Results 1 to 10 of 10
Like Tree3Thanks
  • 1 Post By zzephod
  • 2 Post By jakncoke

Math Help - Set of All Sets (Russel's) Paradox

  1. #1
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    98

    Set of All Sets (Russel's) Paradox

    Set of all sets (Russel’s) paradox is not a paradox because there is no such thing as the set of all sets.

    Proof: Let A, B be sets. Then C={A,B,C} is not a set because it is undefined (circular definition).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Senior Member jakncoke's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2010
    Posts
    387
    Thanks
    80

    Re: Set of All Sets (Russel's) Paradox

    Why can't there exist a set containing all sets? The definition of set under the Cantor definition is a set is a collection of distinct objects.


    Russells paradox says if R is a set containing all sets which are not members of themselves. Then R is also included in this set, For R contains sets which are not members of themselves.

    At the same time, R is a member of itself.

    Thus the paradox.
    Last edited by jakncoke; February 25th 2013 at 12:58 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,561
    Thanks
    785

    Re: Set of All Sets (Russel's) Paradox

    Quote Originally Posted by Hartlw View Post
    Proof: Let A, B be sets. Then C={A,B,C} is not a set because it is undefined (circular definition).
    What does this proof have to do with the set of all sets?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    98

    Re: Set of All Sets (Russel's) Paradox

    Quote Originally Posted by emakarov View Post
    What does this proof have to do with the set of all sets?
    C={A,C} → C={A, {A,C}} → C={A, {A, {A, {A,C}}}} →………
    There is no such thing as the set C (circular definition).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    98

    Russel's Paradox

    Another point of view. (ϵ’ means does not belong to)

    if R = {x│x ϵ’ x } then R ϵ R <-> R ϵ’ R (wiki)

    This is not a Paradox because (Theorem) there is no such thing as R ϵ R.
    Proof: Rmember ϵ Rset implies R unequal to R.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Member
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    From
    Erewhon
    Posts
    202
    Thanks
    133

    Re: Set of All Sets (Russel's) Paradox

    Quote Originally Posted by Hartlw View Post
    C={A,C} → C={A, {A,C}} → C={A, {A, {A, {A,C}}}} →………
    There is no such thing as the set C (circular definition).
    Please give us the axioms for set theory you think you are using so we can see for ourselves that your circular definition is excluded.

    .
    Thanks from topsquark
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    98

    Re: Set of All Sets (Russel's) Paradox

    Quote Originally Posted by zzephod View Post
    Please give us the axioms for set theory you think you are using so we can see for ourselves that your circular definition is excluded.

    .
    Axiom: You can’t define something in terms of itself.

    If that doesn’t satisfy you, and you accept C={A,C} as a legitimate set, I suggest you substitute the set C={A,C} into the various systems of Axiomatic set theory (which don’t define set) and if you find an inconsistency you may wish to revise that particular axiom. If you don’t find an inconsistency, which I suspect you won’t since the axioms are aware of Russels Paradox, then the only conclusion you can come to is that the axiomatic set has to be revised to reject Russel’s paradox.

    Russel published his “Paradox” shortly after Frege published his Foundations of Arithmetic, violating one of Frege’s axioms, which he subsequently revised to account for it. If MHF and this thread were around at the time, he could have saved himself the trouble:
    Patrick Suppes Axiomatic Set Theory, pg 5. Dover, 1972

    EDIT: If you don't accept the axiom of definition, I can suggest a few books on logic for you to work through.
    Last edited by Hartlw; February 27th 2013 at 08:16 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Member
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    From
    Erewhon
    Posts
    202
    Thanks
    133

    Re: Set of All Sets (Russel's) Paradox

    Quote Originally Posted by Hartlw View Post
    Axiom: You can’t define something in terms of itself. ...
    Is that a theorem of ZF?

    .
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Senior Member jakncoke's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2010
    Posts
    387
    Thanks
    80

    Re: Set of All Sets (Russel's) Paradox

    If you can't define something in terms of it self, then recursive functions wouldn't be well defined. The natural numbers wouldn't exist. So wouldn't alot of other things in mathematics.
    Thanks from topsquark and zzephod
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    98

    Re: Set of All Sets (Russel's) Paradox

    Quote Originally Posted by jakncoke View Post
    If you can't define something in terms of it self, then recursive functions wouldn't be well defined. The natural numbers wouldn't exist. So wouldn't alot of other things in mathematics.
    In a recursive function you define something new in terms of something that exists. Given x(n), you define x(n+1). You don’t define xn in terms of xn.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. A paradox
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 13th 2011, 04:08 PM
  2. Set of all sets paradox
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 10th 2011, 02:43 PM
  3. Paradox?
    Posted in the Geometry Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 18th 2009, 01:03 PM
  4. Can someone help me with this paradox
    Posted in the Geometry Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 18th 2008, 02:31 PM
  5. Russel Paradox
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: January 2nd 2007, 05:02 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum