The total number of subsets is $2^n$ for $n$ elements
$begingroup$
In my probability book, it says that to count the total number of subsets of n elements is a process of $n$ stages with binary choice of either adding this element to the subset or not to add it. Therefore, the total number is
$$2^n$$
But, for instance, we have 3 elements, according to this formula, there are 2 to the power of 3 elements, namely 8, which are
$${emptyset},A,B,C, AB, AC, BC, ABC$$
However, I have a hard time of imagining the process or N stages binary choice that form this many subsets. Can anyone explain/help me to understand it? I mean, ABC, if we are making the choice of A, put it in or do not put it in, exactly which subset are we choosing to put in or not? Thank you.
probability probability-theory permutations combinations
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In my probability book, it says that to count the total number of subsets of n elements is a process of $n$ stages with binary choice of either adding this element to the subset or not to add it. Therefore, the total number is
$$2^n$$
But, for instance, we have 3 elements, according to this formula, there are 2 to the power of 3 elements, namely 8, which are
$${emptyset},A,B,C, AB, AC, BC, ABC$$
However, I have a hard time of imagining the process or N stages binary choice that form this many subsets. Can anyone explain/help me to understand it? I mean, ABC, if we are making the choice of A, put it in or do not put it in, exactly which subset are we choosing to put in or not? Thank you.
probability probability-theory permutations combinations
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I'm not sure what you were trying to ask. I wrote an answer and other people seem to think it doesn't answer the question. Were you asking how for any finite set, it's possible to count all the subsets of that set or were you asking whether there is a uniform way of defining for all finite sets how to do it for that set?
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Timothy I was having trouble understanding this in the process described by Eelvex's answer, but now I understood...thanks!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
$begingroup$
I'm confused. Was it my answer that you understood? If so, the fact that my answer got 5 downvotes probably means that people sometimes don't know what confusion the OP has when they ask a question.
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Timothy, hi Timothey, sorry I haven't checked your answer yet...and I never gave people down vote...but I'll read it now.
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In my probability book, it says that to count the total number of subsets of n elements is a process of $n$ stages with binary choice of either adding this element to the subset or not to add it. Therefore, the total number is
$$2^n$$
But, for instance, we have 3 elements, according to this formula, there are 2 to the power of 3 elements, namely 8, which are
$${emptyset},A,B,C, AB, AC, BC, ABC$$
However, I have a hard time of imagining the process or N stages binary choice that form this many subsets. Can anyone explain/help me to understand it? I mean, ABC, if we are making the choice of A, put it in or do not put it in, exactly which subset are we choosing to put in or not? Thank you.
probability probability-theory permutations combinations
New contributor
$endgroup$
In my probability book, it says that to count the total number of subsets of n elements is a process of $n$ stages with binary choice of either adding this element to the subset or not to add it. Therefore, the total number is
$$2^n$$
But, for instance, we have 3 elements, according to this formula, there are 2 to the power of 3 elements, namely 8, which are
$${emptyset},A,B,C, AB, AC, BC, ABC$$
However, I have a hard time of imagining the process or N stages binary choice that form this many subsets. Can anyone explain/help me to understand it? I mean, ABC, if we are making the choice of A, put it in or do not put it in, exactly which subset are we choosing to put in or not? Thank you.
probability probability-theory permutations combinations
probability probability-theory permutations combinations
New contributor
New contributor
edited yesterday
Asaf Karagila♦
302k32427757
302k32427757
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
commentallez-vouscommentallez-vous
1858
1858
New contributor
New contributor
1
$begingroup$
I'm not sure what you were trying to ask. I wrote an answer and other people seem to think it doesn't answer the question. Were you asking how for any finite set, it's possible to count all the subsets of that set or were you asking whether there is a uniform way of defining for all finite sets how to do it for that set?
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Timothy I was having trouble understanding this in the process described by Eelvex's answer, but now I understood...thanks!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
$begingroup$
I'm confused. Was it my answer that you understood? If so, the fact that my answer got 5 downvotes probably means that people sometimes don't know what confusion the OP has when they ask a question.
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Timothy, hi Timothey, sorry I haven't checked your answer yet...and I never gave people down vote...but I'll read it now.
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I'm not sure what you were trying to ask. I wrote an answer and other people seem to think it doesn't answer the question. Were you asking how for any finite set, it's possible to count all the subsets of that set or were you asking whether there is a uniform way of defining for all finite sets how to do it for that set?
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Timothy I was having trouble understanding this in the process described by Eelvex's answer, but now I understood...thanks!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
$begingroup$
I'm confused. Was it my answer that you understood? If so, the fact that my answer got 5 downvotes probably means that people sometimes don't know what confusion the OP has when they ask a question.
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Timothy, hi Timothey, sorry I haven't checked your answer yet...and I never gave people down vote...but I'll read it now.
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
I'm not sure what you were trying to ask. I wrote an answer and other people seem to think it doesn't answer the question. Were you asking how for any finite set, it's possible to count all the subsets of that set or were you asking whether there is a uniform way of defining for all finite sets how to do it for that set?
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
$begingroup$
I'm not sure what you were trying to ask. I wrote an answer and other people seem to think it doesn't answer the question. Were you asking how for any finite set, it's possible to count all the subsets of that set or were you asking whether there is a uniform way of defining for all finite sets how to do it for that set?
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
@Timothy I was having trouble understanding this in the process described by Eelvex's answer, but now I understood...thanks!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Timothy I was having trouble understanding this in the process described by Eelvex's answer, but now I understood...thanks!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
$begingroup$
I'm confused. Was it my answer that you understood? If so, the fact that my answer got 5 downvotes probably means that people sometimes don't know what confusion the OP has when they ask a question.
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
$begingroup$
I'm confused. Was it my answer that you understood? If so, the fact that my answer got 5 downvotes probably means that people sometimes don't know what confusion the OP has when they ask a question.
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
@Timothy, hi Timothey, sorry I haven't checked your answer yet...and I never gave people down vote...but I'll read it now.
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Timothy, hi Timothey, sorry I haven't checked your answer yet...and I never gave people down vote...but I'll read it now.
