Theorem ru 1938

Description: Russell's Paradox. Proposition 4.14 of [TakeutiZaring] p. 14. Frege's Axiom of (unrestricted) Comprehension, expressed in our notation as A e. 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 {x | x e/ x} (the "Russell class") for A, it asserted {x | x e/ x} e. V, meaning that the "collection of all sets which are not members of themselves" is a set. However, here we prove {x | x e/ x} e/ V. This contradiction was discovered by Russell in 1901 (published in 1903), invalidating Comprehension 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 2719 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 2711, Pairing prex 2781, Union uniex 2870, Power Set pwex 2745, and Infinity omex 4627 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 3576 (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 set 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 the very strong 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 4750 and Cantor's Theorem canth 3907 are provably false! (See ncanth 3908 for some intuition behind the latter.) Nonetheless, NF has not been shown to be inconsistent and has its advocates - who's to say which set theory is "right"? 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 4598 (derived from the Axiom of Regularity), so for us the Russell class equals the universe V.

Assertion

Ref	Expression
ru	|- {x | x e/ x} e/ V

Proof of Theorem ru

Step	Hyp	Ref	Expression
1		pm5.19 669	. . . . . 6 |- -. (y e. y <-> -. y e. y)
2		eleq1 1534	. . . . . . . 8 |- (x = y -> (x e. y <-> y e. y))
3		id 59	. . . . . . . . . . 11 |- (x = y -> x = y)
4	3, 3	eleq12d 1542	. . . . . . . . . 10 |- (x = y -> (x e. x <-> y e. y))
5	4	negbid 611	. . . . . . . . 9 |- (x = y -> (-. x e. x <-> -. y e. y))
6		df-nel 1588	. . . . . . . . 9 |- (x e/ x <-> -. x e. x)
7	5, 6	syl5bb 532	. . . . . . . 8 |- (x = y -> (x e/ x <-> -. y e. y))
8	2, 7	bibi12d 629	. . . . . . 7 |- (x = y -> ((x e. y <-> x e/ x) <-> (y e. y <-> -. y e. y)))
9	8	a4v 1272	. . . . . 6 |- (A.x(x e. y <-> x e/ x) -> (y e. y <-> -. y e. y))
10	1, 9	mto 106	. . . . 5 |- -. A.x(x e. y <-> x e/ x)
11		abeq2 1568	. . . . 5 |- (y = {x | x e/ x} <-> A.x(x e. y <-> x e/ x))
12	10, 11	mtbir 192	. . . 4 |- -. y = {x | x e/ x}
13	12	nex 1101	. . 3 |- -. E.y y = {x | x e/ x}
14		isset 1814	. . 3 |- ({x | x e/ x} e. V <-> E.y y = {x | x e/ x})
15	13, 14	mtbir 192	. 2 |- -. {x | x e/ x} e. V
16		df-nel 1588	. 2 |- ({x | x e/ x} e/ V <-> -. {x | x e/ x} e. V)
17	15, 16	mpbir 190	1 |- {x | x e/ x} e/ V

Syntax hints:  -. wn 2   <-> wb 146  A.wal 954   = wceq 956   e. wcel 958  E.wex 980  {cab 1463   e/ wnel 1586  Vcvv 1811

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-1 4  ax-2 5  ax-3 6  ax-mp 7  ax-7 962  ax-gen 963  ax-8 964  ax-10 966  ax-12 968  ax-17 971  ax-4 973  ax-5o 975  ax-6o 978  ax-9o 1123  ax-10o 1140  ax-16 1210  ax-11o 1218  ax-ext 1459

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 147  df-or 224  df-an 225  df-ex 981  df-sb 1172  df-clab 1464  df-cleq 1469  df-clel 1472  df-nel 1588  df-v 1812

Copyright terms: Public domain