Tagged Questions

5
votes
3answers
257 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
213 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? ...
9
votes
1answer
210 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 ...
12
votes
1answer
433 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 ...
18
votes
8answers
4k 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 ...