I'm doing some work in Jech's Set Theory book and I am a little confused about the definition of parameter in the Axiom Schema of Separation. Within a formula, what relationship would a parameter have with the free variables, and bound variables? I'm just fuzzy about what exactly a parameter is and how it is used in the formulas. I appreciate any help. Thanks.
2026-03-29 04:53:35.1774760015
Axiom Schema of Separation Parameters
460 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in LOGIC
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Determine the truth value and validity of the propositions given
- Is this a commonly known paradox?
- Help with Propositional Logic Proof
- Symbol for assignment of a truth-value?
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Do I need the axiom of choice to prove this statement?
- Prove that any truth function $f$ can be represented by a formula $φ$ in cnf by negating a formula in dnf
Related Questions in SET-THEORY
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Proving the schema of separation from replacement
- Understanding the Axiom of Replacement
- Ordinals and cardinals in ETCS set axiomatic
- Minimal model over forcing iteration
- How can I prove that the collection of all (class-)function from a proper class A to a class B is empty?
- max of limit cardinals smaller than a successor cardinal bigger than $\aleph_\omega$
- Canonical choice of many elements not contained in a set
- Non-standard axioms + ZF and rest of math
Related Questions in DEFINITION
- How are these definitions of continuous relations equivalent?
- If a set is open, does it mean that every point is an interior point?
- What does $a^b$ mean in the definition of a cartesian closed category?
- $\lim_{n\to \infty}\sum_{j=0}^{[n/2]} \frac{1}{n} f\left( \frac{j}{n}\right)$
- Definition of "Normal topological space"
- How to verify $(a,b) = (c,d) \implies a = c \wedge b = d$ naively
- Why wolfram alpha assumed $ x>0$ as a domain of definition for $x^x $?
- Showing $x = x' \implies f(x) = f(x')$
- Inferior limit when t decreases to 0
- Is Hilbert space a Normed Space or a Inner Product Space? Or it have to be both at the same time?
Related Questions in AXIOMS
- Should axioms be seen as "building blocks of definitions"?
- Non-standard axioms + ZF and rest of math
- Does $\mathbb{R}$ have any axioms?
- Finite axiomatizability of theories in infinitary logic?
- Continuity axioms and completness axioms for real numbers are the same things?
- Why don't we have many non euclidean geometries out there?
- Why do we need the axiom of choice?
- What axioms Gödel is using, if any?
- Determine if U a subspace of $P_3$?
- Why such stark contrast between the approach to the continuum hypothesis in set theory and the approach to the parallel postulate in geometry?
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
Suppose that you want to talk about the set of real numbers which are roots of some function(s).
But set theory does not have an intrinsic sense of what are the real numbers, what are functions and what are roots of a function. But we do know that we can define a set and structure that gives us the real numbers, and we can define functions like $\sin$ or $\cos$.
So when you want to talk about $\{x\in\Bbb R\mid\sin(3x^2-5)=0\}$, you have actually used a lot of parameters: the parameters which tell you what is $\Bbb R$, the function $x\mapsto\sin(3x^2-5)$ and the number $0$ in $\Bbb R$.
This is why we have parameters in the separation schema. So when we think about our universe as "tangible" (read: we work inside a specific model) we can use the objects of the universe to define things which we may or may not have access to from a syntactical point of view.
The same holds for the Replacement schema as well. Only in the case of the Replacement schema we have an interesting situation that we don't really need the parameters, but the proof of that is quite complicated and nontrivial. So it's much easier to just allow parameters and simplify everything.