The Math Forum


Math Forum
 Ask Dr. Math
 Discussions
 Internet Newsletter
 MathTools
 Problems of the Week
 Teacher2Teacher
 Teacher Exchange
 Workshops

Search All of the Math Forum:
Browse our Internet Mathematics Library

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Naive set theory
Replies: 4   Last Post: Apr 9, 2013 3:02 PM

Advanced Search
Reply to this Topic Reply to this Topic

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Aatu Koskensilta

Posts: 2,639
Registered: 6/28/08
Re: Naive set theory
Posted: Apr 9, 2013 10:03 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Zuhair <zaljohar@gmail.com> writes:

> What's the proof of the following in naive set theory?
>
> Not exist x. x is empty

By Russell's paradox, there exists a set R such that R in R and R not
in R. By ex falso quodlibet, there is no set with no elements.

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.