Defining a set connotatively or denotatively.

106 Views Asked by At

“It is said that a set can be defined connotatively or denotatively. Which of these terms applies to the definition by roster and which to the definition by a defining sentence?”- p. 137, Elements of Modern Math, K. O. May.

The author is asking me to match the words connotative and denotative to the roster notation $\{\,\}$ or to a a set designated by a defining sentence $\{ x \mid f(x) \}$. I say that the roster notation is connotative and a defining sentence of a set is denotative. The former lists the elements of a set, and generally what could belong in that set, while the latter defines a set, kind of, I suppose as a dictionary does.

Is this correct? Any elucidating thoughts are welcome.

1

There are 1 best solutions below

4
On BEST ANSWER

Actually, it is the other way round.

The connotation (also known as intension) of a set is its description or defining properties, i.e., what is true about the elements of a set.

The denotation (also known as extension) of a set is its content, i.e., the list of its elements.

A set is totally defined by its denotation, and the same denotation (i.e., the same set) can have several connotations. For instance, the set $\{2, 3\}$ can be described as:

  1. the set of natural numbers greater than $1$ and less than $4$;
  2. the set of the first two prime numbers.

For an infinite set, it is not possible to explicitly give its denotation (since the list of its elements is infinite), the only way to identify it is connotative.