Set Theory

Mallika Mainali
November 18, 2020

Abstract
Beginning with the first development of set theory, called Naive set
theory, several theories of sets have been used to shape the foundation
of mathematics. After the discovery of several paradoxes in the naive set
theory, the development of Zermelo–Fraenkel axiomatic set theory allowed
for a precise application of sets and logic in mathematics. By defining the
several versions of naive set theory and their paradoxes, this paper aims
to recount the axioms of the modern set theory and explore its several
applications in the foundations of mathematics. This paper contains a
proof for the axiom of regularity. This paper also uses the concept of
cardinality and proves that the cardinality of a set of even integers is
equal to the cardinality of the set of integers. Additionally, it contains a
proof to show that the cardinality of a power set is always greater than
the set itself.

1 Introduction
Mathematical Logic is a branch of mathematics concerned with the relationship
between formal logic to mathematics and mathematical objects. It plays a dis-
tinctive role in the foundations of mathematics, especially in regards to whether
the truth value of mathematical statements can be obtained using algorithms
within various axiom systems.
A closely related branch to Mathematical Logic is Set Theory, which pro-
vides a consistent background for all mainstream mathematics. Set Theory gives
a basis for an adaptable terminology for the definition of complex mathemati-
cal concepts using the tools of mathematical constructions and proofs such as
creating function spaces, induction and recursion.
The development of set theory began with Naive set theory which consisted
of several informal theories that were employed in the early foundational system
for mathematics. Initiated by Georg Cantor in his 1874 paper “On a Property of
the Collection of All Real Algebraic Numbers”, Cantorian set theory explored
concepts such as one-to-one correspondence in sets, and power set operation
resulted from the concept of “infinity of infinities”. Even as a non-formalized
theory, naive set theory had multiple applications in higher mathematics.

1
 However, several decades later, mathematicians Bertrand Russell and Ernst
Zermelo found a paradox in the naive set theory, known as Russell’s paradox,
which considers “the set of all sets that are not members of themselves” which
leads to a contradiction | P(U ) | ≤ |U| < |P(U )| .
To resolve the contradictions of the naive set theory, Abraham Fraenkel and
Thoralf Skolem proposed a system of set of axioms in 1922 [1]. The axioms of
set theory formalize naive set theory and define sets using formal notations.

2 Sets and Cardinality

2.1 Sets
To define sets informally, we can say that a set is a collection of objects (both
mathematical and non-mathematical). These objects are called the elements of
a set. So, we define sets in terms of certain properties shared by the elements of
the given set. These properties must be well described so that it is always clear
whether a given element belongs to the given set or not. For example, we can
say that a collection of vowel letters is a set since the properties of its elements
are well described and we can easily see if a given letter belongs to this set using
the definition of vowel letters. So, to denote this set, we write,
V = {a, e, i, o, u}.
We can observe that our set contains 5 distinct elements. Since it is well-
defined (set of vowel letters) and does not contain any repetitive element, it is
well defined collection of distinct objects.
So, to give a formal definition of sets, we can say that a set is a well-defined
collection of distinct objects. Some mathematical examples along with their
notations are given below:
• A set of first ten odd integers:
A = {1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19}.

• A set of even numbers between 15 and 20:

B = {16, 18}.
• A set of natural numbers:
N = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,.......}.
From the examples mentioned above, we can see that sets can be finite or
infinite. To determine the properties of sets and perform operations like union,
intersection and complement, we will need to study its cardinality.

2.2 Cardinality
To explore the various applications of sets and use set theory in mathematics,
we need to be able to compare different sets. This comparison is carried out by
using cardinal numbers. We can say that cardinality of a set is the total number

2
of elements of the set.

Set theory allows us to expand the definition of cardinality beyond finite sets
and distinguish between different types of infinite sets as well which enables us
to perform arithmetic computations on them.

