DEFINITION1: Let and
be two sets and
be a relation. If the following two conditions are provided, then the relation
is called a “function” with domain
and codomain
and denoted by
or
.
1. ,
2. .
Henceforth, when we write , we will consider that “
is a function from
to
”.
As is seen from the definition, a function is a relation mapping each element in the domain to a unique element in the codomain. So, the notation is generally used instead of the notations
and
and read “
maps to
” or “
maps to
”. The notation
is read “
of
”. Each element of the domain is called an “argument” and for each
in the domain, the corresponding unique element
in the codomain is called “the function value at
”, “output
for an element
” or “the image
” under the function
. The set defined as
is called the “image” or the “range” of
. Sometimes a function is called a “map” or a “mapping”.
DEFINITION1: Let be a set and
. If the relation
is reflexive, symmetric and transitive, then the relation
is called an “equivalence relation” and denoted by
in general.
DEFINITION2: Let be an equivalence relation over a set
and
. The set defined as
is called the “equivalence class” of
under
and denoted by
,
or
. Since
for every
, then
. So the equivalence class
is non-empty for every
. The family of all the equivalence classes of the relation
is called the “quotient set” of
by
and denoted by
I.e.,
.
DEFINITION3: Let be an equivalence relation over a set
and
. If
, then
is called a “representative class” of the equivalence class
.
DEFINITION1: Let be a set and
. If the relation
is reflexive, antisymmetric and transitive, then the relation
is called a “partial order relation” and denoted by
in general. If “
” is a partial order relation over a set
, then
is called “partially ordered set” or shortly “poset”.
DEFINITION2: Let and
are elements of a partially ordered set
. If it holds “
”, then
and
are called “comparable”. Otherwise they are called “incomparable”.
DEFINITION3: If and
are comparable for all
in a partially ordered set
, then the relation
is called a “total order” and the set
is called a “totally ordered set” or “linearly ordered set”.
DEFINITION4: Let be a partially ordered set and
. If
is a totally ordered set, then
is called a “chain” in
.
DEFINITION5: Let be a partially ordered set and
. If there exists an element
satisfying
for all
, then
is called the maximum of
, and if there exists an element
satisfying
for all
, then
is called the minimum of
. The minimum and the maximum of
are denoted by
and
respectively.
DEFINITION1: Let and
be two sets. Any subset of the cartesian product
is called a relation with domain
and codomain
. While some sources are giving the definition of relation, they assume
and it’s said the emptyset being a subset of
isn’t a relation. However, the assumption “the emptyset is a relation” is not a problem for any branch of the mathematics. On the contrary, the assumption “the emptyset is a relation” plays an important role in some branch of the mathematics.
If and
are two sets with
and
elements respectively, then the cartesian product
has
elements. Since a relation with domain
and codomain
is an element of the power set
and the number of the elements of the power set of a set with
elements is
, then the number of all the relations with domain
and codomain
is
. If
and at least one of
and
is infinite set, then the number of all the relations with domain
and codomain
is also infinity.
Let be a relation not being the emptyset. The statement
is read “x is R-related to y” and is denoted by
or
.
EXAMPLE1: Let and
. Since
has 3 elements and
has 2 elements, the number of all the relations with domain
and codomain
is
. We can give some of these
relations:
,
Let be a set. A set is called an “index set” of the set
if
and that set are equipollent. I.e., a set
is called an index set of
if there exists a bijective function (injective and surjective) between
and
. As is clear from the definition, the number of all the index sets of a set may be more than one, even infinite. Besides, we can say from the definition: there exists at least one index set of any set. Because, the function
is bijective. This is a trivial example since the set
is indexed by itself. If we indexed every set with itself, the indexing operation would be meaningless. We must give a reinforcement example: Let be
. We will give three index sets for this set: The sets
,
and
can be given as index sets of
. (Can be given more index sets for this set). The type of index set that is widely used by the mathematicians is
since it one by one counts the elements of
. In general,
can be chosen as an index set for a set with
elements. An index set of a set is directly associated with the cardinality of that set. Since the cardinality relation on any family of sets is an equivalence relation, an index set of a set can be actually considered as the most reasonable “representation of class” of the equivalence class of a set. For example, the most reasonable index set of any countable set is naturally the set of the natural numbers.
,
or
is widely used as an index set for a set that is equipollent with the set of the real numbers.
By the end of the 19th century, the mathematicians had called “set” a collection of any objects. For example, the set of the natural numbers, the set of integers, the set of even numbers, the set of the real numbers, the set of any sets, the set of all the sets. We can give further similar examples. All the mathematicians had no doubt about that the unique condition to be a set was to gather any objects by the time Bertrand Russell’s paradox emerged. Russell had proved that when the term “set” is defined as “a collection of any objects”, there emerges a paradox in the set theory . Now, let’s examine Russell’s paradox and its proof: Assume that a collection of any objects is a set. In that case, the collection of all the sets is a set. We denote this set by . Hence, any set is an element of the set
i.e., if
is a set, then
. Since
is also a set, then
. Let’s construct a subset of
:
.
Which proposition of the two is the true one or
?
i) Let’s assume that the proposition is the true one. In that case, since any element of
is a set that is not an element of itself, the proposition
is true.
ii) Let’s assume that the proposition is the true one. In that case, according to the definition of
, the proposition
is true. As a result, the following proposition has been proved:

