Re: The collection of all sets and proper classes.
- From: Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 03:01:58 GMT
On 2007-03-02, Calvin <crice5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Are you saying that in NF the assumption that there is a
collection of all sets does not lead to the contradiction
known as Russell's Paradox?
Not having followed the thread I can't say what anyone's saying, but in NF
the assumption that there is a set of all sets - a theorem of NF - does not
lead to the contradiction known as Russell's paradox. NF is axiomatized by
extensionality and stratified comprehension, stating that any stratified
formula defines a set. A formula is said to be stratified if there is an
assignment of naturals to the variables in the formula, such that in any
subformula of the form "x = y" x and y are assigned the same naturals, and
in any subformula of the form "x in y" if x is assigned n y is assigned n+1.
The formula "x not in x" is not stratified, and thus the existence of the
Russell set cannot be proved in any straightforward fashion in NF.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
.
- References:
- The collection of all sets and proper classes.
- From: zuhair
- Re: The collection of all sets and proper classes.
- From: Calvin
- Re: The collection of all sets and proper classes.
- From: zuhair
- Re: The collection of all sets and proper classes.
- From: Calvin
- The collection of all sets and proper classes.
- Prev by Date: Re: Mastermind / Best opening guess
- Next by Date: Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Previous by thread: Re: The collection of all sets and proper classes.
- Next by thread: Re: The collection of all sets and proper classes.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|