Theorem ru 3773

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 {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} (the "Russell class") for 𝐴, it asserted {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ∈ V, meaning that the "collection of all sets which are not members of themselves" is a set. However, here we prove {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ∉ 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 5227 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 5213, Pairing prex 5335, Union uniex 7469, Power Set pwex 5283, and Infinity omex 9108 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 6443 (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 9899 and Cantor's theorem canth 7113 are provably false. (See ncanth 7114 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 5205 replaces ax-rep 5192) with ax-sep 5205 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 9062 (derived from the Axiom of Regularity), so for us the Russell class equals the universe V (Theorem ruv 9068). See ruALT 9069 for an alternate proof of ru 3773 derived from that fact. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) Remove use of ax-13 2390. (Revised by BJ, 12-Oct-2019.) (Proof modification is discouraged.)

Assertion

Ref	Expression
ru	⊢ {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ∉ V

Proof of Theorem ru

Dummy variable 𝑦 is distinct from all other variables.

Step	Hyp	Ref	Expression
1		pm5.19 390	. . . . . 6 ⊢ ¬ (𝑦 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑦)
2		eleq1w 2897	. . . . . . . 8 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑦))
3		df-nel 3126	. . . . . . . . 9 ⊢ (𝑥 ∉ 𝑥 ↔ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑥)
4		id 22	. . . . . . . . . . 11 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥 = 𝑦)
5	4, 4	eleq12d 2909	. . . . . . . . . 10 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑦))
6	5	notbid 320	. . . . . . . . 9 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑦))
7	3, 6	syl5bb 285	. . . . . . . 8 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∉ 𝑥 ↔ ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑦))
8	2, 7	bibi12d 348	. . . . . . 7 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ((𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥) ↔ (𝑦 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑦)))
9	8	spvv 2003	. . . . . 6 ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥) → (𝑦 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑦))
10	1, 9	mto 199	. . . . 5 ⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥)
11		abeq2 2947	. . . . 5 ⊢ (𝑦 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥))
12	10, 11	mtbir 325	. . . 4 ⊢ ¬ 𝑦 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥}
13	12	nex 1801	. . 3 ⊢ ¬ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥}
14		isset 3508	. . 3 ⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ∈ V ↔ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥})
15	13, 14	mtbir 325	. 2 ⊢ ¬ {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ∈ V
16	15	nelir 3128	1 ⊢ {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ∉ V

Syntax hints:  ¬ wn 3   ↔ wb 208  ∀wal 1535   = wceq 1537  ∃wex 1780   ∈ wcel 2114  {cab 2801   ∉ wnel 3125  Vcvv 3496

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1796  ax-4 1810  ax-5 1911  ax-6 1970  ax-7 2015  ax-8 2116  ax-9 2124  ax-10 2145  ax-11 2161  ax-12 2177  ax-ext 2795

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 209  df-an 399  df-or 844  df-tru 1540  df-ex 1781  df-nf 1785  df-sb 2070  df-clab 2802  df-cleq 2816  df-clel 2895  df-nel 3126  df-v 3498

This theorem is referenced by: (None)