Difference between revisions of "Russell's Paradox"
m (→Paradox) |
(→See Also) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''Russell's Paradox''', credited to Bertrand Russell, was one of those which forced the axiomatization of set theory. | The '''Russell's Paradox''', credited to Bertrand Russell, was one of those which forced the axiomatization of set theory. | ||
| − | + | Paradox | |
We start with the property P: (x does not belong to x). We define C to be the collection of all x with the property P. Now comes the question: does C have the property P? Assuming it does, it cannot be in itself, in spite of satisfying its own membership criterion, a contradiction. Assuming it doesn't, it must be in itself, in spite of not satisfying its own membership criterion. This is the paradox. | We start with the property P: (x does not belong to x). We define C to be the collection of all x with the property P. Now comes the question: does C have the property P? Assuming it does, it cannot be in itself, in spite of satisfying its own membership criterion, a contradiction. Assuming it doesn't, it must be in itself, in spite of not satisfying its own membership criterion. This is the paradox. | ||
| − | + | See Also | |
*[[Set]] | *[[Set]] | ||
[[Category:Set theory]] | [[Category:Set theory]] | ||
Latest revision as of 16:57, 12 May 2023
The Russell's Paradox, credited to Bertrand Russell, was one of those which forced the axiomatization of set theory.
Paradox We start with the property P: (x does not belong to x). We define C to be the collection of all x with the property P. Now comes the question: does C have the property P? Assuming it does, it cannot be in itself, in spite of satisfying its own membership criterion, a contradiction. Assuming it doesn't, it must be in itself, in spite of not satisfying its own membership criterion. This is the paradox.
See Also
