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.)
“Groot: Now wait a minute, Quo. You really ain’t gonna take a man’s only set of teeth, are ya?
Quo: Uh huh.
Groot: Yeah, but I gotta use ‘em for eatin’.
Quo: Come grub you get ‘em.
Groot: Whad ya’ gonna do with ‘em?
Quo: My name now Two-Jaw Quo.”
—Borden Chase [Frank Fowler] (1900–1971)
“A theory of the middle class: that it is not to be determined by its financial situation but rather by its relation to government. That is, one could shade down from an actual ruling or governing class to a class hopelessly out of relation to government, thinking of gov’t as beyond its control, of itself as wholly controlled by gov’t. Somewhere in between and in gradations is the group that has the sense that gov’t exists for it, and shapes its consciousness accordingly.”
—Lionel Trilling (1905–1975)