Theorem ru 3675

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.

In 1908, Zermelo rectified this fatal flaw by replacing Comprehension with a weaker Subset (or Separation) Axiom ssex 5078 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 5065, Pairing prex 5186, Union uniex 7282, Power Set pwex 5131, and Infinity omex 8899 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 6272 (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 9694 and Cantor's Theorem canth 6933 are provably false! (See ncanth 6934 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 5057 replaces ax-rep 5046) with ax-sep 5057 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 8854 (derived from the Axiom of Regularity), so for us the Russell class equals the universe V (theorem ruv 8860). See ruALT 8861 for an alternate proof of ru 3675 derived from that fact. (Contributed by NM, 7-Aug-1994.) Remove use of ax-13 2302. (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		pm5.19 379	. . . . . 6 ⊢ ¬ (𝑦 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑦)
2		eleq1w 2843	. . . . . . . 8 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑦))
3		df-nel 3069	. . . . . . . . 9 ⊢ (𝑥 ∉ 𝑥 ↔ ¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑥)
4		id 22	. . . . . . . . . . 11 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → 𝑥 = 𝑦)
5	4, 4	eleq12d 2855	. . . . . . . . . 10 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑦))
6	5	notbid 310	. . . . . . . . 9 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (¬ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑥 ↔ ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑦))
7	3, 6	syl5bb 275	. . . . . . . 8 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → (𝑥 ∉ 𝑥 ↔ ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑦))
8	2, 7	bibi12d 338	. . . . . . 7 ⊢ (𝑥 = 𝑦 → ((𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥) ↔ (𝑦 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑦)))
9	8	spvv 1956	. . . . . 6 ⊢ (∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥) → (𝑦 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ ¬ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑦))
10	1, 9	mto 189	. . . . 5 ⊢ ¬ ∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥)
11		abeq2 2892	. . . . 5 ⊢ (𝑦 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ↔ ∀𝑥(𝑥 ∈ 𝑦 ↔ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥))
12	10, 11	mtbir 315	. . . 4 ⊢ ¬ 𝑦 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥}
13	12	nex 1764	. . 3 ⊢ ¬ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥}
14		isset 3422	. . 3 ⊢ ({𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ∈ V ↔ ∃𝑦 𝑦 = {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥})
15	13, 14	mtbir 315	. 2 ⊢ ¬ {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ∈ V
16	15	nelir 3071	1 ⊢ {𝑥 ∣ 𝑥 ∉ 𝑥} ∉ V

Syntax hints:  ¬ wn 3   ↔ wb 198  ∀wal 1506   = wceq 1508  ∃wex 1743   ∈ wcel 2051  {cab 2753   ∉ wnel 3068  Vcvv 3410

This theorem was proved from axioms:  ax-mp 5  ax-1 6  ax-2 7  ax-3 8  ax-gen 1759  ax-4 1773  ax-5 1870  ax-6 1929  ax-7 1966  ax-8 2053  ax-9 2060  ax-10 2080  ax-11 2094  ax-12 2107  ax-ext 2745

This theorem depends on definitions:  df-bi 199  df-an 388  df-or 835  df-tru 1511  df-ex 1744  df-nf 1748  df-sb 2017  df-clab 2754  df-cleq 2766  df-clel 2841  df-nel 3069  df-v 3412

This theorem is referenced by: (None)