Russell's type theory, ZF set theory

AI Thread Summary
Russell's type theory is considered weaker than ZF set theory due to its restrictive nature, particularly highlighted by the axiom of reducibility, which many find implausible. This axiom claims that every formula can be reduced to a predicable form, making the restrictions of type theory seem unnecessary. Critics argue that these limitations hinder the expressive power of the theory compared to ZF. Additionally, a simplified version of type theory is suggested as a better alternative, avoiding the redundancies present in Russell's framework. Overall, while Russell's type theory offers philosophical insights, its practical application is often overshadowed by the flexibility of ZF set theory.
Euclid
Messages
213
Reaction score
0
What are the weaknesses and strengths of Russell's type theory? I'm having trouble understanding exactly what makes it weaker than ZF. I've been told its too restrictive, but what exactly makes it more restrictive than ZF?
Are there any objections to ZF?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Russell's type theory has some philosophical embellishments, such as the axiom of reducibility, which asserts that every formula is equivalent to another formula that is predicable. This does two things: it makes the restriction redundant, and it is actually not a very plausible axiom. If you must use a theory of types, don't use Russell's, use a simplified theory without the silly redundancies.
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Back
Top