How do the consequences of Russell's paradox extend beyond universal comprehension principle as far as the set of all sets problem? [duplicate]Why is “the set of all sets” a paradox, in layman's terms?Naively addressing Russell's paradoxNeed help with formal proofs of two simple theorems in the language of ZFC?Why is “the set of all sets” a paradox, in layman's terms?Paradox of General Comprehension in Set Theory, other than Russell's ParadoxWhat is it about modern set theory that prevents us from defining the set of all sets which are not members of themselves?Is it possible to make the set of all sets of cardinality $aleph_0$?Since the conception of Set Theory, was Russell's Set the only problematic set found?Why wasn't Bertrand Russell surprised by the set of all sets that contain themselves?Understanding impredicative definitionsRussell's ParadoxNotation for the set of all setsHow does Russell's paradox affect Cantor's set theory?
Why does the Schrödinger equation work so well for the Hydrogen atom despite the relativistic boundary at the nucleus?
siunitx error: Invalid numerical input
Why don't B747s start takeoffs with full throttle?
Incremental Ranges!
4 Layer PCB stack up
Why is the relationship between frequency and pitch exponential?
Does Lightning Network has concept of continuous stream of value?
Strat tremolo bar has tightening issues
Why does VirtualBox crash macOS?
brain teaser - coin game
Smooth switching between 12v batteries, with toggle switch
How to make a setting relevant?
How to make thick Asian sauces?
How to retract the pitched idea from employer?
PL/SQL function to receive a number and return its binary format
Company did not petition for visa in a timely manner. Is asking me to work from overseas, but wants me to take a paycut
Managing libraries hosted on EmacsWiki
Does the "6 seconds per round" rule apply to speaking/roleplaying during combat situations?
How to generate random points without duplication?
Did thousands of women die every year due to illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade?
Does the first version of Linux developed by Linus Torvalds have a GUI?
Did Darth Vader wear the same suit for 20+ years?
What LISP compilers and interpreters were available for 8-bit machines?
SF novella separating the dumb majority from the intelligent part of mankind
How do the consequences of Russell's paradox extend beyond universal comprehension principle as far as the set of all sets problem? [duplicate]
Why is “the set of all sets” a paradox, in layman's terms?Naively addressing Russell's paradoxNeed help with formal proofs of two simple theorems in the language of ZFC?Why is “the set of all sets” a paradox, in layman's terms?Paradox of General Comprehension in Set Theory, other than Russell's ParadoxWhat is it about modern set theory that prevents us from defining the set of all sets which are not members of themselves?Is it possible to make the set of all sets of cardinality $aleph_0$?Since the conception of Set Theory, was Russell's Set the only problematic set found?Why wasn't Bertrand Russell surprised by the set of all sets that contain themselves?Understanding impredicative definitionsRussell's ParadoxNotation for the set of all setsHow does Russell's paradox affect Cantor's set theory?
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Why is “the set of all sets” a paradox, in layman's terms?
13 answers
I think I understand the way in which Russell's paradox shows that the following principle is wrong:
" for every predicate, there is a set having as elements all the objects that satisfy this predicate"
Russell's picks up a predicate ( namely the predicate " x is not an element of itself" ) and shows that the corresponding " set" would have contradictory properties, which means that " the set of all x such that x is not an element of x" does not exist.
This counts as a counter example to the alledged " principle".
My understanding of Russell's paradox does not go further than this.
Now, if I am correct, it is often said that Russell showed, with this paradox, that the " set of all sets" does not exist.
What is actually the relation between Russell's paradox and the non-existence of the set of all sets?
It seems difficult to me to answer that the relation consists in the fact that precisely a set has the property of not belonging to itself. For it seems to me that Russell's paradox forbids to define a set in this way.
logic set-theory
asked May 20 at 13:07
Eleonore Saint JamesEleonore Saint James
1,324118
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by Asaf Karagila♦ logic
Users with the logic badge can single-handedly close logic questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
May 20 at 15:21
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Why is “the set of all sets” a paradox, in layman's terms?
