Zermelo Set Theory - The Aim of Zermelo's Paper

The Aim of Zermelo's Paper

The introduction states that the very existence of the discipline of set theory "seems to be threatened by certain contradictions or "antinomies", that can be derived from its principles – principles necessarily governing our thinking, it seems – and to which no entirely satisfactory solution has yet been found". Zermelo is of course referring to the "Russell antinomy".

He says he wants to show how the original theory of Georg Cantor and Richard Dedekind can be reduced to a few definitions and seven principles or axioms. He says he has not been able to prove that the axioms are consistent.

A non-constructivist argument for their consistency goes as follows. Define Vα for α one of the ordinals 0, 1, 2, ...,ω, ω+1, ω+2,..., ω·2 as follows:

  • V0 is the empty set.
  • For α a successor of the form β+1, Vα is defined to be the collection of all subsets of Vβ.
  • For α a limit (e.g. ω, ω·2) then Vα is defined to be the union of Vβ for β<α.

Then the axioms of Zermelo set theory are consistent because they are true in the model Vω·2. While a non-constructivist might regard this as a valid argument, a constructivist would probably not: while there are no problems with the construction of the sets up to Vω, the construction of Vω+1 is less clear because one cannot constructively define every subset of Vω. This argument can be turned into a valid proof in Zermelo–Frenkel set theory, but this does not really help because the consistency of Zermelo–Frenkel set theory is less clear than the consistency of Zermelo set theory.

Read more about this topic:  Zermelo Set Theory

Famous quotes containing the words aim and/or paper:

    The ability to secure an independent livelihood and honorable employ suited to her education and capacities is the only true foundation of the social elevation of woman, even in the very highest classes of society. While she continues to be educated only to be somebody’s wife, and is left without any aim in life till that somebody either in love, or in pity, or in selfish regard at last grants her the opportunity, she can never be truly independent.
    Catherine E. Beecher (1800–1878)

    It is to be noted that when any part of this paper appears dull there is a design in it.
    Richard Steele (1672–1729)