In axiomatic set theory and the branches of logic, mathematics, and computer science that use it, the axiom of pairing is one of the axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory.
Contents

Formal statement 1

Interpretation 2

Nonindependence 3

Generalisation 4

Another alternative 5

References 6
Formal statement
In the formal language of the Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms, the axiom reads:

\forall A \, \forall B \, \exists C \, \forall D \, [ D \in C \iff (D = A \or D = B)]
or in words:

Given any set A and any set B, there is a set C such that, given any set D, D is a member of C if and only if D is equal to A or D is equal to B.
or in simpler words:

Given two sets, there is a set whose members are exactly the two given sets.
Interpretation
What the axiom is really saying is that, given two sets A and B, we can find a set C whose members are precisely A and B. We can use the axiom of extensionality to show that this set C is unique. We call the set C the pair of A and B, and denote it {A,B}. Thus the essence of the axiom is:

Any two sets have a pair.
{A,A} is abbreviated {A}, called the singleton containing A. Note that a singleton is a special case of a pair.
The axiom of pairing also allows for the definition of ordered pairs. For any sets a and b, the ordered pair is defined by the following:

(a, b) = \{ \{ a \}, \{ a, b \} \}.\,
Note that this definition satisfies the condition

(a, b) = (c, d) \iff a = c \and b = d.
Ordered ntuples can be defined recursively as follows:

(a_1, \ldots, a_n) = ((a_1, \ldots, a_{n1}), a_n).\!
Nonindependence
The axiom of pairing is generally considered uncontroversial, and it or an equivalent appears in just about any alternative axiomatization of set theory. Nevertheless, in the standard formulation of the Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, the axiom of pairing follows from the axiom schema of replacement applied to any given set with two or more elements, and thus it is sometimes omitted. The existence of such a set with two elements, such as { {}, { {} } }, can be deduced either from the axiom of empty set and the axiom of power set or from the axiom of infinity.
Generalisation
Together with the axiom of empty set, the axiom of pairing can be generalised to the following schema:

\forall A_1 \, \ldots \, \forall A_n \, \exists C \, \forall D \, [D \in C \iff (D = A_1 \or \cdots \or D = A_n)]
that is:

Given any finite number of sets A_{1} through A_{n}, there is a set C whose members are precisely A_{1} through A_{n}.
This set C is again unique by the axiom of extension, and is denoted {A_{1},...,A_{n}}.
Of course, we can't refer to a finite number of sets rigorously without already having in our hands a (finite) set to which the sets in question belong. Thus, this is not a single statement but instead a schema, with a separate statement for each natural number n.

The case n = 1 is the axiom of pairing with A = A_{1} and B = A_{1}.

The case n = 2 is the axiom of pairing with A = A_{1} and B = A_{2}.

The cases n > 2 can be proved using the axiom of pairing and the axiom of union multiple times.
For example, to prove the case n = 3, use the axiom of pairing three times, to produce the pair {A_{1},A_{2}}, the singleton {A_{3}}, and then the pair . The axiom of union then produces the desired result, {A_{1},A_{2},A_{3}}. We can extend this schema to include n=0 if we interpret that case as the axiom of empty set.
Thus, one may use this as an axiom schema in the place of the axioms of empty set and pairing. Normally, however, one uses the axioms of empty set and pairing separately, and then proves this as a theorem schema. Note that adopting this as an axiom schema will not replace the axiom of union, which is still needed for other situations.
Another alternative
Another axiom which implies the axiom of pairing in the presence of the axiom of empty set is

\forall A \, \forall B \, \exists C \, \forall D \, [D \in C \iff (D \in A \or D = B)].
Using {} for A and x for B, we get {x} for C. Then use {x} for A and y for B, getting {x,y} for C. One may continue in this fashion to build up any finite set. And this could be used to generate all hereditarily finite sets without using the axiom of union.
References

Paul Halmos, Naive set theory. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1960. Reprinted by SpringerVerlag, New York, 1974. ISBN 0387900926 (SpringerVerlag edition).

Jech, Thomas, 2003. Set Theory: The Third Millennium Edition, Revised and Expanded. Springer. ISBN 3540440852.

Kunen, Kenneth, 1980. Set Theory: An Introduction to Independence Proofs. Elsevier. ISBN 0444868399.
This article was sourced from Creative Commons AttributionShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, EGovernment Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a nonprofit organization.