MPE Home Metamath Proof Explorer < Previous   Next >
Nearby theorems
Mirrors  >  Home  >  MPE Home  >  Th. List  >  ru Structured version   Visualization version   GIF version

Theorem ru 3567
Description: Russell's Paradox. Proposition 4.14 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 14.

In the late 1800s, Frege's Axiom of (unrestricted) Comprehension, expressed in our notation as 𝐴 ∈ V, asserted that any collection of sets 𝐴 is a set i.e. belongs to the universe V of all sets. In particular, by substituting {𝑥𝑥𝑥} (the "Russell class") for 𝐴, it asserted {𝑥𝑥𝑥} ∈ V, meaning that the "collection of all sets which are not members of themselves" is a set. However, here we prove {𝑥𝑥𝑥} ∉ V. This contradiction was discovered by Russell in 1901 (published in 1903), invalidating the Comprehension Axiom and leading to the collapse of Frege's system.

In 1908, Zermelo rectified this fatal flaw by replacing Comprehension with a weaker Subset (or Separation) Axiom ssex 4946 asserting that 𝐴 is a set only when it is smaller than some other set 𝐵. However, Zermelo was then faced with a "chicken and egg" problem of how to show 𝐵 is a set, leading him to introduce the set-building axioms of Null Set 0ex 4934, Pairing prex 5050, Union uniex 7110, Power Set pwex 4989, and Infinity omex 8705 to give him some starting sets to work with (all of which, before Russell's Paradox, were immediate consequences of Frege's Comprehension). In 1922 Fraenkel strengthened the Subset Axiom with our present Replacement Axiom funimaex 6129 (whose modern formalization is due to Skolem, also in 1922). Thus, in a very real sense Russell's Paradox spawned the invention of ZF set theory and completely revised the foundations of mathematics!

Another mainstream formalization of set theory, devised by von Neumann, Bernays, and Goedel, uses class variables rather than setvar variables as its primitives. The axiom system NBG in [Mendelson] p. 225 is suitable for a Metamath encoding. NBG is a conservative extension of ZF in that it proves exactly the same theorems as ZF that are expressible in the language of ZF. An advantage of NBG is that it is finitely axiomatizable - the Axiom of Replacement can be broken down into a finite set of formulas that eliminate its wff metavariable. Finite axiomatizability is required by some proof languages (although not by Metamath). There is a stronger version of NBG called Morse-Kelley (axiom system MK in [Mendelson] p. 287).

Russell himself continued in a different direction, avoiding the paradox with his "theory of types." Quine extended Russell's ideas to formulate his New Foundations set theory (axiom system NF of [Quine] p. 331). In NF, the collection of all sets is a set, contradicting ZF and NBG set theories, and it has other bizarre consequences: when sets become too huge (beyond the size of those used in standard mathematics), the Axiom of Choice ac4 9481 and Cantor's Theorem canth 6763 are provably false! (See ncanth 6764 for some intuition behind the latter.) Recent results (as of 2014) seem to show that NF is equiconsistent to Z (ZF in which ax-sep 4925 replaces ax-rep 4915) with ax-sep 4925 restricted to only bounded quantifiers. NF is finitely axiomatizable and can be encoded in Metamath using the axioms from T. Hailperin, "A set of axioms for logic," J. Symb. Logic 9:1-19 (1944).

Under our ZF set theory, every set is a member of the Russell class by elirrv 8658 (derived from the Axiom of Regularity), so for us the Russell class equals the universe V (theorem ruv 8664). See ruALT 8665 for an alternate proof of ru 3567 derived from that fact. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.)

Assertion
Ref Expression
ru {𝑥𝑥𝑥} ∉ V

Proof of Theorem ru
Dummy variable 𝑦 is distinct from all other variables.
StepHypRef Expression
1 pm5.19 374 . . . . . 6 ¬ (𝑦𝑦 ↔ ¬ 𝑦𝑦)
2 eleq1w 2814 . . . . . . . 8 (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥𝑦𝑦𝑦))
3 df-nel 3028 . . . . . . . . 9 (𝑥𝑥 ↔ ¬ 𝑥𝑥)
4 id 22 . . . . . . . . . . 11 (𝑥 = 𝑦𝑥 = 𝑦)
54, 4eleq12d 2825 . . . . . . . . . 10 (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥𝑥𝑦𝑦))
65notbid 307 . . . . . . . . 9 (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (¬ 𝑥𝑥 ↔ ¬ 𝑦𝑦))
73, 6syl5bb 272 . . . . . . . 8 (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥𝑥 ↔ ¬ 𝑦𝑦))
82, 7bibi12d 334 . . . . . . 7 (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ((𝑥𝑦𝑥𝑥) ↔ (𝑦𝑦 ↔ ¬ 𝑦𝑦)))
98spv 2397 . . . . . 6 (∀𝑥(𝑥𝑦𝑥𝑥) → (𝑦𝑦 ↔ ¬ 𝑦𝑦))
101, 9mto 188 . . . . 5 ¬ ∀𝑥(𝑥𝑦𝑥𝑥)
11 abeq2 2862 . . . . 5 (𝑦 = {𝑥𝑥𝑥} ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥𝑦𝑥𝑥))
1210, 11mtbir 312 . . . 4 ¬ 𝑦 = {𝑥𝑥𝑥}
1312nex 1872 . . 3 ¬ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = {𝑥𝑥𝑥}
14 isset 3339 . . 3 ({𝑥𝑥𝑥} ∈ V ↔ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = {𝑥𝑥𝑥})
1513, 14mtbir 312 . 2 ¬ {𝑥𝑥𝑥} ∈ V
1615nelir 3030 1 {𝑥𝑥𝑥} ∉ V
Colors of variables: wff setvar class
Syntax hints:  ¬ wn 3  wb 196  wal 1622   = wceq 1624  wex 1845  wcel 2131  {cab 2738  wnel 3027  Vcvv 3332
This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1863  ax-4 1878  ax-5 1980  ax-6 2046  ax-7 2082  ax-9 2140  ax-10 2160  ax-11 2175  ax-12 2188  ax-13 2383  ax-ext 2732
This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 197  df-or 384  df-an 385  df-tru 1627  df-ex 1846  df-nf 1851  df-sb 2039  df-clab 2739  df-cleq 2745  df-clel 2748  df-nel 3028  df-v 3334
This theorem is referenced by: (None)
  Copyright terms: Public domain W3C validator