5307: on ordered pairs

Phil 5307 | Fall 2008 | notes [3Sep-08]

The aim of this handout is to go through a proof of Kuratowskis approach to ordered pairs. The hope is that
the exercise may serve to firm up some basic set-theoretic ideas and some basic proof methods. (Note that the
importance is not so much the result as the practice at doing some set-theoretic proofs.)

The desire for order

Our account of sets treats membership as the sole criterion of identity: if X and Y are sets, then theyre the same
set iff they have the same members. Hence, the set containing Jcs cats is the same entity as the set containing
Max and Agnes, which is the same entity as the set containing Agnes and Max.
Sometimes, we want to talk of ordered sets, entities whose identity relies not just on membership but also
order. In particular, we sometimes want to talk about the set containing Max and Agnes in that order, which
is different from the set containing Max and Agnes. (If you remember your high school geometry, think about
Cartesian coordinates, where (1, 2) is supposed to be different from (2, 1). Clearly, (1, 2) cannot be {1, 2} if, as is
supposed in Cartesian geometry, the order doesnt matter.)

What we want: ordered pairs

What we want are entities wherein, like sets, membership is essential to identity but, unlike sets, it isnt enough;
we also demand that order of entities matter. What we want are pair-ish entities, say hx, yi that are identified
not only by their members (viz., x and y) but also the order of these elements. More specifically, we want the
following condition met by our identities.
O. hb, ci = hd, ei iff b = d and c = e.
Clearly, hb, ci =
6 {b, c}. (Why?) The question is what to do.

One option

One option is to posit a new kind of entity called ordered sets (or whatever). The idea, in short, is to say that
in addition to our sets which are one kind of entity we expand our ontology to recognize a different sort of
entity called ordered sets. This expands our ontology since the latter sort of entity has different non-equivalent
identity conditions.

Kuratowski option

Kuratowski showed that we could leave our ontology as it was, just recognizing our sets. More clearly, he showed
that if Def 1 is what we require of ordered sets, then there are already sets that do the trick. In particular, he
suggested the following definition of ordered pairs.
Definition 1 hx, yi =df {{x}, {x, y}}
1

5307 [MMVL]: intro sets

D1 does the trick: proof of O

We can prove that D1 does what we want by proving that hx, yi, so defined, satisfies O. Here is a proof (broken
up into parts as an aid).
5.1

Proof: D1 entities satisfy O

What we want to prove is

{{b}, {b, d}} = {{c}, {c, e}} iff b = c and d = e
Since this is a biconditional, we break it into two directions (the two component conditionals).
5.1.1

RLD

Assume, for conditional proof, that b = c and d = e. We need to show that {{b}, {b, d}} = {{c}, {c, e}}. But this
follows immediately from our assumption and laws (substitution) of identity.
5.1.2

LRD

For conditional proof, we assume that {{b}, {b, d}} = {{c}, {c, e}}, and need to show that b = c and d = e. By the
criterion of identity for sets (viz., Extensionality), {{b}, {b, d}} = {{c}, {c, e}} iff the sets have the same members.
Now, {{b}, {b, d}} = {{c}, {c, e}} have the same members iff either C1 holds or C2 holds.
C1. {b} = {c} and {b, d} = {c, e}.
C2. {b} = {c, e} and {b, d} = {c}.
What we need to show is that the consequent of the LRD (viz., that b = c and d = e) holds in each case. These
are taken in turn. In what follows, Ext abbreviates Extensionality.
Case C1. By Ext, {b} = {c} iff b = c. Hence, by Ext, {b, d} = {c, e} only if d = e. Hence, if C1 holds then
b = c and d = e.
By Ext, if {b} = {c, e} then b = c = e, and if {b, d} = {c} then b = d = c. But, then, by transitivity of
identity,1 d = e. Hence, if C2 holds, then b = c and d = e.

Generalizing. . .

The generalization, roughly put, takes ordered n-tuples (for n 2) to be ordered pairs along the following pattern.
triples: hx, y, zi = hx, hy, zii
quadruples: hw, x, y, zi = hw, hx, y, zii
etc
It may be useful, as an exercise, to cash out triples into primitive notation and then show that they satisfy the
D1 principle. (Consider this to be extra homework, though this neednt be done before class on 3 September.)

1 Transitivity

of Identity has it that if x = y and y = z then x = z for all x, y, z.