Semigroup

In mathematics, a semigroup is an algebraic structure consisting of a set together with an associative binary operation.

The binary operation of a semigroup is most often denoted multiplicatively: x·y, or simply xy, denotes the result of applying the
semigroup operation to the ordered pair (x, y). Associativity is formally expressed as that (x·y)·z = x·(y·z) for all x, y and z in the
semigroup.

The name "semigroup" originates in the fact that a semigroup generalizes a group by preserving only associativity and closure under
the binary operation from the axioms defining a group.[note 1] From the opposite point of view (of adding rather than removing
axioms), a semigroup is an associative magma. As in the case of groups or magmas, the semigroup operation need not be
commutative, so x·y is not necessarily equal to y·x; a typical example of associative but non-commutative operation is matrix
multiplication. If the semigroup operation is commutative, then the semigroup is called a commutative semigroup or (less often than
in the analogous case of groups) it may be called an abelian semigroup.

A monoid is an algebraic structure intermediate between groups and semigroups, and is a semigroup having an identity element, thus
obeying all but one of the axioms of a group; existence of inverses is not required of a monoid. A natural example is strings with
concatenation as the binary operation, and the empty string as the identity element. Restricting to non-empty strings gives an example
of a semigroup that is not a monoid. Positive integers with addition form a commutative semigroup that is not a monoid, whereas the
non-negative integers do form a monoid. A semigroup without an identity element can be easily turned into a monoid by just adding
an identity element. Consequently, monoids are studied in the theory of semigroups rather than in group theory. Semigroups should
not be confused with quasigroups, which are a generalization of groups in a different direction; the operation in a quasigroup need not
be associative but quasigroups preserve from groups a notion of division. Division in semigroups (or in monoids) is not possible in
general.

The formal study of semigroups began in the early 20th century. Early results include a Cayley theorem for semigroups realizing any
semigroup as transformation semigroup, in which arbitrary functions replace the role of bijections from group theory. Other
fundamental techniques of studying semigroups like Green's relations do not imitate anything in group theory though. A deep result
in the classification of finite semigroups is Krohn–Rhodes theory. The theory of finite semigroups has been of particular importance
in theoretical computer science since the 1950s because of the natural link between finite semigroups and finite automata via the
syntactic monoid. In probability theory, semigroups are associated with Markov processes.[1][2] In other areas of applied
mathematics, semigroups are fundamental models for linear time-invariant systems. In partial differential equations, a semigroup is
associated to any equation whose spatial evolution is independent of time. There are numerous special classes of semigroups,
semigroups with additional properties, which appear in particular applications. Some of these classes are even closer to groups by
exhibiting some additional but not all properties of a group. Of these we mention: regular semigroups, orthodox semigroups,
semigroups with involution, inverse semigroups and cancellative semigroups. There also interesting classes of semigroups that do not
contain any groups except the trivial group; examples of the latter kind are bands and their commutative subclass—semilattices,
which are also ordered algebraic structures.

Contents
1 Definition
2 Examples of semigroups
3 Basic concepts
3.1 Identity and zero
3.2 Subsemigroups and ideals
3.3 Homomorphisms and congruences
 4 Structure of semigroups
5 Special classes of semigroups
6 Structure theorem for commutative semigroups
7 Group of fractions
8 Semigroup methods in partial differential equations
9 History
10 Generalizations
11 See also
12 Notes
13 Citations
14 References

Definition
A semigroup is a set together with a binary operation " " (that is, a function ) that satisfies the associative property:

For all , the equation holds.

More succinctly, a semigroup is an associativemagma.

Examples of semigroups
Empty semigroup: the empty set forms a semigroup with theempty function as the binary operation.
Semigroup with one element: there is essentially only one (specifically , only one up to isomorphism), the singleton
{a} with operation a · a = a.
Semigroup with two elements: there are five which are essentially different.
The set of positive integers with addition. (With 0 included, this becomes a monoid.)
The set of integers with minimum or maximum. (With positive/negative infinity included, this becomes a monoid.)
Square nonnegative matrices of a given size with matrix multiplication.
Any ideal of a ring with the multiplication of the ring.
The set of all finite strings over a fixed alphabet Σ withconcatenation of strings as the semigroup operation — the
so-called "free semigroup over Σ". With the empty string included, this semigroup becomes thefree monoid over Σ.
A probability distribution F together with allconvolution powers of F, with convolution as the operation. Thisis called
a convolution semigroup.
A monoid is a semigroup with anidentity element.
A group is a monoid in which every element has aninverse element.
Transformation semigroupsand monoids.
The set of continuous functions from a topological space to itself with composition of functions forms a monoid with
the identity function acting as the identity. More generally, the endomorphisms of any object of a category form a
monoid under composition.

Basic concepts

Identity and zero

A left identity of a semigroup (or more generally, magma) is an element such that for all in , . Similarly, a right
identity is an element such that for all in , . Left and right identities are both called one-sided identities. A semigroup
may have one or more left identities but no right identity
, and vice versa.
A two-sided identity (or just identity) is an element that is both a left and right identity. Semigroups with a two-sided identity are
called monoids. A semigroup may have at most one two-sided identity. If a semigroup has a two-sided identity, then the two-sided
identity is the only one-sided identity in the semigroup. If a semigroup has both a left identity and a right identity, then it has a two-
sided identity (which is therefore the unique one-sided identity).

A semigroup without identity may be embedded in a monoid formed by adjoining an element to and defining
for all .[3][4] The notation denotes a monoid obtained from by adjoining an identity if necessary
( for a monoid).[4]

Similarly, every magma has at most one absorbing element, which in semigroup theory is called a zero. Analogous to the above
construction, for every semigroup , one can define , a semigroup with 0 that embeds .

Subsemigroups and ideals

The semigroup operation induces an operation on the collection of its subsets: given subsets A and B of a semigroup S, their product
A · B, written commonly as AB, is the set { ab | a in A and b in B }. (This notion is defined identically as it is for groups.) In terms of
this operation, a subsetA is called

a subsemigroup if AA is a subset of A,
a right ideal if AS is a subset of A, and
a left ideal if SA is a subset of A.
If A is both a left ideal and a right ideal then it is called anideal (or a two-sided ideal).

