How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
The unordered pair and the singleton
Definition
Let and be sets. The Axiom of Pairing: gives a set whose elements are exactly and , and The Axiom of Extensionality: shows there is only one such set; it is written . Thus is the set whose elements are exactly and , and , the singleton of , is the set whose only element is :
Remarks
-
The pair is unordered. and are the same condition, so , and the notation records no order. if and only if ( and ) or ( and ); in particular if and only if says exactly how much information a pair does carry, and The Kuratowski ordered pair is the construction that recovers an order from unordered pairs alone.
-
A singleton is not its element. has exactly one element, namely , and and are different sets whenever they have different elements; has one element while has none, so the two are already distinct at the bottom of the hierarchy.
Depends on
Used by
- For f : A → B: S ⊆ f⁻¹[f[S]] for every S ⊆ A, with equality for every such S if and only if f is injective; and f[f⁻¹[T]] = T ∩ f[A] for every T ⊆ B, so equality with T holds for every such T if and only if f is surjective Corollary
- If x ∪ {x} = y ∪ {y} then x = y Corollary
- A function f and sets S, T with f[S ∩ T] ⊊ f[S] ∩ f[T] Counterexample
- A symmetric and transitive relation on a two-element set that is not reflexive on it Counterexample
- Relations R and S on a two-element set with S ∘ R ≠ R ∘ S Counterexample
- Sets a and b with P(a) ∪ P(b) ⊊ P(a ∪ b) Counterexample
- Sets A, B, C with (A × B) × C ≠ A × (B × C) Counterexample
- Sets with (A × C) ∪ (B × D) ⊊ (A ∪ B) × (C ∪ D) Counterexample
- Inductive set Definition
- The intersection ⋂ x of a nonempty set, the binary intersection a ∩ b := ⋂{a,b}, and disjointness Definition
- The Kuratowski ordered pair (a,b) := {{a},{a,b}} Definition
- The union ⋃ x of a set, and the binary union a ∪ b := ⋃ {a,b} Definition
- (∅,∅) = {{∅}} and (∅,{∅}) = {{∅},{∅,{∅}}}, with the characterising property checked on them Example
- {∅} × {∅,{∅}} listed in full, together with the inclusion in P(P(A ∪ B)) that makes it a set Example
- ∅ is a relation on every set, is the unique equivalence relation on ∅, is a function ∅ → B for every B, is a bijection ∅ → ∅, and is not a surjection ∅ → {∅} Example
- ⋃ ⋂ (a,b) = a for all a and b, and ⋃(a,b) = {a,b}, so both coordinates are recovered from the pair as a set Example
- A four-pair relation on {∅,{∅},{∅,{∅}}} with its domain, range, field, inverse, restriction, image and self-composite computed Example
- A two-cell partition of a three-element set, the equivalence relation it induces listed pair by pair, and the quotient set recovered from it Example
- A two-to-one function on a four-element set, its kernel, the quotient, and the canonical factorisation computed explicitly Example
- For any indexed family the product ∏_i ∈ I P(Xᵢ) contains the constant function with value ∅, and ∏_i ∈ I {i} has exactly one element Example
- P(∅) = {∅}, P({∅}) = {∅,{∅}}, and P({∅,{∅}}) listed in full Example
- The distributive and exponential laws of sets are natural isomorphisms Example
- FALSE: (a ∖ b) ∖ c = a ∖ (b ∖ c) for all sets a, b, c False statement
- FALSE: a symmetric and transitive relation on a set A is reflexive on A, so reflexivity is redundant in the definition of an equivalence relation False statement
- {a,b} = {c,d} if and only if (a = c and b = d) or (a = d and b = c); in particular {a} = {c,d} if and only if a = c = d Lemma
- ⋃ ∅ = ∅, ⋃ {a} = a, ⋃ {a,b} = a ∪ b, ⋂ {a} = a, and ⋂ {a,b} = a ∩ b Lemma
- For I = {∅,{∅}} with A_∅ = A and A_{∅} = B, the map f ↦ (f(∅), f({∅})) is a bijection ∏_i ∈ I Aᵢ → A × B Lemma
- If a ∈ A and b ∈ B then (a,b) ∈ P(P(A ∪ B)) Lemma
- If every element of R is an ordered pair, then { a : ∃ b (a,b) ∈ R } and { b : ∃ a (a,b) ∈ R } are sets, both included in ⋃⋃ R Lemma
- ∏_i ∈ ∅ Aᵢ = {∅}; if Aⱼ = ∅ for some j ∈ I then ∏_i ∈ I Aᵢ = ∅; and for I = {j} the evaluation f ↦ f(j) is a bijection ∏_i ∈ I Aᵢ → Aⱼ Proposition
- For f : A → B and S, T ⊆ A: f[S ∪ T] = f[S] ∪ f[T], f[S ∩ T] ⊆ f[S] ∩ f[T] and f[S] ∖ f[T] ⊆ f[S ∖ T]; both inclusions are equalities for all S and T if and only if f is injective Proposition
- P(∅) = {∅}; ∅ ∈ P(a) and a ∈ P(a); a ⊆ b if and only if P(a) ⊆ P(b); ⋃ P(a) = a; ⋂ P(a) = ∅; and P(a ∩ b) = P(a) ∩ P(b) while only P(a) ∪ P(b) ⊆ P(a ∪ b) holds Proposition
- (a,b) = (c,d) if and only if a = c and b = d Theorem
- Under Foundation, x ∉ x for every set x, there are no sets with x ∈ y ∈ x, and there are no sets with x ∈ y ∈ z ∈ x Theorem
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 3 results over 2 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- B. Kaya, MATH 320 Set Theory (METU), §1.2 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Axiom of pairing (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- C. Wilson, A Brief Introduction to ZFC (Chicago REU 2016), §2.2 (standard reference, not scraped)