Why is the “axiom of extension” an axiom? [duplicate]












1












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:




  • What's the point of the axiom of extensionality?

    2 answers




I think this is a definition of = because it explains the meaning of the new symbol =. However, I wonder why the set theory thinks this as an axiom rather than a definition.






logic set-theory axioms







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by José Carlos Santos, Asaf Karagila♦ logic
Users with the  logic badge can single-handedly close logic questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
 Jan 21 at 9:41


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.























    1












    $begingroup$



    This question already has an answer here:




    • What's the point of the axiom of extensionality?

      2 answers




    I think this is a definition of = because it explains the meaning of the new symbol =. However, I wonder why the set theory thinks this as an axiom rather than a definition.






    logic set-theory axioms







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$



    marked as duplicate by José Carlos Santos, Asaf Karagila♦ logic
    Users with the  logic badge can single-handedly close logic questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

    $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
    var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
    $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

    $hover.hover(
    function() {
    $hover.showInfoMessage('', {
    messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
    transient: false,
    position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
    dismissable: false,
    relativeToBody: true
    });
    },
    function() {
    StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
    }
    );
    });
    });
     Jan 21 at 9:41


    This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.





















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$



      This question already has an answer here:




      • What's the point of the axiom of extensionality?

        2 answers




      I think this is a definition of = because it explains the meaning of the new symbol =. However, I wonder why the set theory thinks this as an axiom rather than a definition.






      logic set-theory axioms







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$





      This question already has an answer here:




      • What's the point of the axiom of extensionality?

        2 answers




      I think this is a definition of = because it explains the meaning of the new symbol =. However, I wonder why the set theory thinks this as an axiom rather than a definition.





      This question already has an answer here:




      • What's the point of the axiom of extensionality?

        2 answers







      logic set-theory axioms




      logic set-theory axioms






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jan 21 at 10:57









      Mauro ALLEGRANZA

      66.4k449115




      66.4k449115










      asked Jan 21 at 8:52









      amoogaeamoogae

      487




      487




      marked as duplicate by José Carlos Santos, Asaf Karagila♦ logic
      Users with the  logic badge can single-handedly close logic questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

      $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
      var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
      $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

      $hover.hover(
      function() {
      $hover.showInfoMessage('', {
      messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
      transient: false,
      position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
      dismissable: false,
      relativeToBody: true
      });
      },
      function() {
      StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
      }
      );
      });
      });
       Jan 21 at 9:41


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









      marked as duplicate by José Carlos Santos, Asaf Karagila♦ logic
      Users with the  logic badge can single-handedly close logic questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

      $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
      var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
      $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

      $hover.hover(
      function() {
      $hover.showInfoMessage('', {
      messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
      transient: false,
      position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
      dismissable: false,
      relativeToBody: true
      });
      },
      function() {
      StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
      }
      );
      });
      });
       Jan 21 at 9:41


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          5












          $begingroup$

          See Axiom of extensionality.



          There are two possibilities :



          (i) the underlying logic is predicate calculus with equality.



          In this case, the symbol $=$ is already defined by the equality axiom and Extensionality is needed only to legislate the "interaction" with $in$ :




          $∀x∀y∀z [(z ∈ x leftrightarrow z ∈ y) to x = y]$.




          (ii) the underlying logic is predicate calculus without equality.



          In this case you are right : we need a specific definition for equality :




          $a=b =_{def} forall x [x in a leftrightarrow x in b]$




          and a different version of Extensionality :




          $forall z forall x forall y [x = y to (x in z to y in z)]$.




          From them we can derive the usual properties of equality.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            +1 Very enlightening.
            $endgroup$
            – drhab
            Jan 21 at 9:22










          • $begingroup$
            Thank you very much! Can you tell me exactly what the (slightly different) version of Extensionality is?
            $endgroup$
            – amoogae
            Jan 21 at 9:36










          • $begingroup$
            I just read your edited answer. Thank you so much!
            $endgroup$
            – amoogae
            Jan 21 at 11:01


















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          5












          $begingroup$

          See Axiom of extensionality.



