right?2012-08-24
  • 1
    @GustavoBandeira: I am having trouble understanding what you mean. Here $\cup$ acts as a **unary** operator (function). If you apply it to the set $\{a,b,c,d\}$ of **sets** it produces $a\cup b\cup c\cup d$. It operates similarly on an infinite collection $\{a_1,a_2,a_3,\dots\}$ of sets.2012-08-24
  • 0
    I wasn't aware that I could write it like LISP.2012-08-24
  • 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
    Yep. Same as I commented [here](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/186379/axiom-of-union/#comment430230_186380).2012-08-24
  • 0
    I've read your comment with attention now. This reminds me of LISP where you can write (+ 2 3).2012-08-24
  • 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