The Axiom of Separation
Zermelo comments that Axiom III of his system is the one responsible for eliminating the antinomies. It differs from the original definition by Cantor, as follows.
Sets cannot be independently defined by any arbitrary logically definable notion. They must be constructed in some way from previously constructed sets. For example they can be constructed by taking powersets, or they can be separated as subsets of sets already "given". This, he says, eliminates contradictory ideas like "the set of all sets" or "the set of all ordinal numbers".
He disposes of the Russell paradox by means of this Theorem: "Every set possesses at least one subset that is not an element of ". Let be the subset of for which, by AXIOM III, is separated out by the notion "". Then cannot be in . For
- If is in, then contains an element x for which x is in x (i.e. itself), which would contradict the definition of .
- If is not in, and assuming is an element of M, then is an element of M that satisfies the definition "", and so is in which is a contradiction.
Therefore the assumption that is in is wrong, proving the theorem. Hence not all objects of the universal domain B can be elements of one and the same set. "This disposes of the Russell antinomy as far as we are concerned".
This left the problem of "the domain B" which seems to refer to something. This led to the idea of a proper class.
Read more about this topic: Zermelo Set Theory
Famous quotes containing the words axiom and/or separation:
“The writer who neglects punctuation, or mispunctuates, is liable to be misunderstood.... For the want of merely a comma, it often occurs that an axiom appears a paradox, or that a sarcasm is converted into a sermonoid.”
—Edgar Allan Poe (1809–1845)
“In a separation it is the one who is not really in love who says the more tender things.”
—Marcel Proust (1871–1922)