If S is a semigroup, then the intersection of any collection of subsemigroups of S is also a subsemigroup of S. So the subsemigroups
of S form a complete lattice.

An example of semigroup with no minimal ideal is the set of positive integers under addition. The minimal ideal of a commutative
semigroup, when it exists, is a group.

Green's relations, a set of five equivalence relations that characterise the elements in terms of the principal ideals they generate, are
important tools for analysing the ideals of a semigroup and related notions of structure.

The subset with the property that its every element commutes with any other element of the semigroup is called the center of the
semigroup.[5] The center of a semigroup is actually a subsemigroup.
[6]

Homomorphisms and congruences

A semigroup homomorphism is a function that preserves semigroup structure. A function f: S → T between two semigroups is a
homomorphism if the equation

f(ab) = f(a)f(b).

holds for all elementsa, b in S, i.e. the result is the same when performing the semigroup operation after or before applying the map
f.

A semigroup homomorphism between monoids preserves identity if it is a monoid homomorphism. But there are semigroup
homomorphisms which are not monoid homomorphisms, e.g. the canonical embedding of a semigroup without identity into .
Conditions characterizing monoid homomorphisms are discussed further. Let be a semigroup homomorphism. The
image of is also a semigroup. If is a monoid with an identity element , then is the identity element in the image of . If
is also a monoid with an identity element and belongs to the image of , then , i.e. is a monoid
homomorphism. Particularly, if is surjective, then it is a monoid homomorphism.

Two semigroups S and T are said to be isomorphic if there is a bijection f : S ↔ T with the property that, for any elements a, b in S,
f(ab) = f(a)f(b). Isomorphic semigroups have the same structure.
A semigroup congruence is an equivalence relation that is compatible with the semigroup operation. That is, a subset
that is an equivalence relation and and implies for every in S. Like any equivalence
relation, a semigroup congruence induces congruence classes

and the semigroup operation induces a binary operation on the congruence classes:

Because is a congruence, the set of all congruence classes of forms a semigroup with , called the quotient semigroup or
factor semigroup, and denoted . The mapping is a semigroup homomorphism, called the quotient map, canonical
surjection or projection; if S is a monoid then quotient semigroup is a monoid with identity . Conversely, the kernel of any
semigroup homomorphism is a semigroup congruence. These results are nothing more than a particularization of the first
isomorphism theorem in universal algebra. Congruence classes and factor monoids are the objects of study in string rewriting
systems.

A nuclear congruence on S is one which is the kernel of an endomorphism ofS.[7]

A semigroup S satisfies the maximal condition on congruences if any family of congruences on S, ordered by inclusion, has a
maximal element. By Zorn's lemma, this is equivalent to saying that the ascending chain condition holds: there is no infinite strictly
ascending chain of congruences onS.[8]

Every ideal I of a semigroup induces a subsemigroup, the Rees factor semigroup via the congruence x ρ y ⇔ either x = y or both x
and y are in I.

Structure of semigroups
For any subset A of S there is a smallest subsemigroup T of S which contains A, and we say that A generates T. A single element x of
S generates the subsemigroup { xn | n is a positive integer }. If this is finite, then x is said to be of finite order, otherwise it is of
infinite order. A semigroup is said to beperiodic if all of its elements are of finite order. A semigroup generated by a single element
is said to be monogenic (or cyclic). If a monogenic semigroup is infinite then it is isomorphic to the semigroup of positive integers
with the operation of addition. If it is finite and nonempty, then it must contain at least one idempotent. It follows that every
nonempty periodic semigroup has at least one idempotent.

A subsemigroup which is also a group is called a subgroup. There is a close relationship between the subgroups of a semigroup and
its idempotents. Each subgroup contains exactly one idempotent, namely the identity element of the subgroup. For each idempotent e
of the semigroup there is a unique maximal subgroup containing e. Each maximal subgroup arises in this way, so there is a one-to-
one correspondence between idempotents and maximal subgroups. Here the term maximal subgroup differs from its standard use in
group theory.

More can often be said when the order is finite. For example, every nonempty finite semigroup is periodic, and has a minimal ideal
and at least one idempotent. The number of finite semigroups of a given size (greater than 1) is (obviously) larger than the number of
groups of the same size. For example, of the sixteen possible "multiplication tables" for a set of two elements {a, b}, eight form
semigroups[note 2] whereas only four of these are monoids and only two form groups. For more on the structure of finite semigroups,
see Krohn–Rhodes theory.

Special classes of semigroups

A monoid is a semigroup with identity.
A subsemigroup is a subset of a semigroup that is closed under the semigroup operation.
A band is a semigroup the operation of which isidempotent.
 A cancellative semigroupis one having the cancellation property:[9] a · b = a · c implies b = c and similarly for
b · a = c · a.
A semilattice is a semigroup whose operation is idempotent andcommutative.
0-simple semigroups.
Transformation semigroups: any finite semigroup S can be represented by transformations of a (state-) setQ of at
most |S| + 1 states. Each element x of S then maps Q into itself x: Q → Q and sequence xy is defined by
q(xy) = (qx)y for each q in Q. Sequencing clearly is an associative operation, here equivalent tofunction
composition. This representation is basic for anyautomaton or finite state machine (FSM).
The bicyclic semigroup is in fact a monoid, which can be described as thefree semigroup on two generators p and q,
under the relation pq = 1.
C0-semigroups.
Regular semigroups. Every element x has at least one inversey satisfying xyx=x and yxy=y; the elements x and y
are sometimes called "mutually inverse".
Inverse semigroups are regular semigroups where every element has exactly one inverse. Alternatively
, a regular
semigroup is inverse if and only if any two idempotents commute.
d. These semigroups
Affine semigroup: a semigroup that is isomorphic to a finitely-generated subsemigroup of Z
have applications to commutative algebra.

Structure theorem for commutative semigroups

There is a structure theorem for commutative semigroups in terms of semilattices.[10] A semilattice (or more precisely a meet-
semilattice) is a partially ordered set where every pair of elements has a greatest lower bound, denoted . The
operation makes into a semigroup satisfying the additionalidempotence law .

Given a homomorphism from an arbitrary semigroup to a semilattice, each inverse image is a (possibly
empty) semigroup. Moreover, becomes graded by , in the sense that

If is onto, the semilattice is isomorphic to the quotient of by the equivalence relation such that iff .
This equivalence relation is a semigroup congruence, as defined above.

Whenever we take the quotient of a commutative semigroup by a congruence, we get another commutative semigroup. The structure
theorem says that for any commutative semigroup , there is a finest congruence such that the quotient of by this equivalence
relation is a semilattice. Denoting this semilattice by , we get a homomorphism from onto . As mentioned, becomes graded
by this semilattice.

Furthermore, the components are all Archimedean semigroups. An Archimedean semigroup is one where given any pair of
elements , there exists an element and such that .

The Archimedean property follows immediately from the ordering in the semilattice , since with this ordering we have
if and only if for some and .

Group of fractions
The group of fractions or group completion of a semigroup S is the group G = G(S) generated by the elements of S as generators
and all equations xy = z which hold true in S as relations.[11] There is an obvious semigroup homomorphism j : S → G(S) which
sends each element ofS to the corresponding generator. This has a universal property for morphisms from S to a group:[12] given any
group H and any semigroup homomorphism k : S → H, there exists a unique group homomorphism f : G → H with k=fj. We may
think of G as the "most general" group that contains a homomorphic image ofS.

An important question is to characterize those semigroups for which this map is an embedding. This need not always be the case: for
example, take S to be the semigroup of subsets of some set X with set-theoretic intersection as the binary operation (this is an
example of a semilattice). Since A.A = A holds for all elements of S, this must be true for all generators of G(S) as well: which is
therefore the trivial group. It is clearly necessary for embeddability that S have the cancellation property. When S is commutative this
condition is also sufficient[13] and the Grothendieck group of the semigroup provides a construction of the group of fractions. The
problem for non-commutative semigroups can be traced to the first substantial paper on semigroups.[14][15] Anatoly Maltsev gave
necessary and sufficient conditions for embeddability in 1937.[16]

Semigroup methods in partial differential equations

Semigroup theory can be used to study some problems in the field of partial differential equations. Roughly speaking, the semigroup
approach is to regard a time-dependent partial differential equation as an ordinary differential equation on a function space. For
example, consider the following initial/boundary value problem for the heat equation on the spatial interval (0, 1) ⊂ R and times
t ≥ 0:

Let X = L2((0, 1) R) be the Lp space of square-integrable real-valued functions with domain the interval (0, 1) and let A be the
second-derivative operator withdomain

where H2 is a Hardy space. Then the above initial/boundary value problem can be interpreted as an initial value problem for an
ordinary differential equation on the spaceX:

On an heuristic level, the solution to this problem "ought" to be u(t) = exp(tA)u0. However, for a rigorous treatment, a meaning must
be given to the exponential of tA. As a function of t, exp(tA) is a semigroup of operators from X to itself, taking the initial state u0 at
time t = 0 to the state u(t) = exp(tA)u0 at time t. The operator A is said to be the infinitesimal generatorof the semigroup.

History
The study of semigroups trailed behind that of other algebraic structures with more complex axioms such as groups or rings. A
number of sources[17][18] attribute the first use of the term (in French) to J.-A. de Séguier in Élements de la Théorie des Groupes
Abstraits (Elements of the Theory of Abstract Groups) in 1904. The term is used in English in 1908 in Harold Hinton's Theory of
Groups of Finite Order.

Anton Suschkewitsch obtained the first non-trivial results about semigroups. His 1928 paper "Über die endlichen Gruppen ohne das
Gesetz der eindeutigen Umkehrbarkeit" ("On finite groups without the rule of unique invertibility") determined the structure of finite
simple semigroups and showed that the minimal ideal (or Green's relations J-class) of a finite semigroup is simple.[18] From that
point on, the foundations of semigroup theory were further laid by David Rees, James Alexander Green, Evgenii Sergeevich Lyapin,
Alfred H. Clifford and Gordon Preston. The latter two published a two-volume monograph on semigroup theory in 1961 and 1967
respectively. In 1970, a new periodical called Semigroup Forum (currently edited by Springer Verlag) became one of the few
mathematical journals devoted entirely to semigroup theory
.

In recent years researchers in the field have become more specialized with dedicated monographs appearing on important classes of
semigroups, like inverse semigroups, as well as monographs focusing on applications in algebraic automata theory, particularly for
finite automata, and also infunctional analysis.

Generalizations
If the associativity axiom
of a semigroup is
Group-like structures
dropped, the result is a Totalityα Associativity Identity Invertibility Commutativity
magma, which is nothing Semigroupoid Unneeded Required Unneeded Unneeded Unneeded
more than a set M Category Unneeded Required Required Unneeded Unneeded
equipped with a binary
Groupoid Unneeded Required Required Required Unneeded
operation
M × M → M. Magma Required Unneeded Unneeded Unneeded Unneeded
Quasigroup Required Unneeded Unneeded Required Unneeded
Loop Required Unneeded Required Required Unneeded
Semigroup Required Required Unneeded Unneeded Unneeded
Monoid Required Required Required Unneeded Unneeded
Group Required Required Required Required Unneeded
Abelian group Required Required Required Required Required
^α Closure, which is used in many sources, is an equivalent axiom to totality, though defined
differently.

Generalizing in a different direction, an n-ary semigroup (also n-semigroup, polyadic semigroup or multiary semigroup) is a
generalization of a semigroup to a setG with a n-ary operation instead of a binary operation.[19] The associative law is generalized as
follows: ternary associativity is (abc)de = a(bcd)e = ab(cde), i.e. the string abcde with any three adjacent elements bracketed.
N-ary associativity is a string of length n + (n − 1) with any n adjacent elements bracketed. A 2-ary semigroup is just a semigroup.
Further axioms lead to ann-ary group.

