Retrieved form David Papineaus Philosohical Devices p.

1-14
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Devices-Proofs-Probabilities-Possibilities-
ebook/dp/B009SNGF4K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1410253130&sr=8-
1&keywords=Philosophical+Devices








1. Nave sets and Russells Paradox
Introduction to Sets
If we have a car, then we automatically have a set: {car}. But {car} is obviously
different from the real car since the former is a set while the latter is an object. (*see
The axiom of comprehension)

Extensive notation for a set: { a, b, c }
Intensive notation for a set: { x: x is a car in Europe }

x is a car in Europe here is a property that picks out all its members
These are two different ways of naming a set

Membership relation: m S
We write S contains m or m belongs to S

The axiom of extensionality: For any sets A, B: A = B iff (for any x)(x A iff x B)

Subsets B A: B is a subset of A iff all the members of B are the members of A

Every set is a subset of itself
An empty set is subset of any set

Proper subsets B A: B is a proper subset of A if B is a subset of A other than A
itself.

A subset of a set to be a member the same set:

Set A: {Ringo Starr, Paul McCartney, {Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair}, {Ringo Starr,
Paul McCarthney}}

{Ringo Starr, Paul McCarthney} is the subset of A:
{Ringo Starr, Paul McCartney, {Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair}, {Ringo Starr, Paul
McCarthney}}

{Ringo Starr, Paul McCarthney} is a member of A:
{Ringo Starr, Paul McCartney, {Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair}, {Ringo Starr, Paul
McCarthney}}

A subset of a set but not a member of the same set:

Set B: { Rigno Starr, Paul McCartney, {Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair}}

{Rigno Starr, Paul McCartney} is a subset of B, but not a member of B.

Power Sets: The set of all subsets of a set

The power set of { Ann, Bob }:
{ , { Ann }, { Bob}, { Ann, Bob}}

* is a set which contains no member

2*n: n=the number of the elements in a set

The Axiom of Comprehension

For any condition C, there exists a set A such that (for any x)(x A iff x satisfies C)

Example of C: x is red, x is a European country

The idea that there is a set for every condition leads to contradiction

Russells Set

Conditions of x that makes a set of x becomes the member of itself:

C1: The set of all sets with more than one member
C2: All things which are not a bus

Now consider the condition: is not a member of itself

According to the axiom of comprehension, there must be a set corresponding to this
condition, namely, R = {x: x not- x}

Russells Paradox

Given the axiom of comprehension and the condition, x not- x, a contradiction
can be derived.

For the set R which R = {x: x not- x},

Prove R is a member of itself:
1. Assume R is not a member of itself
2. But then, since R contains all sets that are not members of themselves, it is a
member of itself.
3. So we have contradicted our assumption (1).
4. So by reduction ad aburdum we can conclude that (1) is false and R is
member of it self.


Prove R is not a member of itself:
1. Assume R is a member of itself.
2. But then, since R contains only sets that are not members of themselves, it is
not a member of itself.
3. So we have contradicted our assumption (1)
4. So by reductio we can conclude that (1) is false and R is not a member of
itself.

We have now proved both that R is a member of itself and that R is not a
member of itself. Something has gone badly wrong. This is Russells paradox.

Russells Barber: Paradox of the barber

A Barber: shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves. I wonder whether
he shaves himself or not. (* I wonder whether this set contains itself as the member
or not)

1. Assume he does not shave himself
2. But then he shaves himself (because he shaves all and only those who do not
shave themselves)
3. So we have contradicted our assumption (1).
4. So by reductio we conclude that he does shave himself.

And

1. Assume he does shave himself
2. But then he does not shave himself (he shaves only those who dont shave
themselves.
3. So we have contradicted our assumption (1).
4. So by reductio we conclude that he does not shave himself.

A claim about such barber results a contradiction: he does shave himself and does
not shave himself. The contradiction shows that there can be no such barber.

Alternatives to Nave Set Theory
It is common to refer to the axioms of extensionality and comprehension as together
comprising nave set theory.

Russells paradox shows that nave set theory is too nave; mathematicians and
logicians respond by seeking to replace the intuitive notion of a set by a more
sophisticated understanding which is free of inconsistency.

Modern set theories all modify the axiom of comprehension in one way or another
so as to limit the range of admissible sets.

* This document is created only for the purpose of learning. If any regulation is
violated please inform me via litmanhuang@gmail.com and I will delete it
immediately.