Register to reply

'normal' set paradox

by radou
Tags: normal, paradox
Share this thread:
radou
#1
Jun30-05, 06:53 PM
HW Helper
radou's Avatar
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) :)
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Fungus deadly to AIDS patients found to grow on trees
Canola genome sequence reveals evolutionary 'love triangle'
Scientists uncover clues to role of magnetism in iron-based superconductors
Hurkyl
#2
Jun30-05, 06:58 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
What confuses you?
radou
#3
Jun30-05, 08:09 PM
HW Helper
radou's Avatar
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.

honestrosewater
#4
Jul1-05, 03:29 AM
PF Gold
honestrosewater's Avatar
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?
Hurkyl
#5
Jul1-05, 05:29 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
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!
radou
#6
Jul1-05, 01:11 PM
HW Helper
radou's Avatar
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.
matt grime
#7
Jul1-05, 02:35 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 9,396
Quote Quote by radou
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
not necessarily

So, if N is a family of sets, in the more consistent notation of P(N)
P(N) usually means the power set of N. what mlore consistent notation are you atalking about?
radou
#8
Jul1-05, 02:40 PM
HW Helper
radou's Avatar
P: 3,220
oops, i messed a few facts up...nevermind, i was talking about the power set P(N).
hicksrules
#9
Apr11-11, 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.
pwsnafu
#10
Apr11-11, 11:20 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 827
Quote Quote by hicksrules View Post
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.
No. It's Russel's paradox on Cantor's Naive set theory. This is a problem in whether something can be defined, not proved. "Q is the Gödel number of a false formula" simply doesn't exist.
Personally I think the Berry Paradox is more interesting.

In a nutshell the incompleteness theorem says that no formal set of axioms for mathematics is complete
Not true. You can have completeness or consistency, you just can't have both.
eczeno
#11
May5-11, 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 Bug-Rivet Paradox paradox in special relativity? Special & General Relativity 4
Phi- normal distribution (how to look normal tables ) Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 3