Naive Set Theory
Even if the underlying mathematical logic does not admit any self-referential sentence, in set theories which allow unrestricted comprehension, we can nevertheless prove any logical statement Y by examining the set
The proof proceeds as follows:
-
- Definition of X
-
- from 1
-
- from 2, contraction
-
- from 1
-
- from 3 and 4, modus ponens
-
- from 3 and 5, modus ponens
Therefore, in a consistent set theory, the set does not exist for false Y. This can be seen as a variant on Russell's paradox, but is not identical. Some proposals for set theory have attempted to deal with Russell's paradox not by restricting the rule of comprehension, but by restricting the rules of logic so that it tolerates the contradictory nature of the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. The existence of proofs like the one above shows that such a task is not so simple, because at least one of the deduction rules used in the proof above must be omitted or restricted.
Read more about this topic: Curry's Paradox
Famous quotes containing the words naive, set and/or theory:
““The days have outnumbered
my fingers and toes.
What can I count with now?”
Saying this,
the naive girl cries.”
—Hla Stavhana (c. 50 A.D.)
“I set forth a humble and inglorious life; that does not matter. You can tie up all moral philosophy with a common and private life just as well as with a life of richer stuff. Each man bears the entire form of man’s estate.”
—Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592)
“The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound. Fortunately in England, at any rate, education produces no effect whatsoever. If it did, it would prove a serious danger to the upper classes, and probably lead to acts of violence in Grosvenor Square.”
—Oscar Wilde (1854–1900)