A third generalization is thesemigroupoid, in which the requirement that the binary relation be total is lifted. As categories generalize
monoids in the same way, a semigroupoid behaves much like a category but lacks identities.

[20]
Infinitary generalizations of commutative semigroups have sometimes been considered by various authors.

See also
Absorbing element
Biordered set
Empty semigroup
Identity element
Light's associativity test
Semigroup ring
Weak inverse
Quantum dynamical semigroup

Notes
1. The closure axiom is implied by the definition of a binary operation on a set. Some authors thus omit it and specify
three laws for a group and only one law (associativity) for semigroup.
2. Namely: the trivial semigroup in which (for allx and y) xy = a and its counterpart in whichxy = b, the semigroups
based on multiplication modulo 2 (choosing a or b as the identity element 1), the groups equivalent to addition
modulo 2 (choosing a or b to be the identity element 0), and the semigroups in which the elements are either both
left identities or both right identities.

Citations
 1. (Feller 1971)
2. Martino, Ivan; Martino, Luca (2013-11-14)."On the variety of linear recurrences and numerical semigroups"(https://li
nk.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00233-013-9551-2). Semigroup Forum. 88 (3): 569–574. doi:10.1007/s00233-013-
9551-2 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00233-013-9551-2) . ISSN 0037-1912 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0037-
1912).
3. Jacobson 2009, p. 30, ex. 5
4. Lawson 1998, p. 20 (https://books.google.com/books?id=_F78nQEACAAJ&pg=P
A20&dq=%22adjoining+an+identit
y%22)
5. Kilp, Mati; Knauer, U.; Mikhalev, Aleksandr V. (2000). Monoids, Acts, and Categories: With Applications to Wreath
Products and Graphs : a Handbook for Students and Researchers(https://books.google.com/books?id=4gPhmmW -
EGcC&pg=PA25). Walter de Gruyter. p. 25. ISBN 978-3-11-015248-7. Zbl 0945.20036 (https://zbmath.org/?format=c
omplete&q=an:0945.20036).
6. Li͡apin, E. S. (1968). Semigroups (https://books.google.com/books?id=G8pWKPp4tKwC&pg=P
A96). American
Mathematical Soc. p. 96.ISBN 978-0-8218-8641-0.
7. Lothaire 2011, p. 463
8. Lothaire 2011, p. 465
9. Clifford & Preston 1967, p. 3
10. Grillet 2001
11. Farb, B. (2006), Problems on mapping class groups and related topics
, Amer. Math. Soc., p. 357, ISBN 0-8218-
3838-5
12. Auslander, M.; Buchsbaum, D. A. (1974).Groups, rings, modules. Harper & Row. p. 50. ISBN 0-06-040387-X.
13. Clifford & Preston 1961, p. 34
14. (Suschkewitsch 1928)
15. Preston, G. B. (1990), Personal reminiscences of the early history of semigroups(http://www.gap-system.org/~histor
y/Extras/Preston_semigroups.html), retrieved 2009-05-12
16. Maltsev, A. (1937), "On the immersion of an algebraic ring into a field",Math. Annalen, 113: 686–691,
doi:10.1007/BF01571659 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF01571659).
17. Earliest Known Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics (http://jeff560.tripod.com/s.html)
18. An account of Suschkewitsch's paper by Christopher Hollings(https://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://uk.geociti
es.com/cdhollings/suschkewitsch3.pdf&date=2009-10-25+04:13:15)
19. Dudek, W.A. (2001), "On some old problems inn-ary groups" (http://www.quasigroups.eu/contents/contents8.php?m
=trzeci), Quasigroups and Related Systems, 8: 15–36
20. See references in Udo Hebisch and Hanns Joachim W einert, Semirings and Semifields, in particular, Section 10,
Semirings with infinite sums, in M. Hazewinkel, Handbook of Algebra, Vol. 1, Elsevier, 1996. Notice that in this
context the authors use the termsemimodule in place of semigroup.

References
General references

Howie, John M. (1995), Fundamentals of Semigroup Theory, Clarendon Press, ISBN 0-19-851194-9,
Zbl 0835.20077.
Clifford, A. H.; Preston, G. B. (1961), The Algebraic Theory of Semigroups, 1, American Mathematical Society,
ISBN 978-0-8218-0271-7, Zbl 0111.03403.
Clifford, A. H.; Preston, G. B. (1967),The Algebraic Theory of Semigroups, 2, American Mathematical Society,
ISBN 978-0-8218-0272-4, Zbl 0178.01203.
Grillet, Pierre A. (1995),Semigroups: An Introduction to the Structure Theory
, Marcel Dekker, ISBN 978-0-8247-
9662-4, Zbl 0830.20079.
Grillet, Pierre A. (2001),Commutative Semigroups, Springer Verlag, ISBN 978-0-7923-7067-3, Zbl 1040.20048.
Hollings, Christopher (2014),Mathematics across the Iron Curtain: A History of the Algebraic Theory of Semigroups
,
American Mathematical Society, ISBN 978-1-4704-1493-1, Zbl 1317.20001.
 Petrich, Mario (1973), Introduction to Semigroups, Charles E. Merrill, ISBN 0-675-09062-8, Zbl 0321.20037.

Specific references

Feller, William (1971), An introduction to probability theory and its applications

, II (2nd ed.), Wiley, MR 0270403.
Hille, Einar; Phillips, Ralph S. (1974), Functional analysis and semi-groups, American Mathematical Society,
ISBN 0821874640, MR 0423094.
Suschkewitsch, Anton (1928), "Über die endlichen Gruppen ohne das Gesetz der eindeutigen Umkehrbarkeit",
Mathematische Annalen, 99 (1): 30–50, doi:10.1007/BF01459084, ISSN 0025-5831, MR 1512437.
Kantorovitz, Shmuel (2009),Topics in Operator Semigroups, Springer, ISBN 978-0-8176-4932-6, Zbl 1187.47003.
Jacobson, Nathan (2009), Basic algebra, 1 (2nd ed.), Dover, ISBN 978-0-486-47189-1
Lawson, M.V. (1998), Inverse semigroups: the theory of partial symmetries
, World Scientific, ISBN 978-981-02-3316-
7, Zbl 1079.20505
Lothaire, M. (2011) [2002], Algebraic combinatorics on words, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications,90,
Cambridge University Press,ISBN 978-0-521-18071-9, Zbl 1221.68183

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semigroup&oldid=806945514

"

This page was last edited on 25 October 2017, at 01:58.

