Set

"Set" is a concept referring to an irreducible primary, and therefore can only be defined ostensively. A circular way of defining set, which may nonetheless provide some insight, is that a set is a collection of similar existents, considered together as a whole.

I will say a word about why I specify that sets must consist of "similar" existents, because this idea is foreign to standard mathematics, wherein a set could consist of any existents whatsoever. First of all, similarity requires a context; things can be similar in one context, but dissimilar in another. And if, in a given context, two things are dissimilar, then there can be no reason to consider them together as a single set. One therefore loses nothing by specifying that sets consist of "similar" existents. What one gains by this, on the other hand, is a small reminder about the purpose of sets.

Sets are sometimes called "groups" (e.g. in ITOE), but Objective Mathematics reserves that terminology for a different concept.

Examples

A set of plates.

[TODO more]

Empty sets

An empty set (not "the" empty set; see below) is one way of viewing the concept of nothing. The concept of "nothing" may seem impossible or invalid. Concepts need to have referents, and yet everything is something; there is no thing which is nothing. How can this be? ITOE explains

["Nothing"] is strictly a relative concept. It pertains to the absence of some kind of concrete. The concept “nothing” is not possible except in relation to “something.” Therefore, to have the concept “nothing,” you mentally specify—in parenthesis, in effect—the absence of a something, and you conceive of “nothing” only in relation to concretes which no longer exist or which do not exist at present.

You can say “I have nothing in my pocket.” That doesn’t mean you have an entity called “nothing” in your pocket. You do not have any of the objects that could conceivably be there, such as handkerchiefs, money, gloves, or whatever. “Nothing” is strictly a concept relative to some existent [sic] concretes whose absence you denote in this form.

Examples

If one has no books on one's table, it may be said that he has an empty set of books on his table.

If there are no more days left until March 3rd, 2055 (i.e. if it is currently March 3rd, 2055), then it may be said that the set of days until March 3rd is empty.

The traditional concept

In standard mathematics, there is supposed to be a single object called "the" empty set. Most sets in standard mathematics are not unique in this manner. The empty set is called "the" empty set because it is unique up to unique isomorphism. Of course, that imaginary object is not what Objective Mathematics means by the concept of an empty set.

Nevertheless, it is sometimes valid to use the phrase "the empty set" in Objective Mathematics. It is valid in the same sense that it is valid to say "the cat" or "the car." Namely, if one has a specific empty set in mind, and wishes to refer to that empty set and not another one, he may call it "the empty set."

Relations among sets

In this section, I will describe some relations among sets. That is, I will describe ways in which some sets (possibly along with functions between them) can be used to identify other sets.

Disjoint union

Given two sets $A=\{a_{1},\cdots ,a_{n}\}$ and $B=\{b_{1},\cdots ,b_{m}\}$, the disjoint union of $A$ and $B$, denoted as $A\sqcup B$, is following set

$$A\sqcup B:=\{a_{1},a_{2},\cdots ,a_{n},b_{1},b_{2},\cdots ,b_{m}\}.$$

Cartesian product

Given two sets $A=\{a_{1},\cdots ,a_{n}\}$ and $B=\{b_{1},\cdots ,b_{m}\}$, the cartesian product of $A$ and $B$, denoted as $A\times B$, is following set of pairs

$$A\times B:=\{(a_{i},b_{j}):1\leq i\leq n,1\leq j\leq m\}.$$

Infinite sets

Objective Mathematics says that infinite sets are an invalid notion. [TODO I actually don't think I should say this. A a concept is an unbounded or infinite set. If it wasn't, then there would be no such thing as the units of a concept.] In essence, this is because an infinite set does not refer to anything that can be perceived. Unsurprisingly, this disconnection from reality causes many derivative problems for infinite sets. The concept of Objective Mathematics which is closest to that of an infinite set is that of a concept.

The traditional concept

Standard mathematics says that a set $X$ is infinite if there exist functions $X\rightarrow X$ which are injective but not surjective.

To demonstrate how absurd this is, and how much it conflicts with real-life, consider David Hilbert's thought experiment about what it would be like if a hotel had infinitely many rooms. Suppose that there is an infinite hotel, where each room has a room number $n:\mathbb {N}$. This hotel is completely full; every room is occupied. But unlike real hotels, if a new guest comes in and asks for a hotel room, the concierge can make room for him, even though the hotel is already full. The concierge need merely request that every hotel guest move to the room next door: if a guest's room number is $n$, he should move to room number $n+1$. (This is the key step: here the concierge is applying a function which is injective but not surjective). After everyone changes rooms, the hotel has space, because room number 1 is no longer occupied. Note that all of the guests still have their same room.

But what about extended objects?

There are an unlimited number of points on an extended object. It may therefore seem like there should be, for any extended object O, such a thing as "the set of all points on O." Since there are unlimited number of points on O, doesn't that mean that there is an infinite set?

To see why that is wrong, we must examine more carefully what is meant by a point. In some contexts, the concept of a point is used to identify a physical object. For example, the reader can easily identify a point in this picture [TODO]. In other contexts, the concept of a point is used to identify a location whose only distinguishing characteristic is that it is the place where one is focusing one's attention. For an example, the reader should try to focus on one specific point on a blank and featureless area of his wall.

We may now see the subtlety with the idea of "the set of all points on O." There may be some points on O which are physical, i.e. points which can be perceptually distinguished from the rest of O. But in order for such points to be perceived, they must necessarily have a finite size, so there can only be finitely many of them. As for those points on O which are non-physical, it is true that there is no limit on how many could exist. But since the concretes in question are merely objects of one's focus, rather than objects in reality, they do not actually exist until one chooses to focus. And one can only ever focus on finitely many points of O. We have thus refuted the idea that there exist infinitely many points on O.

But what about all the practical infinite sets?

Standard mathematics makes use of infinite sets, and many of those infinite sets appear to be practical. Some examples are the set of all integers, the set of all fractions, infinite sequences, etc. Objective Mathematics accepts that integers, fractions, and sequences are concepts, and useful ones at that. But it denies that integers, fractions, etc. are infinite sets.