Is the Set M a Version of Russell's Paradox?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Unit
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elements Set
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the set M defined as M = {x : x ∉ M and its relation to Russell's paradox. Participants explore the nature of sets, definitions, and the construction of natural numbers, questioning the validity of certain definitions and the implications of self-reference in set theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the set M is a variation of Russell's paradox, expressing confusion over the formulation compared to the traditional definition involving sets that do not contain themselves.
  • Another participant asserts that the initial definition of M is not valid, stating that one cannot have the defining element on both sides of the equation.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of the number 1, with one participant seeking clarification on whether 1 is a set and how it is defined, while another provides a definition of 1 as the set {φ, {φ}}.
  • Participants discuss the concept of recursive definitions and implicit definitions, with one suggesting that the Russell paradox assumes explicit construction of sets.
  • There is a clarification regarding the notation for the empty set, with one participant noting that φ is often represented as Ø.
  • Participants explore the construction of natural numbers, with one proposing that 2 would be defined as {φ, {φ}, {φ, {φ}}}, while another corrects them, indicating that n should have n elements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the definitions and the nature of sets, indicating that there is no consensus on the definitions or the implications of the set M in relation to Russell's paradox.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions of sets and numbers, as well as the implications of self-reference in set theory. Participants have not reached a consensus on the correctness of the definitions presented.

Unit
Messages
181
Reaction score
0
Is this set a variation of Russell's paradox?

M = \{x : x \notin M \}

I understand this formulation a lot more than

R = \{S : S \notin S\}

because I don't understand how, for example, 1 is a member of itself. Is 1 a set? Are all numbers sets?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Unit! :smile:

Your first definition is not a definition …

you can't have the thing you're defining on both sides of the equation.

(and 1 is not in 1 … 1 is the set {φ,{φ}}, so the only elements in 1 are φ and {φ})
 
Hi tiny-tim! Thanks for your reply!

If it is not a definition, then what is it? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here; I actually don't know. Would it qualify as a recursive definition?

Also, is φ the empty set? I have only seen it written as Ø.

I have never heard of defining 1 as {φ, {φ}}! I'm assuming 0 = φ, so 1 is {φ} U {{φ}} = {φ, {φ}}. This is the empty set and the set containing the empty set. Now, there are 2 elements in total ... so would 2 = {φ, {φ}, {φ, {φ}}}?
 
Hi Unit! :smile:
Unit said:
If it is not a definition, then what is it? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here; I actually don't know. Would it qualify as a recursive definition?

I suppose you could call it an implicit definition, but the Russell paradox really presupposes that everything is constructed explicitly.
Also, is φ the empty set? I have only seen it written as Ø.

I have never heard of defining 1 as {φ, {φ}}! I'm assuming 0 = φ, so 1 is {φ} U {{φ}} = {φ, {φ}}. This is the empty set and the set containing the empty set. Now, there are 2 elements in total ... so would 2 = {φ, {φ}, {φ, {φ}}}?

ah, I only had a φ to hand (and not a Ø), so I used that. :wink:

yes, 2 would be {φ, {φ}, {φ, {φ}}} … that's the standard Peano construction for numbers (except I might be one out … maybe that's 3, and maybe 1 is just {φ}? :redface:)
 
You are off by one. n should have n elements in it. So 0 is the empty set, 1 is the set containing the empty set, etc.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 132 ·
5
Replies
132
Views
20K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K