2
$\begingroup$

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)‎‎)‎‎$‎

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ How about $\varphi(x,y)\equiv y\in x$, $\psi(x,y)\equiv y\in' x$? $\endgroup$ – Christian Remling Apr 23 '14 at 23:44
  • $\begingroup$ Is this a homework problem? The formulas $x\notin y$ and $x\notin'y$ seem to work. $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Apr 23 '14 at 23:44
  • $\begingroup$ The previous comments were for the original version of the question (see edit history). $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Apr 24 '14 at 1:14
4
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ 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? $\endgroup$ – user45939 Apr 24 '14 at 2:24

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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