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
add a comment |
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
- "Include A?" is stage 1
- "Include B?" is stage 2
- "Include C?" is stage 3.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Label your $n$ elements so that $X={x_{1},...,x_{n}}$. We're going to form a one-to-one correspondence between the subsets of $X$ and the set of length-$n$ binary strings as follows. Given a binary string
$$a_{1}cdots a_{n}$$
imagine that $a_{i}=1$ means "include $x_{i}$ in this subset" and $a_{i}=0$ means "exclude $x_{i}$ in this subset". For example, if $n=4$ then the subset $S={x_{1},x_{3}}$ would be represented as $1010$.
There are exactly $2^{n}$ possible strings, since each $a_{i}$ has two possible values, and there are $n$ of them. And each string corresponds to one and only one subset of $X$. Therefore there are $2^{n}$ subsets.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks pwerth, this is a wonderful and direct view on the process using 1010 as an example.
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
2 days ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome, glad to help!
$endgroup$
– pwerth
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Write out all the binary numbers with $3$ digits. Each digit represents one element ($0$ means exclude, $1$ means include):
$$
begin{array}{|c|c|}
text{decimal}&text{binary}&text{subset}\hline
0&000&{}\
1&001&{C}\
2&010&{B}\
3&011&{B,C}\
4&100&{A}\
5&101&{A,C}\
6&110&{A,B}\
7&111&{A,B,C}\
end{array}
$$
This is easily extendible to an $n$ element set with $n$ digit binary numbers.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Note the relationship between the binary numbers and the subset elements: $000 to { }, 001 to {C}, 010 to {B}, 011 to {B,C}, dots$.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
yesterday
$begingroup$
I believe that this is the same as pwerth's answer.
$endgroup$
– Scott
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think, more directly, what the book is saying can be stated as:
Choosing a subset $U$ of a set $S$ is the same as, for each element $xin S$, choosing whether $x$ is in $U$ or not.
In particular, there is, at any time, only one set we're considering. So, if $S={A,B,C}$ and we want to choose a subset $U$, we could make the following three choices:
$$Ain U$$
$$Bin U$$
$$Cin U$$
And we would get $U={A,B,C}$. So, we've constructed a subset by making three binary choices. We could try this process again to make a different subset; for instance, we could decide instead
$$Anotin U$$
$$Bnotin U$$
$$Cin U$$
And then get $U={C}$. So, we've made a different set of choices and got a different set. So, for each subset, we have to make three choices.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you Milo, I think I got it using your explanation with pwerth's. I really appreciate it!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The set of subsets of $X$ can be seen as the set of all functions from $X$ to ${0,1}$, denoted ${0,1}^X$.
For each such function, consider the subset of $X$ consisting of all $xin X$ such that $f(x)=1$.
This, it turns out, is a $1-1$correspondence.
As a result, the order of the power set is $mid P(X)mid=mid {0,1}^Xmid=mid{0,1}mid^{mid Xmid}=2^n$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Proof by induction (on number of elements in the set):
For $n = 0$, there is exactly $2^0=1$ subset of a set with 0 elements, namely the empty set itself.
Assuming that any set $U_n$ with $n$ elements has $2^n$ subset, consider a set $U_{n+1}=U_n cup {x}$ (where $x notin U_n$). Which subsets of $U_{n+1}$ exists?
- The subsets which do not include $x$ are exactly the subsets of $U_n$ (there are $2^n$ such subsets)
- Any other subset includes $x$, so it is of the form $A cup {x}$, where $A$ is a subset of $U_n$ (because all elements in $U_{n+1}$ except $x$ are also elements of $U_n$), and it's clear that such subset exists (and is unique) for each $A subset U_n$. So, the number of $U_{n+1}$ subsets which include $x$ is also $2^n$.
So, the total count of $U_{n+1}$ subsets is $2^n+2^n=2^{n+1}$. The proof is complete.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is no definable uniform method that works on every single finite set. In Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, there is no set of all finite sets so there cannot be a function on the set of all finite sets. To prove that there is a uniform way to do so, you need to work in Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory where the axiom of global choice is a theorem and Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory also asserts the existence of functions on proper classes. Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory does describe the statement "There is no set of all finite sets" but does not describe the statement "The class of all finite sets is not a set." However, Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory does describe that statement. In Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory, the axiom of global choice states that there is a class function that assigns to every nonempty set one member of that set. In Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory on the other hand, the axiom of choice is not provable and the axiom of global choice is not even stateable in the formal system of ZF. In ZF, you can't state the statement that there exist a class function that for every finite set picks one way of counting all its subsets. Once I define a way of doing that for every finite ordinal number, it can be shown that for every set, if there exists a bijection from a finite ordinal number to that, there exists a bijection from 2 to the power of that ordinal number to the power set of that set. Now I will define a method of counting for each finite ordinal number all of its subsets. Every finite ordinal number is the set of all smaller finite ordinal numbers. Start with the empty set. For the ordinal number 0, there is only one subset of it, itself. For each finite ordinal number $x$, suppose you have already defined a way to count all subsets of $x$, then count all subsets of $x + 1$ as follows. First count all the subsets of $x$ in exactly the same way then count the objects that can be gotten from them by taking the union of each of them and $text{{x}}$ in the same order. That recursively defines for every finite ordinal number a way to count all of its subsets.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I see that I got a downvote but I don't see what's wrong with this answer. Maybe you don't like it because you're thinking in the contradictory Naive set theory where you can prove the axiom of choice and can also prove that there is a set of all finite sets and therefore you can also prove in Naive set theory that there is a function from the set of all finite sets to the universal set that assings to every finite set one way to count all the elements of its power set.
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
Sorry, I downvoted this too, because this does not actually answer the question. If we consider only finite sets without the possibility that a set can contain itself (which the OP has probably meant), the naive set theory does not lead to paradoxes.