13 answers
I think I understand the way in which Russell's paradox shows that the following principle is wrong:
" for every predicate, there is a set having as elements all the objects that satisfy this predicate"
Russell's picks up a predicate ( namely the predicate " x is not an element of itself" ) and shows that the corresponding " set" would have contradictory properties, which means that " the set of all x such that x is not an element of x" does not exist.
This counts as a counter example to the alledged " principle".
My understanding of Russell's paradox does not go further than this.
Now, if I am correct, it is often said that Russell showed, with this paradox, that the " set of all sets" does not exist.
What is actually the relation between Russell's paradox and the non-existence of the set of all sets?
It seems difficult to me to answer that the relation consists in the fact that precisely a set has the property of not belonging to itself. For it seems to me that Russell's paradox forbids to define a set in this way.
logic set-theory
asked May 20 at 13:07
Eleonore Saint JamesEleonore Saint James
1,324118
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by Asaf Karagila♦ logic
Users with the logic badge can single-handedly close logic questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
May 20 at 15:21
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
1
$begingroup$
There is a "more general fact" behind it. See the post about two simple theorems in the language of $mathsf ZFC$. It is a logic law that $¬(∃y)(∀x)(E(x,y) ↔ ¬ E(x,x))$ for a binary predicate $E(x,y)$ whatever. The proof does not rely on mathematical axioms.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
May 20 at 13:13
$begingroup$
@MauAllegranza.Thanks for the link.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:15
$begingroup$
Indeed Russell's paradox did not at all show that there is no universal set. See this post for how one can elegantly resolve Russell's paradox based on the right view of the fundamental concept of "set". In short, if you have a philosophically clear notion in mind when you say "set" then you will not even face any paradox to begin with. And it is obvious to everyone that the notion of "everything" (universal type) is well-defined; it simply accepts every thing as a member.
$endgroup$
– user21820
May 25 at 15:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Why is “the set of all sets” a paradox, in layman's terms?
13 answers
I think I understand the way in which Russell's paradox shows that the following principle is wrong:
" for every predicate, there is a set having as elements all the objects that satisfy this predicate"
Russell's picks up a predicate ( namely the predicate " x is not an element of itself" ) and shows that the corresponding " set" would have contradictory properties, which means that " the set of all x such that x is not an element of x" does not exist.
This counts as a counter example to the alledged " principle".
My understanding of Russell's paradox does not go further than this.
Now, if I am correct, it is often said that Russell showed, with this paradox, that the " set of all sets" does not exist.
What is actually the relation between Russell's paradox and the non-existence of the set of all sets?
It seems difficult to me to answer that the relation consists in the fact that precisely a set has the property of not belonging to itself. For it seems to me that Russell's paradox forbids to define a set in this way.
logic set-theory
asked May 20 at 13:07
Eleonore Saint JamesEleonore Saint James
1,324118
$endgroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Why is “the set of all sets” a paradox, in layman's terms?
13 answers
I think I understand the way in which Russell's paradox shows that the following principle is wrong:
" for every predicate, there is a set having as elements all the objects that satisfy this predicate"
Russell's picks up a predicate ( namely the predicate " x is not an element of itself" ) and shows that the corresponding " set" would have contradictory properties, which means that " the set of all x such that x is not an element of x" does not exist.
This counts as a counter example to the alledged " principle".
My understanding of Russell's paradox does not go further than this.
Now, if I am correct, it is often said that Russell showed, with this paradox, that the " set of all sets" does not exist.
What is actually the relation between Russell's paradox and the non-existence of the set of all sets?
It seems difficult to me to answer that the relation consists in the fact that precisely a set has the property of not belonging to itself. For it seems to me that Russell's paradox forbids to define a set in this way.
This question already has an answer here:
Why is “the set of all sets” a paradox, in layman's terms?
