...how do we know that "All sets that do not contain themselves as subsets" is a set? — EnPassant

Well, a set is an unordered collection of individuals. The unordered collections of individuals that do not contain themselves is an unordered collection of individuals; therefor it is a set.

Unless of course you re-define set.

Set theory can drive a person nuts. :worry:

how do we know that "All sets that do not contain themselves as subsets" is a set? — EnPassant

It follows from the assumptions of a certain kind of naive set theory. The point is that it's not a set, but from the naive set theory it follows that it should be. Hence the problem.

Yep. Noticing the link between Russell's paradox and limits means that you get it.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The trouble is if one re-defines sets so as to rule out sets of sets, they cease to be useful for defining integers in terms of sets of sets.

I am having some trouble thinking of any well-defined set that does contain itself. Help? — tim wood

x={x}

Nonsense, however.

The infinite set? If infinity is the set of all numbers, then infinity is a member, unless it's not a number.

Well, a set is an unordered collection of individuals. The unordered collections of individuals that do not contain themselves is an unordered collection of individuals; therefor it is a set. — Banno

There is no need to redefine the set. All that is needed is to see that there are collections that are not single sets - as the paradox implies. I think Russel's Paradox is superficial and I never believed it "undermines mathematics" which strikes me as an unjustifiably dramatic statement.

In fact it is a trick question because of the way it is stated: "The set of all sets that do not contain themselves as subsets." Why are they calling it a set? I don't think something can be called a set unless it can be demonstrated to be such. And the paradox shows that it cannot be a set. The entity should be defined as "All sets that do not contain themselves as subsets" There is no ambiguity in stating it this way and intuitively I feel that such an entity is possible. But what is it if it is not a set?

If the logic of my first post is correct it is an infinite collection of sets, each nested within another.
What seems to be the case is that there can be infinite sets that are not simply a set. I say this, not because of my reasoning but also because Russel's solution involves something similar: an infinity of "types", each nested one within the other. But it may be possible to resolve the issue with sets alone (Russel's solution seems very artificial and contrived)

But the real question I am asking in my first post is: Is the logic I am using coherent? I don't see anything wrong with it, unless you can.

"I am having some trouble thinking of any well-defined set that does contain itself. Help?" — jgill

Set A = {a, w}
Set B = {a, x}
Set C = {a, y}

Set X = the set of sets that have {a} as an subset.

Set X = {A, B, C,...}

{a} is in X (because {a} is in A, B, C,...)

therefore X contains X

Set A = {a, w}
Set B = {a, x}
Set C = {a, y}

Set X = the set of sets that have {a} as an element. — EnPassant

None of them do. They have "a" as an element. D={{a},z} does.

This stuff is deleterious to mental health. :scream:

Ok, change it to 'subset'. Post edited.

{a} is in X (because {a} is in A, B, C,...) — EnPassant

No, {a} is not "in" A,B,C,...

IMO this stuff is not worth the effort.

No, {a} is not "in" A,B,C,... — jgill

{a} is a subset of A and A is a subset of X therefore {a} is a subset of X

Also, when it comes to set of sets, {a} can be an element.

{a} is a subset of A and A is a subset of X therefore {a} is a subset of X — EnPassant

{A} is a subset of X, not A. Ask fdrake or fishfry to explain this stuff to you. I'm done.

I think Russel's Paradox is superficial and I never believed it "undermines mathematics" which strikes me as an unjustifiably dramatic statement. — EnPassant

Who ever said that Russel's Paradox "undermines mathematics"? It undermines what is now known as "naive set theory" (an early attempt at an axiomatic set theory).

In fact it is a trick question because of the way it is stated: "The set of all sets that do not contain themselves as subsets." Why are they calling it a set? — EnPassant

Because of the axiom of unrestricted comprehension, which is what had to be ditched in the wake of Russel's paradox:

There exists a set B whose members are precisely those objects that satisfy the predicate φ.

Set A = {a, w}
Set B = {a, x}
Set C = {a, y}

Set X = the set of sets that have {a} as an subset.

Set X = {A, B, C,...}

{a} is in X (because {a} is in A, B, C,...)

therefore X contains X — EnPassant

You need to understand the difference between being a member of and being a subset of.

