Re: Why is the Russell Paradox necessary?
- From: Marcaias <dnilbretniw@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:55:21 GMT
On 5 Mar 2007 19:31:57 -0800, "Calvin" <crice5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In ordinary set theory, in which Russell's Paradox is used
to show that assuming the existence of a set of all sets
leads to that paradox, ie. a contradiction, I wonder why
the Russell Paradox method is necessary.
This isn't what Russell's paradox shows.
We know that the cardinality of the set of all subsets of a
given set is greater than the cardinality of the given set.
<snip>
The proof of this employs a method which is essentially the same as
Russell's paradox. Plus you have to define cardinality, which means
you need to know about bijective functions, and use more tools than
are necessary.
Russel's paradox, on the other hand, is simple, and uses nothing than
the definitions to show why a set theory with unrestricted
comprehension is inconsistent.
But again, you're talking about two different results...
Thanks,
Mark
.
- References:
- Why is the Russell Paradox necessary?
- From: Calvin
- Why is the Russell Paradox necessary?
- Prev by Date: Thousands of solutions manuals
- Next by Date: Re: Why is the Russell Paradox necessary?
- Previous by thread: Why is the Russell Paradox necessary?
- Next by thread: Re: Why is the Russell Paradox necessary?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|