13 answers
logic set-theory
logic set-theory
asked May 20 at 13:07
Eleonore Saint JamesEleonore Saint James
1,324118
asked May 20 at 13:07
Eleonore Saint JamesEleonore Saint James
1,324118
edited May 20 at 18:17
Eleonore Saint James
asked May 20 at 13:07
Eleonore Saint JamesEleonore Saint James
1,324118
asked May 20 at 13:07
Eleonore Saint JamesEleonore Saint James
1,324118
asked May 20 at 13:07
Eleonore Saint JamesEleonore Saint James
1,324118
1,324118
marked as duplicate by Asaf Karagila♦ logic
Users with the logic badge can single-handedly close logic questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
May 20 at 15:21
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Asaf Karagila♦ logic
Users with the logic badge can single-handedly close logic questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
May 20 at 15:21
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
1
$begingroup$
There is a "more general fact" behind it. See the post about two simple theorems in the language of $mathsf ZFC$. It is a logic law that $¬(∃y)(∀x)(E(x,y) ↔ ¬ E(x,x))$ for a binary predicate $E(x,y)$ whatever. The proof does not rely on mathematical axioms.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
May 20 at 13:13
$begingroup$
@MauAllegranza.Thanks for the link.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:15
$begingroup$
Indeed Russell's paradox did not at all show that there is no universal set. See this post for how one can elegantly resolve Russell's paradox based on the right view of the fundamental concept of "set". In short, if you have a philosophically clear notion in mind when you say "set" then you will not even face any paradox to begin with. And it is obvious to everyone that the notion of "everything" (universal type) is well-defined; it simply accepts every thing as a member.
$endgroup$
– user21820
May 25 at 15:50
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
There is a "more general fact" behind it. See the post about two simple theorems in the language of $mathsf ZFC$. It is a logic law that $¬(∃y)(∀x)(E(x,y) ↔ ¬ E(x,x))$ for a binary predicate $E(x,y)$ whatever. The proof does not rely on mathematical axioms.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
May 20 at 13:13
$begingroup$
@MauAllegranza.Thanks for the link.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:15
$begingroup$
Indeed Russell's paradox did not at all show that there is no universal set. See this post for how one can elegantly resolve Russell's paradox based on the right view of the fundamental concept of "set". In short, if you have a philosophically clear notion in mind when you say "set" then you will not even face any paradox to begin with. And it is obvious to everyone that the notion of "everything" (universal type) is well-defined; it simply accepts every thing as a member.
$endgroup$
– user21820
May 25 at 15:50
1
1
$begingroup$
There is a "more general fact" behind it. See the post about two simple theorems in the language of $mathsf ZFC$. It is a logic law that $¬(∃y)(∀x)(E(x,y) ↔ ¬ E(x,x))$ for a binary predicate $E(x,y)$ whatever. The proof does not rely on mathematical axioms.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
May 20 at 13:13
$begingroup$
There is a "more general fact" behind it. See the post about two simple theorems in the language of $mathsf ZFC$. It is a logic law that $¬(∃y)(∀x)(E(x,y) ↔ ¬ E(x,x))$ for a binary predicate $E(x,y)$ whatever. The proof does not rely on mathematical axioms.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
May 20 at 13:13
$begingroup$
@MauAllegranza.Thanks for the link.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:15
$begingroup$
@MauAllegranza.Thanks for the link.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:15
$begingroup$
Indeed Russell's paradox did not at all show that there is no universal set. See this post for how one can elegantly resolve Russell's paradox based on the right view of the fundamental concept of "set". In short, if you have a philosophically clear notion in mind when you say "set" then you will not even face any paradox to begin with. And it is obvious to everyone that the notion of "everything" (universal type) is well-defined; it simply accepts every thing as a member.
$endgroup$
– user21820
May 25 at 15:50
$begingroup$
Indeed Russell's paradox did not at all show that there is no universal set. See this post for how one can elegantly resolve Russell's paradox based on the right view of the fundamental concept of "set". In short, if you have a philosophically clear notion in mind when you say "set" then you will not even face any paradox to begin with. And it is obvious to everyone that the notion of "everything" (universal type) is well-defined; it simply accepts every thing as a member.