For finite sets, we can define the cardinality of the given set as the number
of elements present in that set. So, for example,
for a set A = {2, 4, 6, 8}, the cardinality of the set A, denoted by |A|, is 4 since
we can see that there are four elements in the set.
Similarly, for a set B = ∅, the cardinality of the set B, denoted by |B|, is 0 since
there are no elements in the set.
However, extending the notion to infinite sets usually begins with defining the
notion of comparison of arbitrary sets which will be explained below.
To define the cardinality of different types of sets in an elaborate way, we dis-
tinguish sets into three categories:

1. Finite sets: Finite sets are the sets that have a finite or countable number
of elements. They are either empty or have n elements where n belongs
to the set of natural numbers, N. So, for a finite set A, the cardinality of
A, denoted by |A| equals the number of elements in A.
Examples of finite sets: Let A be a set of odd integers from 1 to 100. So,
A = { 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, . . . , 99 }
Since there are 50 odd integers from 1 to 100, the cardinality of the set A is,
|A| = 50
Similarly, assume that
B = { x : x is an even integer, 1 < x < 2 }
Since there are no even integers between 1 and 2, the set B is an empty
set, and the cardinality of the set B is,
|B| = 0
Now, to define cardinality for infinite sets, let us first define bijection be-
tween two sets. We define bijection as a function between the elements
of two sets, for example set A and set B, where each element of set A is
paired with exactly one element from the set B, and vice versa. Thus, in
a bijective function f : A → B, there are no unpaired elements. Now that
we have defined bijection of two sets, we will use this definition to define
the cardinality of infinite sets.
2. Countably infinite sets: If there is a bjiective mapping between the set A
and the set of natural numbers N, then |A| = ∞, and this set is called a
countably infinite set. This also means that the set A has same cardinality
as the set N. Thus, we get,
|A| = |N| = ℵ0
3. Uncountably infinite sets: If |A| = ∞ and the set is not countably infinite,
then the set A is called an uncountably infinite set. In other words, if the
cardinality of set A is greater than that of the natural numbers, then the

3
 set is uncountably infinite set. Thus, we get,
|A| > |N|
For example, using set theory and Cantor’s diagonal argument, we can see
that the cardinality of the set of real numbers, R, denoted by |R| = c, is
grater than that of the set of natural numbers.

Now that we have defined cardinality of different types of sets, we can imple-
ment this definition in describing various applications of sets.

To describe the applications of sets in the foundation of modern mathemat-

ics, we will use these concepts to prove the relation between different sets.

For our first proof, we will use the concepts of sets and cardinalities to de-
duce the relation between the set of integers and the set of even integers.

Proof 1:
In this proof, we will prove that although the set of even integers, E, is a proper
subset of the set of integers, Z, |E| = |Z|.

Proof: Let us assume that E is a proper subset of Z such that,

E = {2x : x ∈ Z}
Now, we need to show that |E| = |Z|. Let us define a function f such that f : Z
→ E. This means that x → 2x for every x ∈ Z.
We will now prove that the function f is injective and surjective.
To show that f is injective, we need to prove that f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) implies
x1 = x2 .
Notice that: f (x1 ) = 2x1 and f (x2 ) = 2x2 .
Since f (x1 ) = f (x2 ), we can say that,
2x1 = 2x2
So, x1 = x2 .
Thus, we have shown that f (x1 ) = f (x2 ) =⇒ x1 = x2 .
So, f is injective.

Now, we will show that f is a surjective function. We need to prove that

f (x) = y.
To show this, let us assume that y ∈ E. So, y = 2x for some x ∈ Z. Since we
have,
y = 2x and f (x) = x for f : Z =⇒ E, we get,
f (x) = y .
Thus, we have shown that f (x) = y. So, f is surjective.

Therefore, we have proved that f is both injective and surjective. Hence, we

have shown that |E| = |Z|.
Hence, with this proof, we have shown the relation between the cardinalities of
two infinite sets, E and Z, by using the concepts within set theory.

4
 Proof 2:
For our second proof, we will show that for any set X with power set P(X), |X|
< | P(X) |.

First, we define |X| < | P(X) | for infinite sets. To do that, we will consider
two sets A and B.
For sets A and B, |A| ≤ |B| if and only if there exists f : A → B that is one to
one or injective.
Thus,
|A| < |B| means |A| ≤ |B| and |A| 6= |B|.
Now that we have defined P(X), |X| < | P(X) | for infinite sets, we will
begin the proof.