$endgroup$
– trolley813
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
I think your answer reached beyond my ability to understand. Probably I have to rephrase my question. But what I meant was exactly the process how those subsets were formed through a n steps binary choice. As you have noticed that Eelvex answer was a good example for me to perceive the process. But I have to say your answer is also quite rigorous given it stems from a point of view in real analysis. But given my math ability, the easier ones are better for me to understand. Still, thanks a lot!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
$begingroup$
@commentallez-vous I'm not sure if that's a good idea because it might invalidate the already existing answers. There might exist an edit that doesn't invalidate them but it's probably too hard to figure out what one is so I think it might be better to ask a question to help understand how Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory work. If the question title is rejected by a Stack Exchange algorithm because it exceeds 150 characters, you could write ZF and NBG for shorthand in the title. Maybe I could make my answer more understandable to you by more clearly
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
$begingroup$
describing how ZF and NBG work but I'm not sure I'll be able to figure out how to do so even if there is a way. I believe that formally in NBG, the statements "The class of all sets is not a set" and "There is no set of all sets" are distinct but equivalent statements but ZF describes the statement "There is no set of all sets" but does not describe the statement "The class of all sets is not a set" because it doesn't include any statements that refer to proper classes. Sometimes people say "The class of all sets is not a set" when they really mean "There is no set of all sets" in ZF. My
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
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
});
}
});
commentallez-vous is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3068013%2fthe-total-number-of-subsets-is-2n-for-n-elements%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
- "Include A?" is stage 1
- "Include B?" is stage 2
- "Include C?" is stage 3.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
- "Include A?" is stage 1
- "Include B?" is stage 2
- "Include C?" is stage 3.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
- "Include A?" is stage 1
- "Include B?" is stage 2
- "Include C?" is stage 3.
$endgroup$
- "Include A?" is stage 1
- "Include B?" is stage 2
- "Include C?" is stage 3.
answered 2 days ago
EelvexEelvex
1,114820
1,114820
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Label your $n$ elements so that $X={x_{1},...,x_{n}}$. We're going to form a one-to-one correspondence between the subsets of $X$ and the set of length-$n$ binary strings as follows. Given a binary string
$$a_{1}cdots a_{n}$$
imagine that $a_{i}=1$ means "include $x_{i}$ in this subset" and $a_{i}=0$ means "exclude $x_{i}$ in this subset". For example, if $n=4$ then the subset $S={x_{1},x_{3}}$ would be represented as $1010$.
There are exactly $2^{n}$ possible strings, since each $a_{i}$ has two possible values, and there are $n$ of them. And each string corresponds to one and only one subset of $X$. Therefore there are $2^{n}$ subsets.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks pwerth, this is a wonderful and direct view on the process using 1010 as an example.
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
2 days ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome, glad to help!
$endgroup$
– pwerth
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Label your $n$ elements so that $X={x_{1},...,x_{n}}$. We're going to form a one-to-one correspondence between the subsets of $X$ and the set of length-$n$ binary strings as follows. Given a binary string
$$a_{1}cdots a_{n}$$
imagine that $a_{i}=1$ means "include $x_{i}$ in this subset" and $a_{i}=0$ means "exclude $x_{i}$ in this subset". For example, if $n=4$ then the subset $S={x_{1},x_{3}}$ would be represented as $1010$.
There are exactly $2^{n}$ possible strings, since each $a_{i}$ has two possible values, and there are $n$ of them. And each string corresponds to one and only one subset of $X$. Therefore there are $2^{n}$ subsets.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks pwerth, this is a wonderful and direct view on the process using 1010 as an example.
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
2 days ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome, glad to help!
$endgroup$
– pwerth
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Label your $n$ elements so that $X={x_{1},...,x_{n}}$. We're going to form a one-to-one correspondence between the subsets of $X$ and the set of length-$n$ binary strings as follows. Given a binary string
$$a_{1}cdots a_{n}$$
imagine that $a_{i}=1$ means "include $x_{i}$ in this subset" and $a_{i}=0$ means "exclude $x_{i}$ in this subset". For example, if $n=4$ then the subset $S={x_{1},x_{3}}$ would be represented as $1010$.
There are exactly $2^{n}$ possible strings, since each $a_{i}$ has two possible values, and there are $n$ of them. And each string corresponds to one and only one subset of $X$. Therefore there are $2^{n}$ subsets.
$endgroup$
Label your $n$ elements so that $X={x_{1},...,x_{n}}$. We're going to form a one-to-one correspondence between the subsets of $X$ and the set of length-$n$ binary strings as follows. Given a binary string
$$a_{1}cdots a_{n}$$
imagine that $a_{i}=1$ means "include $x_{i}$ in this subset" and $a_{i}=0$ means "exclude $x_{i}$ in this subset". For example, if $n=4$ then the subset $S={x_{1},x_{3}}$ would be represented as $1010$.
There are exactly $2^{n}$ possible strings, since each $a_{i}$ has two possible values, and there are $n$ of them. And each string corresponds to one and only one subset of $X$. Therefore there are $2^{n}$ subsets.
answered 2 days ago
pwerthpwerth
2,117413
2,117413
$begingroup$
Thanks pwerth, this is a wonderful and direct view on the process using 1010 as an example.
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
2 days ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome, glad to help!
$endgroup$
– pwerth
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks pwerth, this is a wonderful and direct view on the process using 1010 as an example.
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
2 days ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome, glad to help!
$endgroup$
– pwerth
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Thanks pwerth, this is a wonderful and direct view on the process using 1010 as an example.
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Thanks pwerth, this is a wonderful and direct view on the process using 1010 as an example.
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
2 days ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome, glad to help!
$endgroup$
– pwerth
2 days ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome, glad to help!
$endgroup$
– pwerth
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Write out all the binary numbers with $3$ digits. Each digit represents one element ($0$ means exclude, $1$ means include):
$$
begin{array}{|c|c|}
text{decimal}&text{binary}&text{subset}\hline
0&000&{}\
1&001&{C}\
2&010&{B}\
3&011&{B,C}\
4&100&{A}\
5&101&{A,C}\
6&110&{A,B}\
7&111&{A,B,C}\
end{array}
$$
This is easily extendible to an $n$ element set with $n$ digit binary numbers.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Note the relationship between the binary numbers and the subset elements: $000 to { }, 001 to {C}, 010 to {B}, 011 to {B,C}, dots$.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
yesterday
$begingroup$
I believe that this is the same as pwerth's answer.
