[FOM] Sets and Proper Classes
Dmytro Taranovsky
dmytro at mit.edu
Tue Oct 28 11:49:35 EST 2003
The purpose of this posting is to correct some misunderstandings about
the term "proper class".
A set is an arbitrary collection of objects. A property of sets is a
formula with parameters and one free variable such that a set either
satisfies the formula or it does not. It is convenient to view
properties as collections, where x in {y: phi(y)} means phi(x) and {x:
phi(x)}={y:psi(y)} means for all x (phi(x) iff psi(x)). However, there
is no collection of all collections, so for not every formula is there a
collection of all objects that satisfy the formula. A property of sets
for which there is no set of all sets that satisfy the property is known
as a proper class.
We know that for every set s, there is the set of all subsets of s. The
same reasoning should lead to that for every collection s there is the
collection of all subcollections of s. Therefore, if proper classes did
exist as collections, then we could form a superclass of all classes of
ordinals, proceed to form a super-superclass of all sub-superclasses of
the superclass of all classes of ordinals, and so on. In that case, by a
set we meant a set in the initial segment of the cumulative hierarchy,
perhaps, a member of V(kappa) where kappa is the least inaccessible
cardinal such that V is an elementary extension of V(kappa) with respect
to first order formulas about sets, and by a class, we meant a subset of
V(kappa).
Dmytro Taranovsky
More information about the FOM
mailing list