          There are two possibilities :



          (i) the underlying logic is predicate calculus with equality.



          In this case, the symbol $=$ is already defined by the equality axiom and Extensionality is needed only to legislate the "interaction" with $in$ :




          $∀x∀y∀z [(z ∈ x leftrightarrow z ∈ y) to x = y]$.




          (ii) the underlying logic is predicate calculus without equality.



          In this case you are right : we need a specific definition for equality :




          $a=b =_{def} forall x [x in a leftrightarrow x in b]$




          and a different version of Extensionality :




          $forall z forall x forall y [x = y to (x in z to y in z)]$.




          From them we can derive the usual properties of equality.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            +1 Very enlightening.
            $endgroup$
            – drhab
            Jan 21 at 9:22










          • $begingroup$
            Thank you very much! Can you tell me exactly what the (slightly different) version of Extensionality is?
            $endgroup$
            – amoogae
            Jan 21 at 9:36










          • $begingroup$
            I just read your edited answer. Thank you so much!
            $endgroup$
            – amoogae
            Jan 21 at 11:01
















          5












          $begingroup$

          See Axiom of extensionality.



          There are two possibilities :



          (i) the underlying logic is predicate calculus with equality.



          In this case, the symbol $=$ is already defined by the equality axiom and Extensionality is needed only to legislate the "interaction" with $in$ :




          $∀x∀y∀z [(z ∈ x leftrightarrow z ∈ y) to x = y]$.




          (ii) the underlying logic is predicate calculus without equality.



          In this case you are right : we need a specific definition for equality :




          $a=b =_{def} forall x [x in a leftrightarrow x in b]$




          and a different version of Extensionality :




          $forall z forall x forall y [x = y to (x in z to y in z)]$.




          From them we can derive the usual properties of equality.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            +1 Very enlightening.
            $endgroup$
            – drhab
            Jan 21 at 9:22










          • $begingroup$
            Thank you very much! Can you tell me exactly what the (slightly different) version of Extensionality is?
            $endgroup$
            – amoogae
            Jan 21 at 9:36










          • $begingroup$
            I just read your edited answer. Thank you so much!
            $endgroup$
            – amoogae
            Jan 21 at 11:01














          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          See Axiom of extensionality.



          There are two possibilities :



          (i) the underlying logic is predicate calculus with equality.



          In this case, the symbol $=$ is already defined by the equality axiom and Extensionality is needed only to legislate the "interaction" with $in$ :




          $∀x∀y∀z [(z ∈ x leftrightarrow z ∈ y) to x = y]$.




          (ii) the underlying logic is predicate calculus without equality.



          In this case you are right : we need a specific definition for equality :




          $a=b =_{def} forall x [x in a leftrightarrow x in b]$




          and a different version of Extensionality :




          $forall z forall x forall y [x = y to (x in z to y in z)]$.




          From them we can derive the usual properties of equality.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          See Axiom of extensionality.



          There are two possibilities :



          (i) the underlying logic is predicate calculus with equality.



          In this case, the symbol $=$ is already defined by the equality axiom and Extensionality is needed only to legislate the "interaction" with $in$ :




          $∀x∀y∀z [(z ∈ x leftrightarrow z ∈ y) to x = y]$.




          (ii) the underlying logic is predicate calculus without equality.



          In this case you are right : we need a specific definition for equality :




          $a=b =_{def} forall x [x in a leftrightarrow x in b]$




          and a different version of Extensionality :




          $forall z forall x forall y [x = y to (x in z to y in z)]$.