$endgroup$
– Scott
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Write out all the binary numbers with $3$ digits. Each digit represents one element ($0$ means exclude, $1$ means include):
$$
begin{array}{|c|c|}
text{decimal}&text{binary}&text{subset}\hline
0&000&{}\
1&001&{C}\
2&010&{B}\
3&011&{B,C}\
4&100&{A}\
5&101&{A,C}\
6&110&{A,B}\
7&111&{A,B,C}\
end{array}
$$
This is easily extendible to an $n$ element set with $n$ digit binary numbers.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Note the relationship between the binary numbers and the subset elements: $000 to { }, 001 to {C}, 010 to {B}, 011 to {B,C}, dots$.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
yesterday
$begingroup$
I believe that this is the same as pwerth's answer.
$endgroup$
– Scott
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Write out all the binary numbers with $3$ digits. Each digit represents one element ($0$ means exclude, $1$ means include):
$$
begin{array}{|c|c|}
text{decimal}&text{binary}&text{subset}\hline
0&000&{}\
1&001&{C}\
2&010&{B}\
3&011&{B,C}\
4&100&{A}\
5&101&{A,C}\
6&110&{A,B}\
7&111&{A,B,C}\
end{array}
$$
This is easily extendible to an $n$ element set with $n$ digit binary numbers.
$endgroup$
Write out all the binary numbers with $3$ digits. Each digit represents one element ($0$ means exclude, $1$ means include):
$$
begin{array}{|c|c|}
text{decimal}&text{binary}&text{subset}\hline
0&000&{}\
1&001&{C}\
2&010&{B}\
3&011&{B,C}\
4&100&{A}\
5&101&{A,C}\
6&110&{A,B}\
7&111&{A,B,C}\
end{array}
$$
This is easily extendible to an $n$ element set with $n$ digit binary numbers.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
robjohn♦robjohn
265k27303626
265k27303626
1
$begingroup$
Note the relationship between the binary numbers and the subset elements: $000 to { }, 001 to {C}, 010 to {B}, 011 to {B,C}, dots$.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
yesterday
$begingroup$
I believe that this is the same as pwerth's answer.
$endgroup$
– Scott
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Note the relationship between the binary numbers and the subset elements: $000 to { }, 001 to {C}, 010 to {B}, 011 to {B,C}, dots$.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
yesterday
$begingroup$
I believe that this is the same as pwerth's answer.
$endgroup$
– Scott
1 hour ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Note the relationship between the binary numbers and the subset elements: $000 to { }, 001 to {C}, 010 to {B}, 011 to {B,C}, dots$.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
yesterday
$begingroup$
Note the relationship between the binary numbers and the subset elements: $000 to { }, 001 to {C}, 010 to {B}, 011 to {B,C}, dots$.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
yesterday
$begingroup$
I believe that this is the same as pwerth's answer.
$endgroup$
– Scott
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I believe that this is the same as pwerth's answer.
$endgroup$
– Scott
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think, more directly, what the book is saying can be stated as:
Choosing a subset $U$ of a set $S$ is the same as, for each element $xin S$, choosing whether $x$ is in $U$ or not.
In particular, there is, at any time, only one set we're considering. So, if $S={A,B,C}$ and we want to choose a subset $U$, we could make the following three choices:
$$Ain U$$
$$Bin U$$
$$Cin U$$
And we would get $U={A,B,C}$. So, we've constructed a subset by making three binary choices. We could try this process again to make a different subset; for instance, we could decide instead
$$Anotin U$$
$$Bnotin U$$
$$Cin U$$
And then get $U={C}$. So, we've made a different set of choices and got a different set. So, for each subset, we have to make three choices.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you Milo, I think I got it using your explanation with pwerth's. I really appreciate it!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think, more directly, what the book is saying can be stated as:
Choosing a subset $U$ of a set $S$ is the same as, for each element $xin S$, choosing whether $x$ is in $U$ or not.
In particular, there is, at any time, only one set we're considering. So, if $S={A,B,C}$ and we want to choose a subset $U$, we could make the following three choices:
$$Ain U$$
$$Bin U$$
$$Cin U$$
And we would get $U={A,B,C}$. So, we've constructed a subset by making three binary choices. We could try this process again to make a different subset; for instance, we could decide instead
$$Anotin U$$
$$Bnotin U$$
$$Cin U$$
And then get $U={C}$. So, we've made a different set of choices and got a different set. So, for each subset, we have to make three choices.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you Milo, I think I got it using your explanation with pwerth's. I really appreciate it!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think, more directly, what the book is saying can be stated as:
Choosing a subset $U$ of a set $S$ is the same as, for each element $xin S$, choosing whether $x$ is in $U$ or not.
In particular, there is, at any time, only one set we're considering. So, if $S={A,B,C}$ and we want to choose a subset $U$, we could make the following three choices:
$$Ain U$$
$$Bin U$$
$$Cin U$$
And we would get $U={A,B,C}$. So, we've constructed a subset by making three binary choices. We could try this process again to make a different subset; for instance, we could decide instead
$$Anotin U$$
$$Bnotin U$$
$$Cin U$$
And then get $U={C}$. So, we've made a different set of choices and got a different set. So, for each subset, we have to make three choices.
$endgroup$
I think, more directly, what the book is saying can be stated as:
Choosing a subset $U$ of a set $S$ is the same as, for each element $xin S$, choosing whether $x$ is in $U$ or not.