$endgroup$
– user21820
May 25 at 15:50
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Russell's paradox does not in itself prevent a set of all sets from existing. There are set theories that do contain a universal set and are not known to be inconsistent, such as Quine's NF.
It is only together with Zermelo's subset selection axiom (the core idea behind ZFC, which claims that $xin Amid varphi(x)$ is a set whenever $A$ is), that it has this effect. If a universal set existed, then the subset selection axiom would effectively provide a universal comprehension principle, and then Russell's paradox would produce a contradiction.
it is often said that Russell showed, with this paradox, that the "set of all sets" does not exist.
While it is probably not difficult to find a claim such as this in print, it is an ahistoric oversimplification. Russell published the paradox several years before Zermelo proposed his axiom system, so the ingredients for making the jump from "unrestricted set comprehension doesn't work" to the specific claim "there is no universal set" was not present at that time.
answered May 20 at 13:30
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
247k17318563
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm.I really thought that the Axiom Schema of separation had been adopted to prevent such a thing as Russell's paradox to happen! I'd really like to understand how (1) selection axiom + (2) sets of all sets brings Frege's universal comprehension axiom. Apparently, it is rather obvious, but I sincerely cannot see how it happens.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:36
1
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: If you have a universal set $U$, then the unrestricted $xmidvarphi(x)$ can be made using separation as $xin Umidvarphi(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
May 20 at 13:39
$begingroup$
With " phi(x) " = " x does not belong to x"? Right?
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:43
2
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: Yes, or anything. Here my point is that if you have separation and a universal set then you effectively have universal comprehension for every formula $varphi$.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
May 20 at 13:46
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The thing is that the principle is wrong, but we'd like it to be true : you want to be able to consider the set of things satisfying a certain property, it's one of the bases of constructing new sets.
To make that possible without introducing (or so we hope) contradictions, the ZF axioms have the so-called comprehension schema, which says that if you have a formula $varphi (x)$ and a set $A$ then you can consider the set of all sets satisfying $varphi$ which are also in $A$; which is usually denoted $xin Amid varphi(x)$
Now if $A$ is a set containing all sets, then $xin Amid varphi(x)$ is precisely the set of all sets that satisfy $varphi$ , and so having a set of all sets would imply having the naive principle which we know is contradictory : therefore there is no set containing all sets.
This is how Russell's paradox relates to the existence of a set of all sets; although at first sight it just implies that there is no set of all $x$ such that $xnotin x$ (which is a way more general fact and is very little related to set theory, as Maura Allegranza points out in the comments)
answered May 20 at 13:16
MaxMax
18.5k11244
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Russell's Paradox arose from an inconsistency in Frege's early attempt to axiomatize Cantor's set theory. As you point out, by using his axiom of unrestricted comprehension, it was possible to prove:
$$exists r: forall x: [xin r iff xnotin x]$$
Using only the rules of logic in Frege's system, however, it was also possible to prove the negation:
$$negexists r: forall x: [xin r iff xnotin x]$$
We kept his rules of logic, but got rid of unrestricted comprehension and are still able to prove the latter.
It wasn't necessary to ban set self-membership to resolve the Paradox. You can substitute any binary relation E to obtain:
$$negexists r: forall x: [E(x,r) iff neg E(x,x)$$
answered May 20 at 13:45
Dan ChristensenDan Christensen
8,82821835
$endgroup$
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Russell's paradox does not in itself prevent a set of all sets from existing. There are set theories that do contain a universal set and are not known to be inconsistent, such as Quine's NF.
It is only together with Zermelo's subset selection axiom (the core idea behind ZFC, which claims that $xin Amid varphi(x)$ is a set whenever $A$ is), that it has this effect. If a universal set existed, then the subset selection axiom would effectively provide a universal comprehension principle, and then Russell's paradox would produce a contradiction.
it is often said that Russell showed, with this paradox, that the "set of all sets" does not exist.
