Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Morse-Kelley Class Comprehension axiom and Russell's paradox

  1. Dec 27, 2013 #1
    As I understand the ZFC solution to Russell's paradox, since {x|x[itex]\notin[/itex]x} must be {x|x[itex]\notin[/itex]x}[itex]\cap[/itex]S for some set S, the paradox goes away, but in Morse-Kelley, if I understand Class Comprehension correctly, although again there must be some M such that {x|x[itex]\notin[/itex]x}[itex]\cap[/itex]M, this M may be a proper class, which no longer is as limiting as the ZFC version, and hence no longer gives the same solution. So either I am going wrong somewhere, or MK solves Russell's Paradox in a different way. I would be grateful for enlightenment. Thanks.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 3, 2014 #2
    The Class comprehension Axiom schema states that for any formula phi (with one free variable), there exists a class of all sets satisfying phi. It does not say that there exists a class of all classes satisfying phi. So there's a (proper) class of all sets which do not contain themselves, but there's no class of all classes which do not contain themselves. So Russell's paradox doesn't occur.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Morse-Kelley Class Comprehension axiom and Russell's paradox
  1. The Paradox of Russel (Replies: 21)

  2. Russell's paradox (Replies: 8)

  3. Russell's paradox (Replies: 6)

  4. Russel's paradox (Replies: 5)

Loading...