# Difference between revisions of "Class"

Asymptosis (talk | contribs) (New page: In set theory, a class refers to a set made up of other sets. For example, if <math>A=\{a,b,c\}</math> is a set, then <math>\mathscr{A}=\{\{a\},\{b\},\{b,c\}\}</math> is a class ma...) |
|||

Line 1: | Line 1: | ||

− | In [[set theory]], a class | + | In [[set theory]], a class is essentially a set which we do not call a set for logical or semantic reasons. For example, if <math>A=\{a,b,c\}</math> is a set, then <math>B=\{\{a\},\{b\},\{b,c\}\}</math> is a class consisting of some subsets of <math>A</math>. In this example though, <math>B</math> can also be called a set. |

+ | |||

+ | To understand why one would make such a distinction, consider Russell's Paradox: | ||

+ | "Define <math>T</math> to be the set of all sets which do not contain themselves. Is it true or not that <math>T\in T</math>?" If <math>T\in T</math>, then <math>T</math> must not contain itself; that is, <math>T\not\in T</math>. If <math>T\not\in T</math>, then it must be because <math>T \in T</math>. Either way there is a contradiction. One resolution to Russell's paradox changes the language every so slightly: "Define <math>T</math> to be the class of all sets which do not contain themselves. Is it true or not that <math>T\in T</math>?" Indeed, <math>T\not\in T</math> for <math>T</math> is not a set. | ||

+ | |||

+ | Compare Russell's Paradox to the Barber of Seville problem: "The barber of Seville shaves exactly those men who do not shave themselves. How can this be?" Naturally, the barber is a woman. | ||

{{stub}} | {{stub}} | ||

[[Category:Mathematics]] | [[Category:Mathematics]] |

## Latest revision as of 14:28, 11 August 2008

In set theory, a class is essentially a set which we do not call a set for logical or semantic reasons. For example, if is a set, then is a class consisting of some subsets of . In this example though, can also be called a set.

To understand why one would make such a distinction, consider Russell's Paradox: "Define to be the set of all sets which do not contain themselves. Is it true or not that ?" If , then must not contain itself; that is, . If , then it must be because . Either way there is a contradiction. One resolution to Russell's paradox changes the language every so slightly: "Define to be the class of all sets which do not contain themselves. Is it true or not that ?" Indeed, for is not a set.

Compare Russell's Paradox to the Barber of Seville problem: "The barber of Seville shaves exactly those men who do not shave themselves. How can this be?" Naturally, the barber is a woman.

*This article is a stub. Help us out by expanding it.*