While it is probably not difficult to find a claim such as this in print, it is an ahistoric oversimplification. Russell published the paradox several years before Zermelo proposed his axiom system, so the ingredients for making the jump from "unrestricted set comprehension doesn't work" to the specific claim "there is no universal set" was not present at that time.
answered May 20 at 13:30
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
247k17318563
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm.I really thought that the Axiom Schema of separation had been adopted to prevent such a thing as Russell's paradox to happen! I'd really like to understand how (1) selection axiom + (2) sets of all sets brings Frege's universal comprehension axiom. Apparently, it is rather obvious, but I sincerely cannot see how it happens.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:36
1
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: If you have a universal set $U$, then the unrestricted $xmidvarphi(x)$ can be made using separation as $xin Umidvarphi(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
May 20 at 13:39
$begingroup$
With " phi(x) " = " x does not belong to x"? Right?
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:43
2
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: Yes, or anything. Here my point is that if you have separation and a universal set then you effectively have universal comprehension for every formula $varphi$.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
May 20 at 13:46
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Russell's paradox does not in itself prevent a set of all sets from existing. There are set theories that do contain a universal set and are not known to be inconsistent, such as Quine's NF.
It is only together with Zermelo's subset selection axiom (the core idea behind ZFC, which claims that $xin Amid varphi(x)$ is a set whenever $A$ is), that it has this effect. If a universal set existed, then the subset selection axiom would effectively provide a universal comprehension principle, and then Russell's paradox would produce a contradiction.
it is often said that Russell showed, with this paradox, that the "set of all sets" does not exist.
While it is probably not difficult to find a claim such as this in print, it is an ahistoric oversimplification. Russell published the paradox several years before Zermelo proposed his axiom system, so the ingredients for making the jump from "unrestricted set comprehension doesn't work" to the specific claim "there is no universal set" was not present at that time.
answered May 20 at 13:30
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
247k17318563
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm.I really thought that the Axiom Schema of separation had been adopted to prevent such a thing as Russell's paradox to happen! I'd really like to understand how (1) selection axiom + (2) sets of all sets brings Frege's universal comprehension axiom. Apparently, it is rather obvious, but I sincerely cannot see how it happens.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:36
1
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: If you have a universal set $U$, then the unrestricted $xmidvarphi(x)$ can be made using separation as $xin Umidvarphi(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
May 20 at 13:39
$begingroup$
With " phi(x) " = " x does not belong to x"? Right?
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:43
2
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: Yes, or anything. Here my point is that if you have separation and a universal set then you effectively have universal comprehension for every formula $varphi$.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
May 20 at 13:46
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Russell's paradox does not in itself prevent a set of all sets from existing. There are set theories that do contain a universal set and are not known to be inconsistent, such as Quine's NF.
It is only together with Zermelo's subset selection axiom (the core idea behind ZFC, which claims that $xin Amid varphi(x)$ is a set whenever $A$ is), that it has this effect. If a universal set existed, then the subset selection axiom would effectively provide a universal comprehension principle, and then Russell's paradox would produce a contradiction.
it is often said that Russell showed, with this paradox, that the "set of all sets" does not exist.
While it is probably not difficult to find a claim such as this in print, it is an ahistoric oversimplification. Russell published the paradox several years before Zermelo proposed his axiom system, so the ingredients for making the jump from "unrestricted set comprehension doesn't work" to the specific claim "there is no universal set" was not present at that time.
answered May 20 at 13:30
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
247k17318563
$endgroup$
Russell's paradox does not in itself prevent a set of all sets from existing. There are set theories that do contain a universal set and are not known to be inconsistent, such as Quine's NF.
It is only together with Zermelo's subset selection axiom (the core idea behind ZFC, which claims that $xin Amid varphi(x)$ is a set whenever $A$ is), that it has this effect. If a universal set existed, then the subset selection axiom would effectively provide a universal comprehension principle, and then Russell's paradox would produce a contradiction.
it is often said that Russell showed, with this paradox, that the "set of all sets" does not exist.