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of theWikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Set theory
Set theory is a branch of mathematical logic that studies sets, which informally are
collections of objects. Although any type of object can be collected into a set, set
theory is applied most often to objects that are relevant to mathematics. The
language of set theory can be used in the definitions of nearly all mathematical
objects.

The modern study of set theory was initiated by Georg Cantor and Richard
Dedekind in the 1870s. After the discovery of paradoxes in naive set theory, such as
Russell's paradox, numerous axiom systems were proposed in the early twentieth
A Venn diagram illustrating the
century, of which the Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms, with or without the axiom of
intersection of two sets.
choice, are the best-known.

Set theory is commonly employed as a foundational system for mathematics,

particularly in the form of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theorywith the axiom of choice. Beyond its foundational role, set theory is a branch
of mathematics in its own right, with an active research community. Contemporary research into set theory includes a diverse
collection of topics, ranging from the structure of thereal number line to the study of theconsistency of large cardinals.

Contents
History
Basic concepts and notation
Some ontology
Axiomatic set theory
Applications
Areas of study
Combinatorial set theory
Descriptive set theory
Fuzzy set theory
Inner model theory
Large cardinals
Determinacy
Forcing
Cardinal invariants
Set-theoretic topology
Objections to set theory as a foundation for mathematics
See also
Notes
Further reading
External links

History
Mathematical topics typically emerge and evolve through interactions among many researchers.
Set theory, however, was founded by a single paper in 1874 by Georg Cantor: "On a Property of
the Collection of All Real Algebraic Numbers".[1][2]

Since the 5th century BC, beginning with Greek mathematician Zeno of Elea in the West and
early Indian mathematicians in the East, mathematicians had struggled with the concept of
infinity. Especially notable is the work of Bernard Bolzano in the first half of the 19th
century.[3] Modern understanding of infinity began in 1867–71, with Cantor's work on number
theory. An 1872 meeting between Cantor and Richard Dedekind influenced Cantor's thinking
and culminated in Cantor's 1874 paper.

Cantor's work initially polarized the mathematicians of his day. While Karl Weierstrass and
Dedekind supported Cantor, Leopold Kronecker, now seen as a founder of mathematical
Georg Cantor.
constructivism, did not. Cantorian set theory eventually became widespread, due to the utility of
Cantorian concepts, such as one-to-one correspondence among sets, his proof that there are
more real numbers than integers, and the "infinity of infinities" ("Cantor's paradise") resulting from the power set operation. This
utility of set theory led to the article "Mengenlehre" contributed in 1898 by
Arthur Schoenflies to Klein's encyclopedia.

The next wave of excitement in set theory came around 1900, when it was discovered that some interpretations of Cantorian set
theory gave rise to several contradictions, called antinomies or paradoxes. Bertrand Russell and Ernst Zermelo independently found
the simplest and best known paradox, now called Russell's paradox: consider "the set of all sets that are not members of themselves",
which leads to a contradiction since it must be a member of itself, and not a member of itself. In 1899 Cantor had himself posed the
question "What is the cardinal number of the set of all sets?", and obtained a related paradox. Russell used his paradox as a theme in
his 1903 review of continental mathematics in hisThe Principles of Mathematics.

In 1906 English readers gained the book Theory of Sets of Points[4] by husband and wife William Henry Young and Grace Chisholm
Young, published by Cambridge University Press.

The momentum of set theory was such that debate on the paradoxes did not lead to its abandonment. The work of Zermelo in 1908
and Abraham Fraenkel in 1922 resulted in the set of axioms ZFC, which became the most commonly used set of axioms for set
theory. The work of analysts such as Henri Lebesgue demonstrated the great mathematical utility of set theory, which has since
become woven into the fabric of modern mathematics. Set theory is commonly used as a foundational system, although in some areas
category theory is thought to be a preferred foundation.

Basic concepts and notation

Set theory begins with a fundamental binary relation between an object o and a set A. If o is a member (or element) of A, the
notation o ∈ A is used. Since sets are objects, the membership relation can relate sets as well.

A derived binary relation between two sets is the subset relation, also called set inclusion. If all the members of set A are also
members of set B, then A is a subset of B, denoted A ⊆ B. For example, {1, 2} is a subset of {1, 2, 3} , and so is {2} but
{1, 4} is not. As insinuated from this definition, a set is a subset of itself. For cases where this possibility is unsuitable or would
make sense to be rejected, the term proper subset is defined. A is called a proper subset of B if and only if A is a subset of B, but
A is not equal to B. Note also that 1, 2, and 3 are members (elements) of the set {1, 2, 3} but are not subsets of it; and in turn, the
subsets, such as {1}, are not members of the set {1, 2, 3}.