Proof: To prove this, let us first define a function f : X→ P(X) by

f (x) = {x}. We can see that each element of the function f points to exactly
one element of P(X). So, this shows that the function is injective, which means
|X| ≤ | P(X) |

Now, we need to prove that |X| 6= | P(X) |.

To prove this, we will show that there is not a surjective function. We do

this by using contradiction.
Let us assume that g: X → P(X) is a surjective function. Then, for each x ∈
X, g(x) is a subset of X. Now, for some x ∈ X, it may be true that x is in the
subset of g(x) and for others, it may not be true. Let the set of x not in the
subset of g(x) be represented by,
S = {x ∈ X : x ∈/ g(x)}.
We can see that the set S is a subset of the set X. So, S ∈ P(X). For the
function g to be surjective, S = g(y) for some y ∈ X. We consider two cases:

Case 1: y ∈ S:
If y ∈ S, then, using the definition of S, we get,
y∈ / g(y). But since we have that S = g(y), y ∈ / g(y). This means that y ∈ / S.
This leads to contradiction to our initial assumption. Hence, g is not surjective.

Case 2: y ∈/ S:
If y ∈
/ S, then, using the definition of S, we get,
g(y) = S and y ∈ / g(y). This means that y ∈ S which also leads to a contradic-
tion to our initial assumption. Hence, g is not surjective.

In both the cases, we can wee that no function from X → P(X) is surjective.
So, we conclude that
|X| 6= | P(X) |.
By applying this theorem again and again, we obtain an infinite sequence of
transfinite cardinals where each cardinal is larger than the preceding one. So,
we get,

5
 |X| < | P(X) | < | P(P(X))| < | P(P(P(X)))| < .....

Thus, we have shown that for any finite or infinite set X, |X| < | P(X)|.

Application of the theorem:

By applying this theorem in the set of natural numbers, N, we obtain the fol-
lowing sequence of transfinite cardinals:
ℵ0 = | N | < | P( N) | < | P(P( N))| < | P(P(P( N)))| < .....
We use this proof to compare the value of different cardinal numbers for com-
mon sets such as the set of integers, Z, the set of natural numbers, N and the set
of real numbers, R. By comparing the values of the cardinality of these infinite
sets, we can observe that ℵ0 is the smallest transfinite cardinal.

3 Russell’s Paradox
Now that we have defined sets using naive set theory, we know that any well-
defined collection of objects is a set. So, for a given set A = {1, 3, 5}, we can
use naive set theory to represent it as A = {x: x is an odd number between 1
and 5}. Using this definition, we can assume that for any property “P” that
defines a set, the set could be described as {x: x has property P}.
Similarly, let us define a set R as a set of all the sets that are not members of
themselves. We can denote this set as,
R = {x: x is a set and x is not an element of itself}.
In this case, if R is not a member of itself, then its definition denotes that it
must contain itself. However, if it contains itself, then it contradicts its own
definition as the set of all the sets that are not members of themselves. We can
see that in both cases, this definition of set leads to contradiction.

Additionally, let us consider the universal set, U. If we define U as “the set

of all things”, every set will be a subset of the set U. So, if U contains every set,
then we know that P(U ) ⊆ U, where P(U ) is the set containing all the subsets
of the set U. Using the proof 2 from above and the definition of cardinality, we
get,
| P(U ) | ≤ |U| < | P(U ) |.

This is a contradiction since we get | P(U ) | < | P(U ) |, which is not possible.

Thus, these two contradictions, formally discovered by mathematician Bertrand

Russell in 1901[4], motivated mathematicians to revise the definition of sets and
determine what properties could be acceptable to define sets. Hence, in order
to resolve the contradiction resulted from the naive set theory, a reliable ax-
iomatic system was developed by mathematician Ernst Zermelo in 1908[5] and
later slightly modified by mathematician Abraham Fraenkel in 1922 which is
widely accepted as a foundation of modern set theory.

6
4 The Zermelo-Fraenkel axiomatic system
The axiomatic system of set theory[5] was developed by Ernst Zermelo and
Abraham Fraenkel during 1908 to 1922 in an attempt to resolve Russell’s para-
dox and provide a more formal definition of sets. These axioms are commonly
referred to as the ZF-axioms or Zermelo-Fraenkel axiomatic system. Below is a
brief introduction to the ZF-axioms that are used to construct well-known sets
such as the set of natural numbers and the set of real numbers. By defining
these axioms, we can provide a definition of the modern set theory and the
applications of these axioms in modern mathematics.

