In 'How to Prove it' Velleman creates the following set: $R = \{A\in U| A \notin A \}$. This is, according to Velleman, equivalent to $\forall A \in U (A \notin A \iff A\in R) $. That is clear. However, based on what I learned from Velleman it appears that the set R is also equivalent to the logical statement: $\exists A (A \in U \land A \notin A \land A \in R )$. Is that correct? Is there a short way to show that the two logical statements are equivalent? Thanks in advance.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't think the two are equivalent. Can you explain your intuition/reasoning maybe? $\endgroup$ – Colm Bhandal Jul 23 '15 at 17:31
  • $\begingroup$ The statement $\exists A (A \in U \land A \notin A \land A \in R )$ says "There is some set in $U$, not a member of itself, that's in $R$". This doesn't force $R$ to contain all sets that don't contain themselves. It only forces there to be one. $\endgroup$ – Colm Bhandal Jul 23 '15 at 17:36
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "the set R is equivalent to the logical statement ..."? How can a set be equivalent to a statement? They're two entirely different sorts of things. $\endgroup$ – Andreas Blass Jul 23 '15 at 17:39
  • $\begingroup$ Your question is a bit vague (See Andreas Blass's comment). It may help to point out that $\forall A \in U (A \notin A \iff A\in R) $ is not equivalent to $\exists A (A \in U \land A \notin A \land A \in R )$ if that is what you are asking about. From the first statement we can infer that $R\notin U$. We cannot infer this from the second statement. $\endgroup$ – Dan Christensen Aug 7 '15 at 11:04

The statement $(*)$ "$\exists A(A\in U\wedge A\not\in A\wedge A\in R)$" - that is, "$R$ is not empty" - is a consequence of one half of the paradox. It follows from the straightforward observation that $R\not\in R$ (since, if $R\in R$, then by definition of $R$ we know $R\not\in R$). Of course, the same reasoning, reversed, shows that $R\in R$. So $R\in R$ and $R\not\in R$, a contradiction.

The statement $(*)$ doesn't come up at all, specifically; I don't know why it's (equivalent to anything which is) relevant at all. This could be a typo; maybe the statement is supposed to read $$(**)\quad\exists A(A\in U\wedge A\in A\wedge A\in R),$$ which would be a contradiction with the definition of $R$? This would be another way to phrase the punchline of Russell's paradox. Note that $(**)$ is still not equivalent to anything in particular, the point is that it's a consequence of the existence of $R$: if $R\not\in R$, then $R\in R$ by definition of $R$, so by contradiction we know $R\in R$, and this implies $(**)$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.