Just as arithmetic features binary operations on numbers, set theory features binary operations on sets. The:

Union of the sets A and B, denoted A ∪ B, is the set of all objects that are a member ofA, or B, or both. The union
of {1, 2, 3} and {2, 3, 4} is the set {1, 2, 3, 4} .
Intersection of the sets A and B, denoted A ∩ B, is the set of all objects that are members of bothA and B. The
intersection of {1, 2, 3} and {2, 3, 4} is the set {2, 3} .
 Set difference of U and A, denoted U \ A, is the set of all members ofU that are not members ofA. The set
difference {1, 2, 3} \ {2, 3, 4} is {1} , while, conversely, the set difference {2, 3, 4} \ {1, 2, 3} is {4} . When A
is a subset of U, the set difference U \ A is also called the complement of A in U. In this case, if the choice ofU is
clear from the context, the notationAc is sometimes used instead ofU \ A, particularly if U is a universal set as in
the study of Venn diagrams.
Symmetric differenceof sets A and B, denoted A △ B or A ⊖ B, is the set of all objects that are a member of
exactly one of A and B (elements which are in one of the sets, but not in both). For instance, for the sets {1, 2, 3}
and {2, 3, 4} , the symmetric difference set is {1, 4} . It is the set difference of the union and theintersection,
(A ∪ B) \ (A ∩ B) or (A \ B) ∪ (B \ A).
Cartesian product of A and B, denoted A × B, is the set whose members are all possibleordered pairs (a, b)
where a is a member of A and b is a member of B. The cartesian product of
{1, 2} and {red, white} is {(1, red), (1, white), (2, red), (2, white)}.
Power set of a set A is the set whose members are all of the possible subsets ofA. For example, the power set of
{1, 2} is { {}, {1}, {2}, {1, 2} } .
Some basic sets of central importance are the empty set (the unique set containing no elements; occasionally called the null set
though this name is ambiguous), the set ofnatural numbers, and the set of real numbers.

Some ontology
A set is pure if all of its members are sets, all members of its
members are sets, and so on. For example, the set {{}} containing
only the empty set is a nonempty pure set. In modern set theory, it is
common to restrict attention to the von Neumann universe of pure
sets, and many systems of axiomatic set theory are designed to
axiomatize the pure sets only. There are many technical advantages
to this restriction, and little generality is lost, because essentially all
mathematical concepts can be modeled by pure sets. Sets in the von
Neumann universe are organized into a cumulative hierarchy, based
on how deeply their members, members of members, etc. are nested.
Each set in this hierarchy is assigned (by transfinite recursion) an
ordinal number α, known as its rank. The rank of a pure set X is
defined to be the least upper bound of all successors of ranks of
members of X. For example, the empty set is assigned rank 0, while
the set {{}} containing only the empty set is assigned rank 1. For
each ordinal α, the set Vα is defined to consist of all pure sets with
An initial segment of the von Neumann hierarchy
.
rank less than α. The entire von Neumann universe is denotedV.

Axiomatic set theory

Elementary set theory can be studied informally and intuitively, and so can be taught in primary schools using Venn diagrams. The
intuitive approach tacitly assumes that a set may be formed from the class of all objects satisfying any particular defining condition.
This assumption gives rise to paradoxes, the simplest and best known of which are Russell's paradox and the Burali-Forti paradox.
[5]
Axiomatic set theory was originally devised to rid set theory of such paradoxes.

The most widely studied systems of axiomatic set theory imply that all sets form a cumulative hierarchy. Such systems come in two
flavors, those whose ontology consists of:

Sets alone. This includes the most common axiomatic set theory
, Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory(ZFC), which
includes the axiom of choice. Fragments of ZFC include:

Zermelo set theory, which replaces the axiom schema of replacementwith that of separation;
General set theory, a small fragment of Zermelo set theory sufficient for the Peano axioms and finite sets;
Kripke–Platek set theory, which omits the axioms of infinity, powerset, and choice, and weakens the axiom
schemata of separation and replacement.
 Sets and proper classes. These include Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory, which has the same strength as
ZFC for theorems about sets alone, andMorse–Kelley set theoryand Tarski–Grothendieck set theory, both of which
are stronger than ZFC.
The above systems can be modified to allow urelements, objects that can be members of sets but that are not themselves sets and do
not have any members.

The systems of New Foundations NFU (allowing urelements) and NF (lacking them) are not based on a cumulative hierarchy. NF
and NFU include a "set of everything, " relative to which every set has a complement. In these systems urelements matter, because
NF, but not NFU, produces sets for which theaxiom of choice does not hold.

Systems of constructive set theory, such as CST, CZF, and IZF, embed their set axioms in intuitionistic instead of classical logic. Yet
other systems accept classical logic but feature a nonstandard membership relation. These include rough set theory and fuzzy set
theory, in which the value of an atomic formula embodying the membership relation is not simply True or False. The Boolean-
valued models of ZFC are a related subject.

An enrichment of ZFC called internal set theory was proposed by Edward Nelson in 1977.

Applications
Many mathematical concepts can be defined precisely using only set theoretic concepts. For example, mathematical structures as
diverse as graphs, manifolds, rings, and vector spaces can all be defined as sets satisfying various (axiomatic) properties. Equivalence
and order relations are ubiquitous in mathematics, and the theory of mathematicalrelations can be described in set theory.

Set theory is also a promising foundational system for much of mathematics. Since the publication of the first volume of Principia
Mathematica, it has been claimed that most or even all mathematical theorems can be derived using an aptly designed set of axioms
for set theory, augmented with many definitions, using first or second order logic. For example, properties of the natural and real
numbers can be derived within set theory, as each number system can be identified with a set of equivalence classes under a suitable
equivalence relation whose field is some infinite set.

Set theory as a foundation for mathematical analysis, topology, abstract algebra, and discrete mathematics is likewise
uncontroversial; mathematicians accept that (in principle) theorems in these areas can be derived from the relevant definitions and the
axioms of set theory. Few full derivations of complex mathematical theorems from set theory have been formally verified, however,
because such formal derivations are often much longer than the natural language proofs mathematicians commonly present. One
verification project, Metamath, includes human-written, computer‐verified derivations of more than 12,000 theorems starting from
ZFC set theory, first order logic and propositional logic.

Areas of study
Set theory is a major area of research in mathematics, with many interrelated subfields.

Combinatorial set theory

Combinatorial set theory concerns extensions of finite combinatorics to infinite sets. This includes the study of cardinal arithmetic
and the study of extensions ofRamsey's theorem such as the Erdős–Rado theorem.