4.1 Axioms of Set Theory

The axioms of set theory consist of nine axioms that define sets. Below is a
brief overview of the axioms of set theory[6]:

1. Axiom 1: Axiom of Extensionality

This axiom states that two sets are equal if and only if they have the same
elements. So, for two sets A and B, A = B if and only if for every element
x, if x∈ A, then x ∈ B is true and for every element x, if x ∈ B, then x ∈
A is true.

2. Axiom 2: Axiom of Null Set

This axiom states that there exists a set with no elements. This set is
denoted by ∅ or {}.
3. Axiom 3: Axiom of Pairing
This axiom states that for any sets x and y, there exists another set Z such
that Z = {x, y}.
4. Axiom 4: Axiom of Union
This axiom states that for any set A, there exists a union, denoted by ∪
B such that x ∈ ∪ if and only if x ∈ B for some B ∈ A.
5. Axiom 5: Axiom of the Power Set
This axiom states that for any set A there exists another set that consists
of all the possible subsets of A. This set is called the power set of the set
A and denoted by P(A).
In formal language, the Axiom of power set can be written as:
∀A∃P[B ∈ P ⇐⇒ B ⊆ A]
The expression specifies that the set of elements, denoted by B, of the
power set P(A) are the subsets of A. This axiom guarantees that the set
A is also an element since A belongs to the set P(A). Thus, defining a
power set as a set enables us to define many sets. Because of this, we can
see that the Power set axiom is extremely useful in constructing sets we
need. For example, this axiom allows us to construct Cartesian products.

7
6. Axiom 6: Axiom of Separation
This axiom states that for any given set A and any statement p(x) for all
x ∈ A, there exists another set {x ∈ A : p(x) is true}.

To explain this axiom, let us consider a set B = {x ∈ y : x ∈/ x}.

Then, in order for any element z ∈ B, it must be the case that z ∈ y and
z ∈
/ z. So, if we assume z to be B, then, we get B ∈ B, we get B ∈ y
and B ∈ / B, which is a contradiction. If we take B ∈ / B, we get B ∈ y.
As the defining property for the set B is x ∈ y, we can see that B is a
member of the set since it follows this property. Then, this means B ∈ B
which is a contradiction to our initial assumption. But the possibility B
∈
/ y from our definition of the set B still remains. Therefore, to prevent
this paradox, we use this axiom to conclude that B ∈ / y, which helps us
define the set B without any paradoxes.
7. Axiom 7: Axiom Schema of Replacement
This axiom states that for any set A and any function f defined on the
set A, there exists another set B such that B = f (A) = {f (a) : a ∈ A}.
8. Axiom 8: Axiom of Infinity
This axiom states that there exists a set A such that ∅ ∈ A and whenever
a set B ∈ A, it follows B ∪ {B} ∈ A.

This defines the existence of an infinite set since the set must contain:
∅, ∅ ∪ {∅}, ∅ ∪ {∅} ∪ {∅ ∪ {∅}},...

To further show the applications of the axioms of set theory and prove
the existence of an infinite set, we will show that ∅ =
6 {∅} and use this to
conclude that ∅ 6= ∅ ∪ {∅}.

Proof 3:
To prove this, we use the definition of cardinality and the axiom of exten-
sionality.
We have defined that the axiom of extensionality says that two sets are
equal if and only they have the same elements. Thus, for two sets A and
B, we can say A = B if and only if “for every element x, x ∈ A if and only
if x ∈ B”.

Proof: Let us assume two sets A and B where A = {∅} and B = ∅. To

show that the two sets are equal, we need to show that they have the same
elements.
Let us assume that x ∈ A. Thus, we have,
x ∈ {∅}.
We can also see that the cardinality of set A is 1 since it has one element
x=∅

8
 However, we know that for the set B = ∅, the cardinality of set B is 0
since B is an empty set.
So, we know that x ∈ ∅ is false for every x in the set B.

Thus, since the two sets do not have same elements, we have shown that
∅ 6= {∅}.

Now, we will show that ∅ 6= ∅ ∪ {∅}.