In particular, there is, at any time, only one set we're considering. So, if $S={A,B,C}$ and we want to choose a subset $U$, we could make the following three choices:
$$Ain U$$
$$Bin U$$
$$Cin U$$
And we would get $U={A,B,C}$. So, we've constructed a subset by making three binary choices. We could try this process again to make a different subset; for instance, we could decide instead
$$Anotin U$$
$$Bnotin U$$
$$Cin U$$
And then get $U={C}$. So, we've made a different set of choices and got a different set. So, for each subset, we have to make three choices.
answered 2 days ago
Milo BrandtMilo Brandt
39.5k475139
39.5k475139
$begingroup$
Thank you Milo, I think I got it using your explanation with pwerth's. I really appreciate it!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you Milo, I think I got it using your explanation with pwerth's. I really appreciate it!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Thank you Milo, I think I got it using your explanation with pwerth's. I really appreciate it!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Thank you Milo, I think I got it using your explanation with pwerth's. I really appreciate it!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The set of subsets of $X$ can be seen as the set of all functions from $X$ to ${0,1}$, denoted ${0,1}^X$.
For each such function, consider the subset of $X$ consisting of all $xin X$ such that $f(x)=1$.
This, it turns out, is a $1-1$correspondence.
As a result, the order of the power set is $mid P(X)mid=mid {0,1}^Xmid=mid{0,1}mid^{mid Xmid}=2^n$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The set of subsets of $X$ can be seen as the set of all functions from $X$ to ${0,1}$, denoted ${0,1}^X$.
For each such function, consider the subset of $X$ consisting of all $xin X$ such that $f(x)=1$.
This, it turns out, is a $1-1$correspondence.
As a result, the order of the power set is $mid P(X)mid=mid {0,1}^Xmid=mid{0,1}mid^{mid Xmid}=2^n$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The set of subsets of $X$ can be seen as the set of all functions from $X$ to ${0,1}$, denoted ${0,1}^X$.
For each such function, consider the subset of $X$ consisting of all $xin X$ such that $f(x)=1$.
This, it turns out, is a $1-1$correspondence.
As a result, the order of the power set is $mid P(X)mid=mid {0,1}^Xmid=mid{0,1}mid^{mid Xmid}=2^n$.
$endgroup$
The set of subsets of $X$ can be seen as the set of all functions from $X$ to ${0,1}$, denoted ${0,1}^X$.
For each such function, consider the subset of $X$ consisting of all $xin X$ such that $f(x)=1$.
This, it turns out, is a $1-1$correspondence.
As a result, the order of the power set is $mid P(X)mid=mid {0,1}^Xmid=mid{0,1}mid^{mid Xmid}=2^n$.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Chris CusterChris Custer
11.2k3824
11.2k3824
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Proof by induction (on number of elements in the set):
For $n = 0$, there is exactly $2^0=1$ subset of a set with 0 elements, namely the empty set itself.
Assuming that any set $U_n$ with $n$ elements has $2^n$ subset, consider a set $U_{n+1}=U_n cup {x}$ (where $x notin U_n$). Which subsets of $U_{n+1}$ exists?
- The subsets which do not include $x$ are exactly the subsets of $U_n$ (there are $2^n$ such subsets)
- Any other subset includes $x$, so it is of the form $A cup {x}$, where $A$ is a subset of $U_n$ (because all elements in $U_{n+1}$ except $x$ are also elements of $U_n$), and it's clear that such subset exists (and is unique) for each $A subset U_n$. So, the number of $U_{n+1}$ subsets which include $x$ is also $2^n$.
So, the total count of $U_{n+1}$ subsets is $2^n+2^n=2^{n+1}$. The proof is complete.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Proof by induction (on number of elements in the set):
For $n = 0$, there is exactly $2^0=1$ subset of a set with 0 elements, namely the empty set itself.
Assuming that any set $U_n$ with $n$ elements has $2^n$ subset, consider a set $U_{n+1}=U_n cup {x}$ (where $x notin U_n$). Which subsets of $U_{n+1}$ exists?
- The subsets which do not include $x$ are exactly the subsets of $U_n$ (there are $2^n$ such subsets)
- Any other subset includes $x$, so it is of the form $A cup {x}$, where $A$ is a subset of $U_n$ (because all elements in $U_{n+1}$ except $x$ are also elements of $U_n$), and it's clear that such subset exists (and is unique) for each $A subset U_n$. So, the number of $U_{n+1}$ subsets which include $x$ is also $2^n$.
So, the total count of $U_{n+1}$ subsets is $2^n+2^n=2^{n+1}$. The proof is complete.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Proof by induction (on number of elements in the set):
For $n = 0$, there is exactly $2^0=1$ subset of a set with 0 elements, namely the empty set itself.
Assuming that any set $U_n$ with $n$ elements has $2^n$ subset, consider a set $U_{n+1}=U_n cup {x}$ (where $x notin U_n$). Which subsets of $U_{n+1}$ exists?
- The subsets which do not include $x$ are exactly the subsets of $U_n$ (there are $2^n$ such subsets)
- Any other subset includes $x$, so it is of the form $A cup {x}$, where $A$ is a subset of $U_n$ (because all elements in $U_{n+1}$ except $x$ are also elements of $U_n$), and it's clear that such subset exists (and is unique) for each $A subset U_n$. So, the number of $U_{n+1}$ subsets which include $x$ is also $2^n$.
So, the total count of $U_{n+1}$ subsets is $2^n+2^n=2^{n+1}$. The proof is complete.
$endgroup$
Proof by induction (on number of elements in the set):
For $n = 0$, there is exactly $2^0=1$ subset of a set with 0 elements, namely the empty set itself.
Assuming that any set $U_n$ with $n$ elements has $2^n$ subset, consider a set $U_{n+1}=U_n cup {x}$ (where $x notin U_n$). Which subsets of $U_{n+1}$ exists?
- The subsets which do not include $x$ are exactly the subsets of $U_n$ (there are $2^n$ such subsets)
- Any other subset includes $x$, so it is of the form $A cup {x}$, where $A$ is a subset of $U_n$ (because all elements in $U_{n+1}$ except $x$ are also elements of $U_n$), and it's clear that such subset exists (and is unique) for each $A subset U_n$. So, the number of $U_{n+1}$ subsets which include $x$ is also $2^n$.
