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

Theorem ru 3768
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, which Frege acknowledged in the second edition of his Grundgesetze der Arithmetik.

In 1908, Zermelo rectified this fatal flaw by replacing Comprehension with a weaker Subset (or Separation) Axiom ssex 5216 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 5202, Pairing prex 5323, Union uniex 7454, Power Set pwex 5272, and Infinity omex 9094 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 6434 (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, contrarily to ZF and NBG set theories. Russell's paradox has other consequences: when classes are too large (beyond the size of those used in standard mathematics), the axiom of choice ac4 9885 and Cantor's theorem canth 7100 are provably false. (See ncanth 7101 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 5194 replaces ax-rep 5181) with ax-sep 5194 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 9048 (derived from the Axiom of Regularity), so for us the Russell class equals the universe V (Theorem ruv 9054). See ruALT 9055 for an alternate proof of ru 3768 derived from that fact. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) Remove use of ax-13 2381. (Revised by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

Assertion
Ref Expression
ru {𝑥𝑥𝑥} ∉ V

Proof of Theorem ru
Dummy variable 𝑦 is distinct from all other variables.
StepHypRef Expression
1 pm5.19 388 . . . . . 6 ¬ (𝑦𝑦 ↔ ¬ 𝑦𝑦)
2 eleq1w 2892 . . . . . . . 8 (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥𝑦𝑦𝑦))
3 df-nel 3121 . . . . . . . . 9 (𝑥𝑥 ↔ ¬ 𝑥𝑥)
4 id 22 . . . . . . . . . . 11 (𝑥 = 𝑦𝑥 = 𝑦)
54, 4eleq12d 2904 . . . . . . . . . 10 (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥𝑥𝑦𝑦))
65notbid 319 . . . . . . . . 9 (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (¬ 𝑥𝑥 ↔ ¬ 𝑦𝑦))
73, 6syl5bb 284 . . . . . . . 8 (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥𝑥 ↔ ¬ 𝑦𝑦))
82, 7bibi12d 347 . . . . . . 7 (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ((𝑥𝑦𝑥𝑥) ↔ (𝑦𝑦 ↔ ¬ 𝑦𝑦)))
98spvv 1994 . . . . . 6 (∀𝑥(𝑥𝑦𝑥𝑥) → (𝑦𝑦 ↔ ¬ 𝑦𝑦))
101, 9mto 198 . . . . 5 ¬ ∀𝑥(𝑥𝑦𝑥𝑥)
11 abeq2 2942 . . . . 5 (𝑦 = {𝑥𝑥𝑥} ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥𝑦𝑥𝑥))
1210, 11mtbir 324 . . . 4 ¬ 𝑦 = {𝑥𝑥𝑥}
1312nex 1792 . . 3 ¬ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = {𝑥𝑥𝑥}
14 isset 3504 . . 3 ({𝑥𝑥𝑥} ∈ V ↔ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = {𝑥𝑥𝑥})
1513, 14mtbir 324 . 2 ¬ {𝑥𝑥𝑥} ∈ V
1615nelir 3123 1 {𝑥𝑥𝑥} ∉ V
Colors of variables: wff setvar class
Syntax hints:  ¬ wn 3  wb 207  wal 1526   = wceq 1528  wex 1771  wcel 2105  {cab 2796  wnel 3120  Vcvv 3492
This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1787  ax-4 1801  ax-5 1902  ax-6 1961  ax-7 2006  ax-8 2107  ax-9 2115  ax-10 2136  ax-11 2151  ax-12 2167  ax-ext 2790
This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 208  df-an 397  df-or 842  df-tru 1531  df-ex 1772  df-nf 1776  df-sb 2061  df-clab 2797  df-cleq 2811  df-clel 2890  df-nel 3121  df-v 3494
This theorem is referenced by: (None)
  Copyright terms: Public domain W3C validator