          From them we can derive the usual properties of equality.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jan 21 at 15:11

























          answered Jan 21 at 9:00









          Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA

          66.4k449115




          66.4k449115












          • $begingroup$
            +1 Very enlightening.
            $endgroup$
            – drhab
            Jan 21 at 9:22










          • $begingroup$
            Thank you very much! Can you tell me exactly what the (slightly different) version of Extensionality is?
            $endgroup$
            – amoogae
            Jan 21 at 9:36










          • $begingroup$
            I just read your edited answer. Thank you so much!
            $endgroup$
            – amoogae
            Jan 21 at 11:01


















          • $begingroup$
            +1 Very enlightening.
            $endgroup$
            – drhab
            Jan 21 at 9:22










          • $begingroup$
            Thank you very much! Can you tell me exactly what the (slightly different) version of Extensionality is?
            $endgroup$
            – amoogae
            Jan 21 at 9:36










          • $begingroup$
            I just read your edited answer. Thank you so much!
            $endgroup$
            – amoogae
            Jan 21 at 11:01
















          $begingroup$
          +1 Very enlightening.
          $endgroup$
          – drhab
          Jan 21 at 9:22




          $begingroup$
          +1 Very enlightening.
          $endgroup$
          – drhab
          Jan 21 at 9:22












          $begingroup$
          Thank you very much! Can you tell me exactly what the (slightly different) version of Extensionality is?
          $endgroup$
          – amoogae
          Jan 21 at 9:36




          $begingroup$
          Thank you very much! Can you tell me exactly what the (slightly different) version of Extensionality is?
          $endgroup$
          – amoogae
          Jan 21 at 9:36












          $begingroup$
          I just read your edited answer. Thank you so much!
          $endgroup$
          – amoogae
          Jan 21 at 11:01




          $begingroup$
          I just read your edited answer. Thank you so much!
          $endgroup$
          – amoogae
          Jan 21 at 11:01



          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Mario Kart Wii

          Image
          Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! Mario Kart Wii From The Cutting Room Floor Jump to: navigation, search Mario Kart Wii Developer : Nintendo Publisher : Nintendo Platform : Wii Released in JP : April 10, 2008 Released in US : April 27, 2008 Released in EU : April 11, 2008 Released in AU : April 24, 2008 Released in KR : April 30, 2009 This game has unused animations. This game has unused areas. This game has unused code. This game has unused objects. This game has unused modes / minigames. This game has unused graphics. This game has unused models. This game has unused items. This game has unused music. This game has regional differences. This game has a notes page This game has a prerelease article Mario Kart Wii is the sixth game in the series (not counting Arcade editions), which intro
          Read more

          What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

          Image
          5 Does "Dominus providebit" mean "The Lord will provide" or "The Lord provides"? I once had a bit of an argument with a guy who studied Latin over that. It's an inscription that appears on the rim of some old Swiss coins that I have. meaning latin-to-english-translation grammar-identification share | improve this question edited Jan 18 at 15:27 V2Blast 105 4 asked Jan 17 at 22:49 Donald K. Donald K. 26 1
          Read more

          Antonio Litta Visconti Arese

          Image
          Antonio Litta Visconti Arese I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò In carica 1797 – 1820 Predecessore Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Successore Alfonso Litta Visconti Arese Trattamento Sua grazia Altri titoli Duca Litta Conte del Regno napoleonico d'Italia Patrizio milanese Don Nascita Milano, 2 maggio 1748 Morte Milano, 14 agosto 1820 Dinastia Litta Visconti Arese Padre Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Madre Maria Elisabetta Visconti Borromeo Consorte Barbara Barbiano di Belgioioso Religione cattolicesimo Antonio Litta Visconti Arese , I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò (Milano, 2 maggio 1748 – Milano, 14 agosto 1820), è stato un nobile e politico italiano. Composizione "Il pastore svizzero" di Pietro Morlacchi, con dedica Indice 1 Biografia 2 Onorificenze 3 Araldica 4 Albero genealogico 5 Note 6 Altri progetti Biografia | Antonio Litta Visco
          Read more