So, the total count of $U_{n+1}$ subsets is $2^n+2^n=2^{n+1}$. The proof is complete.
answered yesterday
trolley813trolley813
22014
22014
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is no definable uniform method that works on every single finite set. In Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, there is no set of all finite sets so there cannot be a function on the set of all finite sets. To prove that there is a uniform way to do so, you need to work in Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory where the axiom of global choice is a theorem and Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory also asserts the existence of functions on proper classes. Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory does describe the statement "There is no set of all finite sets" but does not describe the statement "The class of all finite sets is not a set." However, Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory does describe that statement. In Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory, the axiom of global choice states that there is a class function that assigns to every nonempty set one member of that set. In Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory on the other hand, the axiom of choice is not provable and the axiom of global choice is not even stateable in the formal system of ZF. In ZF, you can't state the statement that there exist a class function that for every finite set picks one way of counting all its subsets. Once I define a way of doing that for every finite ordinal number, it can be shown that for every set, if there exists a bijection from a finite ordinal number to that, there exists a bijection from 2 to the power of that ordinal number to the power set of that set. Now I will define a method of counting for each finite ordinal number all of its subsets. Every finite ordinal number is the set of all smaller finite ordinal numbers. Start with the empty set. For the ordinal number 0, there is only one subset of it, itself. For each finite ordinal number $x$, suppose you have already defined a way to count all subsets of $x$, then count all subsets of $x + 1$ as follows. First count all the subsets of $x$ in exactly the same way then count the objects that can be gotten from them by taking the union of each of them and $text{{x}}$ in the same order. That recursively defines for every finite ordinal number a way to count all of its subsets.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I see that I got a downvote but I don't see what's wrong with this answer. Maybe you don't like it because you're thinking in the contradictory Naive set theory where you can prove the axiom of choice and can also prove that there is a set of all finite sets and therefore you can also prove in Naive set theory that there is a function from the set of all finite sets to the universal set that assings to every finite set one way to count all the elements of its power set.
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
Sorry, I downvoted this too, because this does not actually answer the question. If we consider only finite sets without the possibility that a set can contain itself (which the OP has probably meant), the naive set theory does not lead to paradoxes.
$endgroup$
– trolley813
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
I think your answer reached beyond my ability to understand. Probably I have to rephrase my question. But what I meant was exactly the process how those subsets were formed through a n steps binary choice. As you have noticed that Eelvex answer was a good example for me to perceive the process. But I have to say your answer is also quite rigorous given it stems from a point of view in real analysis. But given my math ability, the easier ones are better for me to understand. Still, thanks a lot!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
$begingroup$
@commentallez-vous I'm not sure if that's a good idea because it might invalidate the already existing answers. There might exist an edit that doesn't invalidate them but it's probably too hard to figure out what one is so I think it might be better to ask a question to help understand how Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory work. If the question title is rejected by a Stack Exchange algorithm because it exceeds 150 characters, you could write ZF and NBG for shorthand in the title. Maybe I could make my answer more understandable to you by more clearly
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
$begingroup$
describing how ZF and NBG work but I'm not sure I'll be able to figure out how to do so even if there is a way. I believe that formally in NBG, the statements "The class of all sets is not a set" and "There is no set of all sets" are distinct but equivalent statements but ZF describes the statement "There is no set of all sets" but does not describe the statement "The class of all sets is not a set" because it doesn't include any statements that refer to proper classes. Sometimes people say "The class of all sets is not a set" when they really mean "There is no set of all sets" in ZF. My
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
There is no definable uniform method that works on every single finite set. In Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, there is no set of all finite sets so there cannot be a function on the set of all finite sets. To prove that there is a uniform way to do so, you need to work in Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory where the axiom of global choice is a theorem and Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory also asserts the existence of functions on proper classes. Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory does describe the statement "There is no set of all finite sets" but does not describe the statement "The class of all finite sets is not a set." However, Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory does describe that statement. In Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory, the axiom of global choice states that there is a class function that assigns to every nonempty set one member of that set. In Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory on the other hand, the axiom of choice is not provable and the axiom of global choice is not even stateable in the formal system of ZF. In ZF, you can't state the statement that there exist a class function that for every finite set picks one way of counting all its subsets. Once I define a way of doing that for every finite ordinal number, it can be shown that for every set, if there exists a bijection from a finite ordinal number to that, there exists a bijection from 2 to the power of that ordinal number to the power set of that set. Now I will define a method of counting for each finite ordinal number all of its subsets. Every finite ordinal number is the set of all smaller finite ordinal numbers. Start with the empty set. For the ordinal number 0, there is only one subset of it, itself. For each finite ordinal number $x$, suppose you have already defined a way to count all subsets of $x$, then count all subsets of $x + 1$ as follows. First count all the subsets of $x$ in exactly the same way then count the objects that can be gotten from them by taking the union of each of them and $text{{x}}$ in the same order. That recursively defines for every finite ordinal number a way to count all of its subsets.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I see that I got a downvote but I don't see what's wrong with this answer. Maybe you don't like it because you're thinking in the contradictory Naive set theory where you can prove the axiom of choice and can also prove that there is a set of all finite sets and therefore you can also prove in Naive set theory that there is a function from the set of all finite sets to the universal set that assings to every finite set one way to count all the elements of its power set.
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
Sorry, I downvoted this too, because this does not actually answer the question. If we consider only finite sets without the possibility that a set can contain itself (which the OP has probably meant), the naive set theory does not lead to paradoxes.