While it is probably not difficult to find a claim such as this in print, it is an ahistoric oversimplification. Russell published the paradox several years before Zermelo proposed his axiom system, so the ingredients for making the jump from "unrestricted set comprehension doesn't work" to the specific claim "there is no universal set" was not present at that time.
answered May 20 at 13:30
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
247k17318563
edited May 20 at 17:50
answered May 20 at 13:30
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
247k17318563
answered May 20 at 13:30
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
247k17318563
answered May 20 at 13:30
Henning MakholmHenning Makholm
247k17318563
247k17318563
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm.I really thought that the Axiom Schema of separation had been adopted to prevent such a thing as Russell's paradox to happen! I'd really like to understand how (1) selection axiom + (2) sets of all sets brings Frege's universal comprehension axiom. Apparently, it is rather obvious, but I sincerely cannot see how it happens.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:36
1
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: If you have a universal set $U$, then the unrestricted $xmidvarphi(x)$ can be made using separation as $xin Umidvarphi(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
May 20 at 13:39
$begingroup$
With " phi(x) " = " x does not belong to x"? Right?
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:43
2
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: Yes, or anything. Here my point is that if you have separation and a universal set then you effectively have universal comprehension for every formula $varphi$.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
May 20 at 13:46
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm.I really thought that the Axiom Schema of separation had been adopted to prevent such a thing as Russell's paradox to happen! I'd really like to understand how (1) selection axiom + (2) sets of all sets brings Frege's universal comprehension axiom. Apparently, it is rather obvious, but I sincerely cannot see how it happens.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:36
1
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: If you have a universal set $U$, then the unrestricted $xmidvarphi(x)$ can be made using separation as $xin Umidvarphi(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
May 20 at 13:39
$begingroup$
With " phi(x) " = " x does not belong to x"? Right?
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:43
2
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: Yes, or anything. Here my point is that if you have separation and a universal set then you effectively have universal comprehension for every formula $varphi$.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
May 20 at 13:46
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm.I really thought that the Axiom Schema of separation had been adopted to prevent such a thing as Russell's paradox to happen! I'd really like to understand how (1) selection axiom + (2) sets of all sets brings Frege's universal comprehension axiom. Apparently, it is rather obvious, but I sincerely cannot see how it happens.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:36
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm.I really thought that the Axiom Schema of separation had been adopted to prevent such a thing as Russell's paradox to happen! I'd really like to understand how (1) selection axiom + (2) sets of all sets brings Frege's universal comprehension axiom. Apparently, it is rather obvious, but I sincerely cannot see how it happens.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:36
1
1
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: If you have a universal set $U$, then the unrestricted $xmidvarphi(x)$ can be made using separation as $xin Umidvarphi(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
May 20 at 13:39
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: If you have a universal set $U$, then the unrestricted $xmidvarphi(x)$ can be made using separation as $xin Umidvarphi(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
May 20 at 13:39
$begingroup$
With " phi(x) " = " x does not belong to x"? Right?
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:43
$begingroup$
With " phi(x) " = " x does not belong to x"? Right?
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:43
2
2
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: Yes, or anything. Here my point is that if you have separation and a universal set then you effectively have universal comprehension for every formula $varphi$.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
May 20 at 13:46
$begingroup$
@EleonoreSaintJames: Yes, or anything. Here my point is that if you have separation and a universal set then you effectively have universal comprehension for every formula $varphi$.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
May 20 at 13:46
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The thing is that the principle is wrong, but we'd like it to be true : you want to be able to consider the set of things satisfying a certain property, it's one of the bases of constructing new sets.
