In school, we learn how a line has an equation… and a circle has an equation… what does this mean?

*The short answer is*

points on curve solutions of equation

*however this note explains all of this from first principles, with a particular emphasis on the set-theoretic fundamentals.*

## Set Theory

A *set** *is a collection of objects. The objects of a set are referred to as the *elements* or *members** *and if we can list the elements we include them in curly-brackets. For example, call by the set of whole numbers (strictly) between two and nine. This set is denoted by

.

We indicate that an object is an element of a set by writing , said, *in * or *is an element of *. We use the symbol to indicate non-membership. For example, .

Elements are not duplicated and the order doesn’t matter. For example:

.

The *cardinality *of a set is a measure of the size of the set and for finite sets is just given by the number of elements. For example, the cardinality of is equal to six. The cardinality of a set is denoted by and so we have

.

Things are far more complicated for infinite sets. Consider the set of natural numbers:

,

where the dots signify that there are infinitely many such numbers. It is reasonable to write something like:

,

however this turns out to give problems when we consider the cardinality of the rational numbers, , and the cardinality of the real numbers, .

## Subsets

A *subset *of a set , is another set such that whenever then also. When this is the case, we write . For example, the set of odd numbers (strictly) between two and nine is a subset of the set of numbers (strictly) between two and nine:

.

Note that a set is always a subset of itself, , because whenever of course .

A convenient way to think of a subset of a set is as a choice of elements from . A subset of is formed by making a choice for each of the elements of whether to include them or not. For example, for the set , the subset is formed by making the choices:

.

Under this view, we have, for all sets, , the subset being formed by choosing *all* of the elements of .

The subset formed when we choose *none *of the elements of is called the *empty set*. Denoted by or , the empty set is a subset of every set:

.

How many subsets does a finite set have? Recall always that the full choice and empty choice are always subsets. Also if we *collect *the subsets of a set as objects we form a set: the set of subsets of .

Let us start with the empty set, . In this case the full and empty choices coincide — as the empty set itself. There are no other choices as there are no elements to choose and so there is only one subset of :

set of subsets of .

Also, .

Consider now the set containing one element, say . Now we can either include or not include , giving two subsets:

set of subsets of .

We are already weary of writing “set of subsets of” so we introduce the notation :

.

So (so , and (recalling ) , so .

Now consider . We have two choices for : include or not; and two choices for : include or not. We list:

.

Note .

We can keep listing all day, for example with three elements we have the empty set (choose none), singletons (sets with one element: choose one), two element subsets (choose two) and the full subset (choose all):

,

and so .

There is a fairly simple relationship between the cardinality of a set (denoted ), and the cardinality of the set of subsets of , (denoted ).

If is finite, then the cardinality of , is simply the number of elements in while the cardinality of , , is therefore the number of subsets of .

### Proposition

For any set ,

.

*Proof using Fundamental Principle of Counting: *Let so that . A subset of corresponds to a series of choices:

?, ?,… ?

This is tasks and there are two ways of completing each task. By the fundamental principle of counting, there are

ways of choosing a subset of

*Proof by Induction: *Let be the proposition that .

Consider so that , .

Now assume : a set of cardinality has subsets. Consider . Let . Consider the set . This set has a cardinality of and so by assumption has subsets.

Now consider again the subsets of . A subset of is a choice of elements from . We can form subsets of by taking subsets of and either including or not. Where is an enumeration of , and is the set containing all the elements of as well as the element , the subsets of are given by:

,

therefore is true and so by the principle of induction is true for all

It is *because *of this result that we sometimes call the *power set *of (even if is infinite).

Of course, if , and , then . Why? Well if is a choice of elements of , and and choice of elements of , then is a choice of elements of . This means that the relationship is *transitive*.

It is also the case that if , , that . A subset of is a selection of some of the subsets of . Select the subsets of that contain only elements of . Subsets of (elements of ) that contain only elements of are nothing but selections from , i.e. subsets of , in other words elements of .

As an example, consider the set of real numbers, . This is all numbers that can be expressed as a decimal. We can represent it graphically using a number line:

It has positive and negative directions, a notional centre (0), and a distance corresponding to one. We can’t list all the real numbers. If we choose some real numbers we get subsets. For example, if we just choose the fractions,

,

we have a subset:

.

It isn’t immediately obvious that there are decimals that cannot be written as a fraction, elements of (elements in but not in — decimals that are not fractions), but it turns out there are many:

, and …

No, , that is only an approximation. For a proof that is not equal to any fraction see here.

Note that so we can say that:

.

Now, from the set of fractions, choose just the whole numbers (positive, negative, and zero). Note whole numbers *are *fractions, for example, . As the set of whole numbers, , is a selection from , we have

.

Also, as , we also have that

, so that .

Similarly we have, where , is the natural numbers

,

so we can say things like

,

and indeed taking those sets as choices of elements of , we can form a subset of . Also including the empty set (choose none of the real numbers), and (choose all of the real numbers), and we can say things like:

.