$endgroup$
– trolley813
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
I think your answer reached beyond my ability to understand. Probably I have to rephrase my question. But what I meant was exactly the process how those subsets were formed through a n steps binary choice. As you have noticed that Eelvex answer was a good example for me to perceive the process. But I have to say your answer is also quite rigorous given it stems from a point of view in real analysis. But given my math ability, the easier ones are better for me to understand. Still, thanks a lot!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
$begingroup$
@commentallez-vous I'm not sure if that's a good idea because it might invalidate the already existing answers. There might exist an edit that doesn't invalidate them but it's probably too hard to figure out what one is so I think it might be better to ask a question to help understand how Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory work. If the question title is rejected by a Stack Exchange algorithm because it exceeds 150 characters, you could write ZF and NBG for shorthand in the title. Maybe I could make my answer more understandable to you by more clearly
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
$begingroup$
describing how ZF and NBG work but I'm not sure I'll be able to figure out how to do so even if there is a way. I believe that formally in NBG, the statements "The class of all sets is not a set" and "There is no set of all sets" are distinct but equivalent statements but ZF describes the statement "There is no set of all sets" but does not describe the statement "The class of all sets is not a set" because it doesn't include any statements that refer to proper classes. Sometimes people say "The class of all sets is not a set" when they really mean "There is no set of all sets" in ZF. My
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
There is no definable uniform method that works on every single finite set. In Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, there is no set of all finite sets so there cannot be a function on the set of all finite sets. To prove that there is a uniform way to do so, you need to work in Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory where the axiom of global choice is a theorem and Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory also asserts the existence of functions on proper classes. Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory does describe the statement "There is no set of all finite sets" but does not describe the statement "The class of all finite sets is not a set." However, Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory does describe that statement. In Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory, the axiom of global choice states that there is a class function that assigns to every nonempty set one member of that set. In Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory on the other hand, the axiom of choice is not provable and the axiom of global choice is not even stateable in the formal system of ZF. In ZF, you can't state the statement that there exist a class function that for every finite set picks one way of counting all its subsets. Once I define a way of doing that for every finite ordinal number, it can be shown that for every set, if there exists a bijection from a finite ordinal number to that, there exists a bijection from 2 to the power of that ordinal number to the power set of that set. Now I will define a method of counting for each finite ordinal number all of its subsets. Every finite ordinal number is the set of all smaller finite ordinal numbers. Start with the empty set. For the ordinal number 0, there is only one subset of it, itself. For each finite ordinal number $x$, suppose you have already defined a way to count all subsets of $x$, then count all subsets of $x + 1$ as follows. First count all the subsets of $x$ in exactly the same way then count the objects that can be gotten from them by taking the union of each of them and $text{{x}}$ in the same order. That recursively defines for every finite ordinal number a way to count all of its subsets.
$endgroup$
There is no definable uniform method that works on every single finite set. In Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, there is no set of all finite sets so there cannot be a function on the set of all finite sets. To prove that there is a uniform way to do so, you need to work in Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory where the axiom of global choice is a theorem and Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory also asserts the existence of functions on proper classes. Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory does describe the statement "There is no set of all finite sets" but does not describe the statement "The class of all finite sets is not a set." However, Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory does describe that statement. In Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory, the axiom of global choice states that there is a class function that assigns to every nonempty set one member of that set. In Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory on the other hand, the axiom of choice is not provable and the axiom of global choice is not even stateable in the formal system of ZF. In ZF, you can't state the statement that there exist a class function that for every finite set picks one way of counting all its subsets. Once I define a way of doing that for every finite ordinal number, it can be shown that for every set, if there exists a bijection from a finite ordinal number to that, there exists a bijection from 2 to the power of that ordinal number to the power set of that set. Now I will define a method of counting for each finite ordinal number all of its subsets. Every finite ordinal number is the set of all smaller finite ordinal numbers. Start with the empty set. For the ordinal number 0, there is only one subset of it, itself. For each finite ordinal number $x$, suppose you have already defined a way to count all subsets of $x$, then count all subsets of $x + 1$ as follows. First count all the subsets of $x$ in exactly the same way then count the objects that can be gotten from them by taking the union of each of them and $text{{x}}$ in the same order. That recursively defines for every finite ordinal number a way to count all of its subsets.
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
TimothyTimothy
296211
296211
$begingroup$
I see that I got a downvote but I don't see what's wrong with this answer. Maybe you don't like it because you're thinking in the contradictory Naive set theory where you can prove the axiom of choice and can also prove that there is a set of all finite sets and therefore you can also prove in Naive set theory that there is a function from the set of all finite sets to the universal set that assings to every finite set one way to count all the elements of its power set.
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
Sorry, I downvoted this too, because this does not actually answer the question. If we consider only finite sets without the possibility that a set can contain itself (which the OP has probably meant), the naive set theory does not lead to paradoxes.
$endgroup$
– trolley813
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
I think your answer reached beyond my ability to understand. Probably I have to rephrase my question. But what I meant was exactly the process how those subsets were formed through a n steps binary choice. As you have noticed that Eelvex answer was a good example for me to perceive the process. But I have to say your answer is also quite rigorous given it stems from a point of view in real analysis. But given my math ability, the easier ones are better for me to understand. Still, thanks a lot!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
$begingroup$
@commentallez-vous I'm not sure if that's a good idea because it might invalidate the already existing answers. There might exist an edit that doesn't invalidate them but it's probably too hard to figure out what one is so I think it might be better to ask a question to help understand how Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory work. If the question title is rejected by a Stack Exchange algorithm because it exceeds 150 characters, you could write ZF and NBG for shorthand in the title. Maybe I could make my answer more understandable to you by more clearly
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
$begingroup$
describing how ZF and NBG work but I'm not sure I'll be able to figure out how to do so even if there is a way. I believe that formally in NBG, the statements "The class of all sets is not a set" and "There is no set of all sets" are distinct but equivalent statements but ZF describes the statement "There is no set of all sets" but does not describe the statement "The class of all sets is not a set" because it doesn't include any statements that refer to proper classes. Sometimes people say "The class of all sets is not a set" when they really mean "There is no set of all sets" in ZF. My
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I see that I got a downvote but I don't see what's wrong with this answer. Maybe you don't like it because you're thinking in the contradictory Naive set theory where you can prove the axiom of choice and can also prove that there is a set of all finite sets and therefore you can also prove in Naive set theory that there is a function from the set of all finite sets to the universal set that assings to every finite set one way to count all the elements of its power set.
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
Sorry, I downvoted this too, because this does not actually answer the question. If we consider only finite sets without the possibility that a set can contain itself (which the OP has probably meant), the naive set theory does not lead to paradoxes.
$endgroup$
– trolley813
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
I think your answer reached beyond my ability to understand. Probably I have to rephrase my question. But what I meant was exactly the process how those subsets were formed through a n steps binary choice. As you have noticed that Eelvex answer was a good example for me to perceive the process. But I have to say your answer is also quite rigorous given it stems from a point of view in real analysis. But given my math ability, the easier ones are better for me to understand. Still, thanks a lot!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
$begingroup$
@commentallez-vous I'm not sure if that's a good idea because it might invalidate the already existing answers. There might exist an edit that doesn't invalidate them but it's probably too hard to figure out what one is so I think it might be better to ask a question to help understand how Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory work. If the question title is rejected by a Stack Exchange algorithm because it exceeds 150 characters, you could write ZF and NBG for shorthand in the title. Maybe I could make my answer more understandable to you by more clearly
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
$begingroup$
describing how ZF and NBG work but I'm not sure I'll be able to figure out how to do so even if there is a way. I believe that formally in NBG, the statements "The class of all sets is not a set" and "There is no set of all sets" are distinct but equivalent statements but ZF describes the statement "There is no set of all sets" but does not describe the statement "The class of all sets is not a set" because it doesn't include any statements that refer to proper classes. Sometimes people say "The class of all sets is not a set" when they really mean "There is no set of all sets" in ZF. My
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
$begingroup$
I see that I got a downvote but I don't see what's wrong with this answer. Maybe you don't like it because you're thinking in the contradictory Naive set theory where you can prove the axiom of choice and can also prove that there is a set of all finite sets and therefore you can also prove in Naive set theory that there is a function from the set of all finite sets to the universal set that assings to every finite set one way to count all the elements of its power set.
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
$begingroup$
I see that I got a downvote but I don't see what's wrong with this answer. Maybe you don't like it because you're thinking in the contradictory Naive set theory where you can prove the axiom of choice and can also prove that there is a set of all finite sets and therefore you can also prove in Naive set theory that there is a function from the set of all finite sets to the universal set that assings to every finite set one way to count all the elements of its power set.
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
3
3
$begingroup$
Sorry, I downvoted this too, because this does not actually answer the question. If we consider only finite sets without the possibility that a set can contain itself (which the OP has probably meant), the naive set theory does not lead to paradoxes.
$endgroup$
– trolley813
yesterday
$begingroup$
Sorry, I downvoted this too, because this does not actually answer the question. If we consider only finite sets without the possibility that a set can contain itself (which the OP has probably meant), the naive set theory does not lead to paradoxes.
$endgroup$
– trolley813
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
I think your answer reached beyond my ability to understand. Probably I have to rephrase my question. But what I meant was exactly the process how those subsets were formed through a n steps binary choice. As you have noticed that Eelvex answer was a good example for me to perceive the process. But I have to say your answer is also quite rigorous given it stems from a point of view in real analysis. But given my math ability, the easier ones are better for me to understand. Still, thanks a lot!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
$begingroup$
I think your answer reached beyond my ability to understand. Probably I have to rephrase my question. But what I meant was exactly the process how those subsets were formed through a n steps binary choice. As you have noticed that Eelvex answer was a good example for me to perceive the process. But I have to say your answer is also quite rigorous given it stems from a point of view in real analysis. But given my math ability, the easier ones are better for me to understand. Still, thanks a lot!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
$begingroup$
@commentallez-vous I'm not sure if that's a good idea because it might invalidate the already existing answers. There might exist an edit that doesn't invalidate them but it's probably too hard to figure out what one is so I think it might be better to ask a question to help understand how Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory work. If the question title is rejected by a Stack Exchange algorithm because it exceeds 150 characters, you could write ZF and NBG for shorthand in the title. Maybe I could make my answer more understandable to you by more clearly
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
$begingroup$
@commentallez-vous I'm not sure if that's a good idea because it might invalidate the already existing answers. There might exist an edit that doesn't invalidate them but it's probably too hard to figure out what one is so I think it might be better to ask a question to help understand how Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and Von Neumann-Berneys-Godel set theory work. If the question title is rejected by a Stack Exchange algorithm because it exceeds 150 characters, you could write ZF and NBG for shorthand in the title. Maybe I could make my answer more understandable to you by more clearly
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
$begingroup$
describing how ZF and NBG work but I'm not sure I'll be able to figure out how to do so even if there is a way. I believe that formally in NBG, the statements "The class of all sets is not a set" and "There is no set of all sets" are distinct but equivalent statements but ZF describes the statement "There is no set of all sets" but does not describe the statement "The class of all sets is not a set" because it doesn't include any statements that refer to proper classes. Sometimes people say "The class of all sets is not a set" when they really mean "There is no set of all sets" in ZF. My
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
$begingroup$
describing how ZF and NBG work but I'm not sure I'll be able to figure out how to do so even if there is a way. I believe that formally in NBG, the statements "The class of all sets is not a set" and "There is no set of all sets" are distinct but equivalent statements but ZF describes the statement "There is no set of all sets" but does not describe the statement "The class of all sets is not a set" because it doesn't include any statements that refer to proper classes. Sometimes people say "The class of all sets is not a set" when they really mean "There is no set of all sets" in ZF. My
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
commentallez-vous is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
commentallez-vous is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
commentallez-vous is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
commentallez-vous is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3068013%2fthe-total-number-of-subsets-is-2n-for-n-elements%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
1
$begingroup$
I'm not sure what you were trying to ask. I wrote an answer and other people seem to think it doesn't answer the question. Were you asking how for any finite set, it's possible to count all the subsets of that set or were you asking whether there is a uniform way of defining for all finite sets how to do it for that set?
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Timothy I was having trouble understanding this in the process described by Eelvex's answer, but now I understood...thanks!
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday
$begingroup$
I'm confused. Was it my answer that you understood? If so, the fact that my answer got 5 downvotes probably means that people sometimes don't know what confusion the OP has when they ask a question.
$endgroup$
– Timothy
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@Timothy, hi Timothey, sorry I haven't checked your answer yet...and I never gave people down vote...but I'll read it now.
$endgroup$
– commentallez-vous
yesterday