To make that possible without introducing (or so we hope) contradictions, the ZF axioms have the so-called comprehension schema, which says that if you have a formula $varphi (x)$ and a set $A$ then you can consider the set of all sets satisfying $varphi$ which are also in $A$; which is usually denoted $xin Amid varphi(x)$
Now if $A$ is a set containing all sets, then $xin Amid varphi(x)$ is precisely the set of all sets that satisfy $varphi$ , and so having a set of all sets would imply having the naive principle which we know is contradictory : therefore there is no set containing all sets.
This is how Russell's paradox relates to the existence of a set of all sets; although at first sight it just implies that there is no set of all $x$ such that $xnotin x$ (which is a way more general fact and is very little related to set theory, as Maura Allegranza points out in the comments)
answered May 20 at 13:16
MaxMax
18.5k11244
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The thing is that the principle is wrong, but we'd like it to be true : you want to be able to consider the set of things satisfying a certain property, it's one of the bases of constructing new sets.
To make that possible without introducing (or so we hope) contradictions, the ZF axioms have the so-called comprehension schema, which says that if you have a formula $varphi (x)$ and a set $A$ then you can consider the set of all sets satisfying $varphi$ which are also in $A$; which is usually denoted $xin Amid varphi(x)$
Now if $A$ is a set containing all sets, then $xin Amid varphi(x)$ is precisely the set of all sets that satisfy $varphi$ , and so having a set of all sets would imply having the naive principle which we know is contradictory : therefore there is no set containing all sets.
This is how Russell's paradox relates to the existence of a set of all sets; although at first sight it just implies that there is no set of all $x$ such that $xnotin x$ (which is a way more general fact and is very little related to set theory, as Maura Allegranza points out in the comments)
answered May 20 at 13:16
MaxMax
18.5k11244
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The thing is that the principle is wrong, but we'd like it to be true : you want to be able to consider the set of things satisfying a certain property, it's one of the bases of constructing new sets.
To make that possible without introducing (or so we hope) contradictions, the ZF axioms have the so-called comprehension schema, which says that if you have a formula $varphi (x)$ and a set $A$ then you can consider the set of all sets satisfying $varphi$ which are also in $A$; which is usually denoted $xin Amid varphi(x)$
Now if $A$ is a set containing all sets, then $xin Amid varphi(x)$ is precisely the set of all sets that satisfy $varphi$ , and so having a set of all sets would imply having the naive principle which we know is contradictory : therefore there is no set containing all sets.
This is how Russell's paradox relates to the existence of a set of all sets; although at first sight it just implies that there is no set of all $x$ such that $xnotin x$ (which is a way more general fact and is very little related to set theory, as Maura Allegranza points out in the comments)
answered May 20 at 13:16
MaxMax
18.5k11244
$endgroup$
The thing is that the principle is wrong, but we'd like it to be true : you want to be able to consider the set of things satisfying a certain property, it's one of the bases of constructing new sets.
To make that possible without introducing (or so we hope) contradictions, the ZF axioms have the so-called comprehension schema, which says that if you have a formula $varphi (x)$ and a set $A$ then you can consider the set of all sets satisfying $varphi$ which are also in $A$; which is usually denoted $xin Amid varphi(x)$
Now if $A$ is a set containing all sets, then $xin Amid varphi(x)$ is precisely the set of all sets that satisfy $varphi$ , and so having a set of all sets would imply having the naive principle which we know is contradictory : therefore there is no set containing all sets.
This is how Russell's paradox relates to the existence of a set of all sets; although at first sight it just implies that there is no set of all $x$ such that $xnotin x$ (which is a way more general fact and is very little related to set theory, as Maura Allegranza points out in the comments)
answered May 20 at 13:16
MaxMax
18.5k11244
answered May 20 at 13:16
MaxMax
18.5k11244
answered May 20 at 13:16
MaxMax
18.5k11244
answered May 20 at 13:16
MaxMax
18.5k11244
18.5k11244
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Russell's Paradox arose from an inconsistency in Frege's early attempt to axiomatize Cantor's set theory. As you point out, by using his axiom of unrestricted comprehension, it was possible to prove:
$$exists r: forall x: [xin r iff xnotin x]$$
Using only the rules of logic in Frege's system, however, it was also possible to prove the negation:
$$negexists r: forall x: [xin r iff xnotin x]$$
We kept his rules of logic, but got rid of unrestricted comprehension and are still able to prove the latter.