Descriptive set theory

Descriptive set theoryis the study of subsets of thereal line and, more generally, subsets of Polish spaces. It begins with the study of
pointclasses in the Borel hierarchy and extends to the study of more complex hierarchies such as the projective hierarchy and the
Wadge hierarchy. Many properties of Borel sets can be established in ZFC, but proving these properties hold for more complicated
sets requires additional axioms related to determinacy and lar
ge cardinals.
The field of effective descriptive set theory is between set theory and recursion theory. It includes the study of lightface pointclasses,
and is closely related to hyperarithmetical theory. In many cases, results of classical descriptive set theory have effective versions; in
some cases, new results are obtained by proving the effective version first and then extending ("relativizing") it to make it more
broadly applicable.

A recent area of research concerns Borel equivalence relations and more complicated definable equivalence relations. This has
important applications to the study ofinvariants in many fields of mathematics.

Fuzzy set theory

In set theory as Cantor defined and Zermelo and Fraenkel axiomatized, an object is either a member of a set or not. In fuzzy set
theory this condition was relaxed by Lotfi A. Zadeh so an object has a degree of membership in a set, a number between 0 and 1. For
example, the degree of membership of a person in the set of "tall people" is more flexible than a simple yes or no answer and can be a
real number such as 0.75.

Inner model theory

An inner model of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZF) is a transitive class that includes all the ordinals and satisfies all the axioms of
ZF. The canonical example is the constructible universe L developed by Gödel. One reason that the study of inner models is of
interest is that it can be used to prove consistency results. For example, it can be shown that regardless of whether a model V of ZF
satisfies the continuum hypothesis or the axiom of choice, the inner model L constructed inside the original model will satisfy both
the generalized continuum hypothesis and the axiom of choice. Thus the assumption that ZF is consistent (has at least one model)
implies that ZF together with these two principles is consistent.

The study of inner models is common in the study of determinacy and large cardinals, especially when considering axioms such as
the axiom of determinacy that contradict the axiom of choice. Even if a fixed model of set theory satisfies the axiom of choice, it is
possible for an inner model to fail to satisfy the axiom of choice. For example, the existence of sufficiently large cardinals implies
[6]
that there is an inner model satisfying the axiom of determinacy (and thus not satisfying the axiom of choice).

Large cardinals
A large cardinal is a cardinal number with an extra property. Many such properties are studied, including inaccessible cardinals,
measurable cardinals, and many more. These properties typically imply the cardinal number must be very large, with the existence of
a cardinal with the specified property unprovable in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory
.

Determinacy
Determinacy refers to the fact that, under appropriate assumptions, certain two-player games of perfect information are determined
from the start in the sense that one player must have a winning strategy. The existence of these strategies has important consequences
in descriptive set theory, as the assumption that a broader class of games is determined often implies that a broader class of sets will
have a topological property. The axiom of determinacy (AD) is an important object of study; although incompatible with the axiom of
choice, AD implies that all subsets of the real line are well behaved (in particular, measurable and with the perfect set property). AD
can be used to prove that theWadge degrees have an elegant structure.

Forcing
Paul Cohen invented the method of forcing while searching for a model of ZFC in which the continuum hypothesis fails, or a model
of ZF in which the axiom of choice fails. Forcing adjoins to some given model of set theory additional sets in order to create a larger
model with properties determined (i.e. "forced") by the construction and the original model. For example, Cohen's construction
adjoins additional subsets of the natural numbers without changing any of the cardinal numbers of the original model. Forcing is also
one of two methods for provingrelative consistency by finitistic methods, the other method beingBoolean-valued models.
Cardinal invariants
A cardinal invariant is a property of the real line measured by a cardinal number. For example, a well-studied invariant is the
smallest cardinality of a collection of meagre sets of reals whose union is the entire real line. These are invariants in the sense that
any two isomorphic models of set theory must give the same cardinal for each invariant. Many cardinal invariants have been studied,
and the relationships between them are often complex and related to axioms of set theory
.

Set-theoretic topology
Set-theoretic topology studies questions of general topology that are set-theoretic in nature or that require advanced methods of set
theory for their solution. Many of these theorems are independent of ZFC, requiring stronger axioms for their proof. A famous
problem is the normal Moore space question, a question in general topology that was the subject of intense research. The answer to
the normal Moore space question was eventually proved to be independent of ZFC.

Objections to set theory as a foundation for mathematics

From set theory's inception, some mathematicians have objected to it as a foundation for mathematics. The most common objection
to set theory, one Kronecker voiced in set theory's earliest years, starts from the constructivist view that mathematics is loosely
related to computation. If this view is granted, then the treatment of infinite sets, both in naive and in axiomatic set theory, introduces
into mathematics methods and objects that are not computable even in principle. The feasibility of constructivism as a substitute
foundation for mathematics was greatly increased byErrett Bishop's influential book Foundations of Constructive Analysis.[7]

A different objection put forth by Henri Poincaré is that defining sets using the axiom schemas of specification and replacement, as
well as the axiom of power set, introduces impredicativity, a type of circularity, into the definitions of mathematical objects. The
scope of predicatively founded mathematics, while less than that of the commonly accepted Zermelo-Fraenkel theory
, is much greater
than that of constructive mathematics, to the point that Solomon Feferman has said that "all of scientifically applicable analysis can
be developed [using predicative methods]".[8]

Ludwig Wittgenstein condemned set theory. He wrote that "set theory is wrong", since it builds on the "nonsense" of fictitious
symbolism, has "pernicious idioms", and that it is nonsensical to talk about "all numbers".[9] Wittgenstein's views about the
foundations of mathematics were later criticised by Georg Kreisel and Paul Bernays, and investigated by Crispin Wright, among
others.

