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 naive notion that a mother naturally acquires the complex skills of childrearing simply because she has given birth now seems as absurd to me as enrolling in a nine-month class in composition and imagining that at the end of the course you are now prepared to begin writing War and Peace.”
—Mary Kay Blakely (20th century)
“She’s just a child,
but I’m the one who’s fainthearted.
She’s the woman,
but I’m the coward.
She bears that high, swollen set of breasts,
but I’m the one who’s burdened.
The heavy hips are hers,
but I’m unable to move.
It’s a wonder
how clumsy I’ve become
because of flaws
that shelter themselves
in another.”
—Amaru (c. seventh century A.D.)
“Won’t this whole instinct matter bear revision?
Won’t almost any theory bear revision?
To err is human, not to, animal.”
—Robert Frost (1874–1963)