Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to 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 1994-2016. All Rights Reserved.