Category theorists have proposed topos theory as an alternative to traditional axiomatic set theory. Topos theory can interpret various
alternatives to that theory, such as constructivism, finite set theory, and computable set theory.[10][11] Topoi also give a natural setting
for forcing and discussions of the independence of choice from ZF, as well as providing the framework for pointless topology and
Stone spaces.[12]

An active area of research is the univalent foundations and related to it homotopy type theory. Here, sets may be defined as certain
kinds of types, with universal properties of sets arising from higher inductive types. Principles such as the axiom of choice and the
law of the excluded middle appear in a spectrum of different forms, some of which can be proven, others which correspond to the
fect of these axioms on mathematics.[13][14]
classical notions; this allows for a detailed discussion of the ef

See also
Glossary of set theory
Category theory
List of set theory topics
Relational model – borrows from set theory

Notes
 1. Cantor, Georg (1874), "Ueber eine Eigenschaft des Inbegriffes aller reellen algebraischen Zahlen"(http://www.digizei
tschriften.de/main/dms/img/?PPN=GDZPPN002155583) , J. Reine Angew. Math., 77: 258–262,
doi:10.1515/crll.1874.77.258(https://doi.org/10.1515%2Fcrll.1874.77.258)
2. Johnson, Philip (1972),A History of Set Theory, Prindle, Weber & Schmidt, ISBN 0-87150-154-6
3. Bolzano, Bernard (1975), Berg, Jan, ed.,Einleitung zur Größenlehre und erste Begriffe der allgemeinen
Größenlehre, Bernard-Bolzano-Gesamtausgabe, edited by Eduard Winter et al., ol.V II, A, 7, Stuttgart, Bad
Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag, p. 152, ISBN 3-7728-0466-7
4. William Henry Young & Grace Chisholm Young (1906) Theory of Sets of Points(https://archive.org/stream/theoryofs
etsofpo00youniala#page/n3/mode/2up), link from Internet Archive
5. In his 1925, John von Neumann observed that "set theory in its first, "naive" version, due to Cantor , led to
contradictions. These are the well-knownantinomies of the set of all sets that do not contain themselves (Russell), of
the set of all transfinte ordinal numbers (Burali-Forti), and the set of all finitely definable real numbers (Richard)." He
goes on to observe that two "tendencies" were attempting to "rehabilitate" set theory . Of the first effort, exemplified
by Bertrand Russell, Julius König, Hermann Weyl and L. E. J. Brouwer, von Neumann called the "overall effect of
their activity . . . devastating". With regards to the axiomatic method employed by second group composed of
Zermelo, Abraham Fraenkel and Arthur Moritz Schoenflies, von Neumann worried that "We see only that the known
modes of inference leading to the antinomies fail, but who knows where there are not others?" and he set to the
task, "in the spirit of the second group", to "produce, by means of a finite number of purely formal operations . . . all
the sets that we want to see formed" but not allow for the antinomies. (All quotes from von Neumann 1925 reprinted
in van Heijenoort, Jean (1967, third printing 1976),From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic,
1879–1931, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA,ISBN 0-674-32449-8 (pbk). A synopsis of the history, written
by van Heijenoort, can be found in the comments that precede von Neumann's 1925.
6. Jech, Thomas (2003), Set Theory, Springer Monographs in Mathematics (Third Millennium ed.), Berlin, Nework:
Y
Springer-Verlag, p. 642, ISBN 978-3-540-44085-7, Zbl 1007.03002 (https://zbmath.org/?format=complete&q=an:100
7.03002)
7. Bishop, Errett 1967. Foundations of Constructive Analysis, New York: Academic Press. ISBN 4-87187-714-0
8. Solomon Feferman, 1998, In the Light of Logic, Oxford Univ
. Press (New York), p.280-283 and 293-294
9. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1975).Philosophical Remarks, §129, §174. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.ISBN 0631191305.
10. Ferro, A.; Omodeo, E. G.; Schwartz, J. T. (1980), "Decision procedures for elementary sublanguages of set theory
. I.
Multi-level syllogistic and some extensions",Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 33 (5): 599–608,
doi:10.1002/cpa.3160330503(https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fcpa.3160330503)
11. Cantone, D.; Ferro, A.; Omodeo, E. G. (1989),Computable Set Theory, International Series of Monographs on
Computer Science, Oxford Science Publications, Oxford, UK:Clarendon Press, p. xii, 347, ISBN 0-19-853807-3
12. Saunders Mac Lane and Ieke Moerdijk (1992)Sheaves in Geometry and Logic: a First Introduction to opos
T Theory.
Springer Verlag.
13. homotopy type theory (https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/homotopy+type+theory)in nLab
14. Homotopy Type Theory: Univalent Foundations of Mathematics (http://homotopytypetheory.org/book/). The Univalent
Foundations Program.Institute for Advanced Study.

Further reading
Devlin, Keith, 1993. The Joy of Sets (2nd ed.). Springer Verlag, ISBN 0-387-94094-4
Ferreirós, Jose, 2007 (1999).Labyrinth of Thought: A history of set theory and its role in modern mathematics.
Basel, Birkhäuser. ISBN 978-3-7643-8349-7
Johnson, Philip, 1972.A History of Set Theory. Prindle, Weber & Schmidt ISBN 0-87150-154-6
Kunen, Kenneth, 1980. Set Theory: An Introduction to Independence Proofs . North-Holland, ISBN 0-444-85401-0.
Potter, Michael, 2004. Set Theory and Its Philosophy: A Critical Introduction
. Oxford University Press.
Tiles, Mary, 2004 (1989). The Philosophy of Set Theory: An Historical Introduction to Cantor's Paradise. Dover
Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-43520-6

External links
 Foreman, Matthew, Akihiro Kanamori, eds. Handbook of Set Theory. 3 vols., 2010. Each chapter surveys some
aspect of contemporary research in set theory . Does not cover established elementary set theory
, on which see
Devlin (1993).
Hazewinkel, Michiel, ed. (2001) [1994], "Axiomatic set theory", Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Springer
Science+Business Media B.V. / Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 978-1-55608-010-4
Hazewinkel, Michiel, ed. (2001) [1994], "Set theory", Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Springer Science+Business
Media B.V. / Kluwer Academic Publishers,ISBN 978-1-55608-010-4
Jech, Thomas (2002). "Set Theory", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Schoenflies, Arthur (1898). Mengenlehre in Klein's encyclopedia.
Online books, and library resourcesin your library and in other libraries about set theory

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Set_theory&oldid=814348059

"

This page was last edited on 8 December 2017, at 07:32.

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of theWikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.