Register to reply 
'normal' set paradox 
Share this thread: 
#1
Jun3005, 06:53 PM

HW Helper
P: 3,220

Let's define S as a 'normal' set if [tex]\neg(S \in S)[/tex]. Now let's look at the set of all normal sets N. If N is normal, then is belongs to the set of all normal sets N, and therefore it is not normal. On the other hand, if N is not normal, then it doesn't belong to the set of all normal sets N, and therefore it's normal. I'm very confused (or very dumb) :)



#3
Jun3005, 08:09 PM

HW Helper
P: 3,220

Well, we started with the assumption that the set of all normal sets N was normal and came across a contradiction  it is not normal. Then again, if we assume that N is not normal, we reach the fact that it is normal. Both ways, we get a contradiction.



#4
Jul105, 03:29 AM

PF Gold
P: 2,330

'normal' set paradox
Maybe you should change the axioms(s) that allowed you to conclude that N was a set. Which axiom(s) allowed N to be a set?



#5
Jul105, 05:29 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,091

Oh good, that's where I was hoping the confusion lied.
Notice that there's a hidden assumption  there exists a set of all normal sets. So what you have here is a proof by contradiction that this assumption is false! 


#6
Jul105, 01:11 PM

HW Helper
P: 3,220

Yup, right. There's something more. A set can only be an element of another set if this other set is a family of sets, rather than just an ordinary set. So, if N is a family of sets, in the more consistent notation of P(N), then a set is defined as 'normal' if P(N) is not an alement of itself. But, can P(N) actually be an element of itself? It's elements are all subsets of N. I think P(N) can only, by definition, be it's own subset... So, if this is true, then the paradox actually doesn't make sense from the beginning.



#7
Jul105, 02:35 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 9,396




#8
Jul105, 02:40 PM

HW Helper
P: 3,220

oops, i messed a few facts up...nevermind, i was talking about the power set P(N).



#9
Apr1111, 09:09 AM

P: 1

There is nothing fishy about your argument. Though it might be ill posed. The paradox you are conveying is a famous one. It is called a "Godelian riddle" and it highlights the incompleteness theorem formalised and roved by Godel. In a nutshell the incompleteness theorem says that no formal set of axioms for mathematics is complete, meaning that there exist propositions that can neither be proved nor disproved using the axioms.
Here is a better version of your paradox. Denote the set of all two player games that end as S. Define game X with the following rules 1) First player picks a game from set S 2) Second player makes the first move (as an example of a run of game X, i pick chess and you play the first move.). The question now is. Does X belong in set S? If it does belong in the set, then consider the following sequence of events. Playing game X the first player chooses a game from S. Let him chose X, since by assumption X is in S. The second player now executes the first move of game X which is to choose a game from S. He too picks X. The players continue in this fashion at infinitum. Clearly then game X does not end and therefore it does not belong in S. Now for the converse. Assume that X is not in S. Then in playing game X, the argument above no longer holds, since X is not in S. Hence game X will now end, and therefore belongs in S. 


#10
Apr1111, 11:20 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 834

Personally I think the Berry Paradox is more interesting. 


#11
May511, 08:31 PM

P: 242

maybe xzibit can help.



Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Resolving the Barber Paradox and the Russell's Paradox  General Discussion  18  
What is the resolution of the The BugRivet Paradox paradox in special relativity?  Special & General Relativity  4  
Phi normal distribution (how to look normal tables )  Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics  3 