2
$\begingroup$

Let $W$ be a binary relation on a set $Y$. The relation $W$ is called extensional if $$ \forall x,y \in Y (x \neq y \rightarrow \exists z \in Y (( \langle z,x \rangle \in W \land \langle z,y \rangle \notin W) \lor ( \langle z,x \rangle \notin W \land \langle z,y \rangle \in W )))$$

Consider the $\in$ relation. Let $Y$ be a set that is not transitive. This means that there is $y$ in $Y$ such that $x \in y$ but $x \notin Y$. (Right?) How does this make $\in$ non-extensional?

(As I understand extionsionality means that two sets are equal if and only if they contain the same elements. How is this violated if $\in$ is not transitive?)

Thanks.

Here is a copy of the exercise, page 64, Just/Weese:

enter image description here

  • 2
    You are correct that more assumptions are needed to ensure that the $\in$-relation restricted to a non-transitive set is not extensional. Note that the set $Y = \{ \{ \emptyset \} \}$ is not transitive, however the $\in$-relation restricted to $Y$ is extensional. Is this something else from Just-Weese? If so, what precisely do they say?2012-11-12
  • 0
    @ArthurFischer Yes, let me add a copy.2012-11-12
  • 0
    Note that the Exercise does not say that _all_ non-transitive sets have non-extensional $\in$-relations. But only that _some_ do (this is the phrase "$\in$ _may not_ be an extensional relation on $Y$" [emphasis mine]). Read Asaf's answer below.2012-11-12

1 Answers 1

3

Consider $Y=\{\varnothing,\{1\}\}$.

From the point of view of $Y$ neither contain any elements, because $1\notin Y$. But these are different sets.

To say that $\langle Y,\in\rangle$ is extensional is to say that the following is true: $$\forall x\in Y\forall y\in Y(x=y\leftrightarrow\forall z\in Y(z\in x\leftrightarrow z\in y))$$

This clearly fails in our case.

  • 0
    Bus WiFi is great.2012-11-12
  • 0
    : ) But $\{1\} = \{ \{\varnothing \} \}$, I don't understand how $\{1\}$ does not contain an element, it seems to contain $1 = \{\varnothing \}$. Could you elaborate, please?2012-11-12
  • 0
    In $Y$ it doesn't. As a structure $\langle Y,\in\rangle$ is not extensional.2012-11-12
  • 0
    I'm sorry but I honestly don't understand. In $Y$, $1 = \{ \varnothing \} \in \{1\}$, so there is indeed an element in $\{1\}$.2012-11-12
  • 0
    No. $\varnothing\in1$. $1\neq\{1\}$.2012-11-12
  • 0
    But $1\notin Y$. So relative to $Y$ the set $\{1\}$ has no elements.2012-11-12
  • 0
    That is some crazy shtuff...2012-11-12
  • 0
    Is $Y$ here the whole space / universe? Because if it is I am not sure how $Y$ can have sets containing elements that aren't in the universe. Because in this case $1$ doesn't even exist...2012-11-12
  • 0
    No. You have the whole universe, but now we insist on relativizing axioms to $Y$. We only care about elements in $Y$ so when we quantify we insist that the elements come from $Y$2012-11-12
  • 2
    @Matt: Perhaps using the $\in$ symbol has been confusing you, and perhaps we should avoid it. Given a set $Y$ define a binary relation $\mathord{\triangleleft}$ on $Y$ by $x \triangleleft y$ iff $x \in Y \wedge y \in Y \wedge x \in y$. Now go through Asaf's example and show that $\mathord{\triangleleft}$ is not extensional.2012-11-12
  • 0
    Dear @ArthurFischer and AsafKaragila, I remember thinking about the exact same thing about a year ago. Thanks, it's getting clearer now.2012-11-12
  • 0
    @AsafKaragila Regarding your last comment: so the universe is a bigger set containing both $Y$ and $1$?2012-11-12
  • 0
    @Matt: Yes, the unvierse is a universe of ZFC. It has to have more than two elements! :-)2012-11-12
  • 0
    @AsafKaragila : )2012-11-12