It wasn't necessary to ban set self-membership to resolve the Paradox. You can substitute any binary relation E to obtain:
$$negexists r: forall x: [E(x,r) iff neg E(x,x)$$
answered May 20 at 13:45
Dan ChristensenDan Christensen
8,82821835
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Russell's Paradox arose from an inconsistency in Frege's early attempt to axiomatize Cantor's set theory. As you point out, by using his axiom of unrestricted comprehension, it was possible to prove:
$$exists r: forall x: [xin r iff xnotin x]$$
Using only the rules of logic in Frege's system, however, it was also possible to prove the negation:
$$negexists r: forall x: [xin r iff xnotin x]$$
We kept his rules of logic, but got rid of unrestricted comprehension and are still able to prove the latter.
It wasn't necessary to ban set self-membership to resolve the Paradox. You can substitute any binary relation E to obtain:
$$negexists r: forall x: [E(x,r) iff neg E(x,x)$$
answered May 20 at 13:45
Dan ChristensenDan Christensen
8,82821835
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Russell's Paradox arose from an inconsistency in Frege's early attempt to axiomatize Cantor's set theory. As you point out, by using his axiom of unrestricted comprehension, it was possible to prove:
$$exists r: forall x: [xin r iff xnotin x]$$
Using only the rules of logic in Frege's system, however, it was also possible to prove the negation:
$$negexists r: forall x: [xin r iff xnotin x]$$
We kept his rules of logic, but got rid of unrestricted comprehension and are still able to prove the latter.
It wasn't necessary to ban set self-membership to resolve the Paradox. You can substitute any binary relation E to obtain:
$$negexists r: forall x: [E(x,r) iff neg E(x,x)$$
answered May 20 at 13:45
Dan ChristensenDan Christensen
8,82821835
$endgroup$
Russell's Paradox arose from an inconsistency in Frege's early attempt to axiomatize Cantor's set theory. As you point out, by using his axiom of unrestricted comprehension, it was possible to prove:
$$exists r: forall x: [xin r iff xnotin x]$$
Using only the rules of logic in Frege's system, however, it was also possible to prove the negation:
$$negexists r: forall x: [xin r iff xnotin x]$$
We kept his rules of logic, but got rid of unrestricted comprehension and are still able to prove the latter.
It wasn't necessary to ban set self-membership to resolve the Paradox. You can substitute any binary relation E to obtain:
$$negexists r: forall x: [E(x,r) iff neg E(x,x)$$
answered May 20 at 13:45
Dan ChristensenDan Christensen
8,82821835
edited May 20 at 13:52
answered May 20 at 13:45
Dan ChristensenDan Christensen
8,82821835
answered May 20 at 13:45
Dan ChristensenDan Christensen
8,82821835
answered May 20 at 13:45
Dan ChristensenDan Christensen
8,82821835
8,82821835
add a comment |
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
There is a "more general fact" behind it. See the post about two simple theorems in the language of $mathsf ZFC$. It is a logic law that $¬(∃y)(∀x)(E(x,y) ↔ ¬ E(x,x))$ for a binary predicate $E(x,y)$ whatever. The proof does not rely on mathematical axioms.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
May 20 at 13:13
$begingroup$
@MauAllegranza.Thanks for the link.
$endgroup$
– Eleonore Saint James
May 20 at 13:15
$begingroup$
Indeed Russell's paradox did not at all show that there is no universal set. See this post for how one can elegantly resolve Russell's paradox based on the right view of the fundamental concept of "set". In short, if you have a philosophically clear notion in mind when you say "set" then you will not even face any paradox to begin with. And it is obvious to everyone that the notion of "everything" (universal type) is well-defined; it simply accepts every thing as a member.
$endgroup$
– user21820
May 25 at 15:50