For this, let us first define the union of two sets A and B.
We know that A ∪ B = {x : x ∈ A or x ∈ B}.
So, for sets A = {∅} and B = ∅,
A ∪ B = {x : x ∈ {∅} or x ∈ ∅}
Since x ∈ ∅ is always false, x ∈ {∅} or x ∈ ∅ is logically equivalent to x ∈
{∅}.
So,
=⇒ A ∪ B = {x : x ∈ {∅}}
=⇒ A ∪ B = {∅}

Therefore, {∅} ∪ ∅ = {∅}.

Thus, we have shown that {∅} ∪ ∅ =
6 ∅.

Since we can see from the proof 2 that the sets ∅, ∅ ∪ {∅}, ∅ ∪ {∅} ∪ {∅
∪ {∅}},... are all distinct sets, we have defined the existence of an infinite
set.
9. Axiom 9: Axiom of Regularity
This axiom states that for any nonempty set X, there exists another set
Y ∈ X such that Y ∩ X = ∅.

To see this, let us take an example of a set X such that a ∈ X.

Since X = {a}, we can see that this set is nonempty. The axiom of regu-
larity states that there exists another set Y ∈ X such that Y ∩ {a} = ∅.

Notice that, since Y ∈ {a}, we must have Y = X. Here, Y has cardinality

of 1, and we have that y ∈ {a}. But we have Y ∈ Y and Y ∈ Y ∩ {a},
which is a contradiction. This shows that Y ∩ X must be an empty set.
Therefore, this axiom prevents Russell’s paradox by omitting the possibil-
ity that a given set is a member of itself.

10. Axiom 10: Axiom of Choice

This axiom states that for any nonempty set x whose members are pair-
wise disjoint nonempty sets, there exists another set y such that y contains
exactly one element from each set belonging to the set x.

9
 The Axiom of Choice also helps in defining the relation between infinite
sets. With this axiom, we can prove that for any infinite set A, the cardi-
nality of cartesian product of A and A, is equal to the cardinality of the
set A itself. So,
|A × A| = |A|.

4.2 Significance of the Axiomatic Set Theory

The ZF-axioms are most significant in formalizing the definition of set theory
and serving as a foundation to introduce other mathematical concepts such as
logical operators (NOT, AND, OR), providing semantic definitions of sets and
their cardinalities and defining functions and relations. Similarly, mathematical
structures such as graphs and vector spaces can also be defined as sets that
satisfy multiple axiomatic properties.

Additionally, since the publication of the first volume of Principia Mathe-

matica [7], it has been deduced that most mathematical theorems can be derived
using the set of axioms for set theory, with further application of first or second-
order logic. For example, the properties of commonly used infinite sets such as
the set of integers and the set of real numbers can be derived with the set theory.
This concept also serves as a basis for abstract algebra and discrete mathematics.

Therefore, we can see that the axiomatic set theory is a promising founda-
tional system for mathematics and mathematical analysis.

10
References
[1] A. Fraenkel, Axiomatische Begründung der transfiniten Kardinalzahlen I —
Herrn K. Hensel zum sechzigsten Geburtstag, Mathematische Zeitschrift. 13
(1922), pp. 153–188, DOI 10.1007/bf01485286
[2] Swinnerton-Dyer, Peter, Cubic surfaces over finite fields, Math. Proc. Cam-
bridge Philos. Soc., Vol. 149 (2010), pp. 385–388

[3] Russell, Bertrand, Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence, Trans-

lated by Hans Kaal., University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1980)
[4] Russell, Bertrand, The Principles of Mathematics, 2d. ed. Reprint, New
York: W. W. Norton Company, 1996. (First published in 1903.)

[5] Zermelo, Ernst, Zermelo’s Axiom of Choice, Its Origins, Development, In-
fluence, Gregory H. Moore, Being Volume 8 of Studies in the History of
Mathematics and Physical Sciences, Springer Verlag, New York, 1982
[6] Lay, Steven R., Axioms for Set Theory, Analysis: With an Introduction to
Proof, Pearson (2014), pp. 90–98.

[7] Linsky, Bernard and Andrew David Irvine, Principia Math-

ematica, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter
2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/principia-
mathematica/>.

11