MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Consider the first order language ‎$‎‎‎\mathcal{L}=\{\in,\subseteq\}‎$ and ‎$‎‎\{\in\}$-theory ‎$\text{ZFC}$.‎ ‎Is ‎the‎re a formula ‎$‎‎\psi ‎(x,y)‎ \in \{\subseteq\}-Form‎$ ‎with ‎the ‎following ‎property?‎‎

‎$‎‎ZFC\cup\{‎\forall ‎x‎\forall ‎y~(x\subseteq y‎\leftrightarrow ‎‎\forall z (z\in x\rightarrow z\in y))‎‎\}\vdash$$ ~\forall ‎x‎\forall ‎y~(x\in y‎\leftrightarrow \psi ‎(x,y)‎‎)‎‎$‎

share|cite|improve this question
How about $\varphi(x,y)\equiv y\in x$, $\psi(x,y)\equiv y\in' x$? – Christian Remling Apr 23 '14 at 23:44
Is this a homework problem? The formulas $x\notin y$ and $x\notin'y$ seem to work. – Joel David Hamkins Apr 23 '14 at 23:44
The previous comments were for the original version of the question (see edit history). – Joel David Hamkins Apr 24 '14 at 1:14

The edited question is much more interesting than the original.

The answer is no, you cannot define $\in$ from $\subseteq$. To see this, note from this previous MO answer that there are nontrivial automorphisms of $\langle V,\subseteq\rangle$. Namely, let $f:V\to V$ be any permutation, and let $\pi(x)=f[x]$, the pointwise image of $x$ under $f$. It follows that $x\subseteq y\iff \pi(x)\subseteq\pi(y)$. But we may easily choose $f$ so that $\pi$ does not respect $\in$, that is, so that for some $x,y$ we have $x\in y$ but $\pi(x)\notin \pi(y)$. For example, let $f$ swap $\emptyset$ with some other set nonempty set $a$, and let $x=\emptyset$ and $y=\{\emptyset\}$, so that $x\in y$, but $\pi(x)=f[\emptyset]=\emptyset$ and $\pi(y)=f[\{\emptyset\}]=\{f(\emptyset)\}=\{a\}$ so that $\pi(x)\notin\pi(y)$.

It follows that we cannot define $\in$ from $\subseteq$, since $\psi(x,y)\iff \psi(\pi(x),\pi(y))$ for any formula using only $\subseteq$, since it is an $\subseteq$-automorphism.

share|cite|improve this answer
It is a nice approach. It uses existence of $\subseteq$-automorphisms of the universe and non-existence of such automorphisms for $\in$ but what about the case that one replaces $\subseteq$ by another relation $E$ such that $\langle V,E\rangle$ has no automorphism? Should we begin producing models of ZFC for any possible $\{E\}$ formula or there is a shortcut solution? – user45939 Apr 24 '14 at 2:24

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.