Êtes-vous un étudiant de l'EPFL à la recherche d'un projet de semestre?
Travaillez avec nous sur des projets en science des données et en visualisation, et déployez votre projet sous forme d'application sur Graph Search.
In mathematics and set theory, hereditarily finite sets are defined as finite sets whose elements are all hereditarily finite sets. In other words, the set itself is finite, and all of its elements are finite sets, recursively all the way down to the empty set. A recursive definition of well-founded hereditarily finite sets is as follows: Base case: The empty set is a hereditarily finite set. Recursion rule: If a1,...,ak are hereditarily finite, then so is {a1,...,ak}. and only sets that can be built by a finite number of applications of these two rules are hereditarily finite. The set is an example for such a hereditarily finite set and so is the empty set . On the other hand, the sets or are examples of finite sets that are not hereditarily finite. For example, the first cannot be hereditarily finite since it contains at least one infinite set as an element, when . The class of hereditarily finite sets is denoted by , meaning that the cardinality of each member is smaller than . (Analogously, the class of hereditarily countable sets is denoted by .) It can also be denoted by , which denotes the th stage of the von Neumann universe. The class is countable. In 1937, Wilhelm Ackermann introduced an encoding of hereditarily finite sets as natural numbers. It is defined by a function that maps each hereditarily finite set to a natural number, given by the following recursive definition: For example, the empty set contains no members, and is therefore mapped to an empty sum, that is, the number zero. On the other hand, a set with distinct members is mapped to . The inverse of , which maps natural numbers back to sets, is where BIT denotes the BIT predicate. The Ackermann coding can be used to construct a model of finitary set theory in the natural numbers. More precisely, (where is the converse relation of BIT, swapping its two arguments) models Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory without the axiom of infinity. Here, each natural number models a set, and the BIT relation models the membership relation between sets.
,
Jian Wang, Matthias Finger, Lesya Shchutska, Qian Wang, Matthias Wolf, Varun Sharma, Konstantin Androsov, Jan Steggemann, Leonardo Cristella, Xin Chen, Davide Di Croce, Mingkui Wang, João Miguel das Neves Duarte, Tagir Aushev, Tian Cheng, Yixing Chen, Werner Lustermann, Andromachi Tsirou, Alexis Kalogeropoulos, Andrea Rizzi, Ioannis Papadopoulos, Paolo Ronchese, Thomas Muller, Ho Ling Li, Giuseppe Codispoti, Hua Zhang, Siyuan Wang, Peter Hansen, Daniel Gonzalez, Tao Huang, David Vannerom, Michele Bianco, Kun Shi, Wei Shi, Abhisek Datta, Ji Hyun Kim, Donghyun Kim, Dipanwita Dutta, Zheng Wang, Sanjeev Kumar, Wei Li, Yong Yang, Geng Chen, Yi Wang, Ajay Kumar, Ashish Sharma, Georgios Anagnostou, Joao Varela, Csaba Hajdu, Muhammad Ahmad, Ekaterina Kuznetsova, Ioannis Evangelou, Matthias Weber, Muhammad Shoaib, Milos Dordevic, Vineet Kumar, Vladimir Petrov, Francesco Fiori, Quentin Python, Meng Xiao, Hao Liu, Sourav Sen, Yanlin Liu, Viktor Khristenko, Marco Trovato, Fan Xia, Xiao Wang, Bibhuprasad Mahakud, Jing Li, Rajat Gupta, Zhen Liu, Lei Feng, Muhammad Waqas, Hui Wang, Seungkyu Ha, Davide Cieri, Maren Tabea Meinhard, Giorgia Rauco, Ali Harb, Benjamin William Allen, Long Wang, Pratyush Das, Miao Hu, Lei Li, Amr Mohamed