3
votes
2answers
103 views

Understanding: Axiom of Specification and Russell's Paradox: there is no universe?

Following Halmos's Naive Set Theory, Russell's Paradox emerges from using the axiom of specification (that for every set $A$ and property $\phi$ there exists a set $Y$ whose elements are those ...
1
vote
2answers
259 views

Russell's Paradox

Many of you know such paradox... " $\exists y \forall x (x \in y \Longleftrightarrow \Phi(x)$" for any function $\Phi(x)$ substitute $x \notin x$ for $\Phi(x)$ Then by existential instantiation ...
5
votes
3answers
287 views

Is there a branch of mathematics that requires the existence of sets that contain themselves?

I notice that Russell's paradox, Burali-Forti's paradox, and even Cantor's paradox, all depend on our tolerance of sets that contain themselves (at one level of depth or another). Thus, I was thinking ...
2
votes
1answer
271 views

Russell Paradox and set theories

The Russell paradox arise in the Cantor set theory, but it can be avoided in the $ZF$ and in $NGB$ axiomatic set theory. Are there other axiomatic set theories in which this paradox can be avoided? ...
12
votes
1answer
322 views

The class of all classes not containing themselves

In ZF classes are used informally to resolve Russells Paradox, that is the collection of all sets that do not contain themselves does not form a set but a proper class. But doesn't the same paradox ...
13
votes
1answer
502 views

Is there an absolute notion of the infinite?

Skolem's paradox has been explained by the proposition that the notion of countability is not absolute in first-order logic. Intuitively, that makes sense to me, as a smaller model of ZFC might not be ...
25
votes
8answers
7k views

Why is “the set of all sets” a paradox?

I've heard of some other paradoxes involving sets (ie, "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves") and I understand how paradoxes arise from them. But this one I do not understand. Why is ...