## Cartesian Products

Given two sets and , we can form their *Cartesian product *. This is a set, whose elements are *ordered pairs*. *Pairs*, because they consist of two elements: one from and one from , and *ordered *because we list the element of first and then the element of . For example, where , and ,

.

We use the round brackets to emphasise that we have an ordered pair. The ordered pair is not the same as the set because but is not the same as — order matters.

The Cartesian product is the *set *of all such ordered pairs:

.

This is spoken, * times is defined as the set of ordered pairs , such that is an element of and is an element of .*

For example, if and , then

.

### Exercises

- Prove that for and , .
- Prove that for finite sets, .

A particular cartesian product of interest is the *plane, **.* This is formed by taking the cartesian product of with itself:

.

It is a set of ordered pairs, therefore, such that the first element is a real number and the second is a real number:

.

This is the ordinary plane we are all familiar with. The is from a horizontal number line (first copy of ), and the from a vertical number line (second copy of ). Each point corresponds to some pair , and each ordered pair corresponds to some point on the plane (in the obvious way):

## Relations

A *relation *between sets and is a subset of ; that is an element of .

For, example, where and , any subset of

is a relation. For example,

is a relation. We have (spoken is *related *to ), , and .

From exercise two above, this means that there are relations between finite sets and .

The *full *relation between and is selecting *all *of the ordered pairs, so taking the whole of .

The *empty *relation between and is selecting *none *of the ordered pairs, so just the empty set .

When we have a relation between and itself, we just say that is a relation on . So a relation on is just an element of .

A relation on , is a subset of , and so just a selection of points on the plane. For example, where the selected points are painted black, the following is a subset of the plane (an element of , and so a relation on :

## Equational Relations

Now suppose that is an equation in terms of and . For example,

.

Using an equation, we can define a relation on . Recall a relation on is a subset of , an element of … it is a selection of ordered pairs of real numbers.

We use the equation to choose the ordered pairs and we *only *pick ordered pairs such that solves the equation.

For example, the above equation defines a relation on , by only choosing the solutions:

if and only if .

Now think of solutions as points on the plane, . If we plot all of the solutions of the equation… in other words if we plot all elements of the relation, we have a subset of the plane.

If the equation is particularly nice, we get a nice curve. For example, the above relation, when plotted, gives:

So, the answer is:

If we plot all of the solutions of an equation, we get it’s curve. This is how an equation has a curve.

This wasn’t exactly the question though was it… the question was how does a curve have an equation.

The examples of lines and circles are not that difficult. Each line has an equation whose solutions correspond precisely to the points on the curve and similarly for circles.

Do all possible curves in/subsets of the plane have such an equation? This is a much harder problem!

### Exercises

- Show that is the empty relation on . What does the curve look like?
- Show that is the full relation on . What does the curve look like?

## 8 comments

Comments feed for this article

June 5, 2018 at 4:48 pm

On Parallel and Perpendicular Lines | J.P. McCarthy: Math Page[…] and perpendicular are then relations on the set of lines . This gives yet another definition of a line (that does not, by the way, […]

June 5, 2018 at 4:48 pm

On Parallel and Perpendicular Lines | J.P. McCarthy: Math Page[…] and perpendicular are then relations on the set of lines . This gives yet another definition of a line (that does not, by the way, […]

November 1, 2018 at 10:50 am

MATH6040: Winter 2018, Week 7 | J.P. McCarthy: Math Page[…] We will look at Implicit Differentiation and Partial Differentiation. If you are interested in a very “mathsy” approach to curves you can look at this. […]

November 8, 2018 at 10:06 am

MATH6040: Winter 2018, Week 8 | J.P. McCarthy: Math Page[…] We looked at Implicit Differentiation and Partial Differentiation. If you are interested in a very “mathsy” approach to curves you can look at this. […]

April 3, 2019 at 10:11 am

MATH6040: Spring 2019, Week 10 | J.P. McCarthy: Math Page[…] For those who were able to make it we had some tutorial time from 18:00-19:00 for parametric, implicit, and related rates differentiation. If you are really interested in understanding how does a curve have an equation, see here. […]

October 30, 2019 at 2:02 pm

MATH6040: Winter 2019, Week 7 | J.P. McCarthy: Math Page[…] We will finish looking at Related Rates and then look at Implicit Differentiation. If you are interested in a very “mathsy” approach to curves you can look at this. […]

March 11, 2020 at 10:05 am

MATH6040: Spring 2020, Week 7 | J.P. McCarthy: Math Page[…] We will look at Related Rates and then look at Implicit Differentiation. If you are interested in a very “mathsy” approach to curves you can look at this. […]

March 19, 2020 at 4:22 pm

MATH6040: Spring 2020, Week 8 | J.P. McCarthy: Math Page[…] If you are interested in a very “mathsy” approach to curves you can look at this. […]