Set X = {A, B, C} = { {a, w}, {a, x}, {a, y} }

a is a member of A, B and C, but not a member of X. {a} is a subset of A, B and C, but not a subset of X.

{a} is a subset of A, B and C, but not a subset of X. — SophistiCat

Subset is transitive: If A is a subset of B and B is a subset of C, A is a subset of C.

{a} is a subset of {A} and {A} is a subset of {X} ---> {a} is a subset of {X}

The problem is stated as "The set of all sets that do not contain themselves as subsets members." — EnPassant

Subset is transitive — EnPassant

Exactly. Membership isn't.

There is no need to redefine the set. — EnPassant

But that's what you did.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I think this is the correct answer from Snakes Alive:

"It follows from the assumptions of a certain kind of naive set theory. The point is that it's not a set, but from the naive set theory it follows that it should be. Hence the problem"

I think this is the correct answer from Snakes Alive: — frank

That was one of several (prior to @tim wood's) where expertise of the reader had caused unconscious correction (and hence ignoring) of the mis-statement of the problem.



Ironically, one (Lesniewski's) response to the paradox was to try to base arithmetic on a transitive part-whole relation. One that wasn't, like subset, derived from a non-transitive one. Part of the motivation, if I understood and now recall correctly, was to separate out a distributive sense of "set" (by which to attribute properties to each member) from a collective one (for attributing to the whole collection as a thing). A bit like the possible difference between talking (distributively) about,

All sets that do not... — EnPassant

and talking (collectively) about

The entity — EnPassant

so defined.

mis-statement of the problem. — bongo fury

Misstatement?

Misstatement? — frank

The problem is stated as "The set of all sets that do not contain themselves as subsets members." — EnPassant

Hence @tim wood's and @SophistiCat's clarifications.

Yea, I didn't notice that.

In the article in Wikipedia:

In 1923, Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed to "dispose" of Russell's paradox as follows: The reason why a function cannot be its own argument is that the sign for a function already contains the prototype of its argument, and it cannot contain itself.

In practice this is nonsense as well, IMO, although in some abstract sense it may have weight. In iteration the first application is f(f(z)). So the outer f acts upon a function value and not on the function itself. Fractals arise from these processes. Perhaps f(f) makes less sense. If F is a functional, then neither F(F(z(t))) nor F(F) is normally well-defined.

There is no need to redefine the set. — EnPassant
But that's what you did. — Banno

No, I am saying there are infinite collections of things that are not a set.
See this link https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/24507/why-did-mathematicians-take-russells-paradox-seriously

Is it correct to rewrite this as X = X\X ? Can you translate into English? — tim wood

The paradox asks the question "Is X a member of itself?"

Let's say Set X = {{a}, {b}, {c},....}

If {X} is a member of X then

Set X = {{a}, {b}, {c},....{X}}

If {X} is a not member of X then

Set X = {{a}, {b}, {c},....}

But I am excluding {X} regardless of whether it can be a member of itself.

So Set X = {{a}, {b}, {c},....}

{X} can only be a member of itself according to the definition of X. I am explicitly excluding {X} from being a member of itself by definition. X\{X} excludes {X} as a member, not as the entire set.

Then I unite Set X with {X} in

X₂ = (X U {X})\{X₂} (See my next post)

Since the paradox shows that X is a kind of 'pathological' set we don't know where to put it.
I am creating X₂ and putting it in there. Then the process is repeated infinitely so that all relevant sets can be contained. The result is an infinite progression of sets that contain "All sets that are not members of themselves" And this entity turns out to be an infinity of sets, each nested within the other.

(It may also be that every X_i contains every X_j but not {X_i} but I have not got this far with it yet.)

I get, "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as subsets" = "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as subsets" and/but excluding "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as subsets." And that looks like the empty set. — tim wood

Yes, you are correct. Since we are talking about sets of sets, a better notation would be-

Set X = X\{X}

Set X₂ = (X U {X})\{X₂}

Set X₃ = (X₂ U {X₂})\{X₃} and so on.

Apologies for the sloppy notation.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.